Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 4, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. December 17, 2001 5. Public Hearing None 6. New Business a. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills (Parkway Drive) 2. 3. 4. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Code Variation - Street right-of-way width Code Variation - Street pavement width Preliminary Plat bo Planning Commission Vacancy Interviews 1. Julie Lin Beitler 2. Richard Currie 3. Larry Hendrickson 4. Jackie Monahan-Junek 5. Diana Longrie-Kiine 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. December 17 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. January 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. January 28 Council Meeting: ?? d. February 11 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer e. February 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 9. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule February 18 planning commission meeting (President's Day): Wednesday, February 20 or Thursday, February 21 10. Adjournment r- ................ ~ ........................... 7 ........ i .............. --F ...... F 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: o 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 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eric Ahlness Present Mary Dierich Absent Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts added an item for staff presentations regarding planning commission terms. Commissioner Frost moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for November 19, 2001. Commissioner Ledvina had a question about page 4 in the bottom paragraph regarding Hailers Woods, but Commissioner Dierich was not present to explain exactly what she meant by that statement. Chairperson Fischer would like to make changes to page 4, the third paragraph from the bottom of the page, remove Chairperson Fischer asked about the procedure. The second sentence should read To meet the specifications today, what would be the procedure? Another change is on page 9, in the first sentence, change the word utilize to mean. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -2- Commissioner Frost moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 2001 with the changes as noted. ' Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Fischer, Frost, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstentions - Ledvina, Mueller V. PUBLIC HEARING a= Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV) Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue Mr. Roberts said that Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is proposing to build 12 units of senior housing and 2 single dwellings. He is proposing to build this project on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood and the property at 1733 Gervais Avenue. The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan, there would be two one-story buildings with a total of 12 town home units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the driveway for the existing Carefree Cottages. The other part of the project would be along Gervais Avenue and would include 3 Single dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and 2 new houses on either side of the existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9-acre site for an average of 7.9 units per acre. The site would have 12 open parking spaces - one in front of each garage stall. (The proposed plan does not show any guest parking spaces). The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia boards. To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3H (residential high density)for the 12 town house units. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15-unit housing development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and three single dwellings. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed development has a mix of housing types, lot sizes and densities. 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 zoning requirements would normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots on Gervais Avenue would be 9,375 and 9,384 square feet in area. 3. A lot division to divide the property into four lots - 3 lots for the single dwellings along Gervais Avenue and one lot for the 12 townhouse units. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 12-17-01 Item D. on page 7 of the staff report was a Community Design Review issue that was done at the meeting December 11,2001. Mr. Roberts said there is a typo on page 6 item C. 3. b. removing the * from item b. Mrs. Fenton of 1725 Gervais Avenue called Mr. Roberts today and said she was unable to attend the meeting but wanted Mr. Roberts to relay to members that she is very supportive of the project and would like to see it go forward. Mr. Roberts said one recommendation from Mr. Ahl, the public works director, is that the developer extend the sidewalk that was built with the earlier phases of the cottages to the west along Gervais Avenue as part of this project. It is staffs opinion that the city council is going to be looking into more detail regarding the opportunity for developers to build sidewalks for people to use as a means of transportation whenever possible. Mr. Roberts said the developer, Mr. Bruce Mogren, has some concerns regarding the sidewalk issue and that will need some discussion. Mr. Roberts said this item did go to the Community Design Review Board December 11,2001. The members did have several concerns with the proposal, one that needs to be worked out is the property line of the garages and the setbacks and the building code. In this case the garages should be setback three feet. Commissioner Trippler asked staff in the recommendations on page 5 item B. 3., it talks about the city defines senior housing as being for persons that are 62 years of age or older. In the applicant's presentation he talks about persons over 55 for this development. Will there be a problem with this? If in fact it is a senior housing development and there is age restriction, how does the city get involved with finding out if people are of the appropriate age or not? Mr. Roberts said the city has required from some developments that annual reports be filed with the city showing the ages of the tenants and the city would get a copy of this which is one way to review that. As far as the age of senior housing being 55 or 62, the city has had senior housing developments with 55-age minimum and some with 62-age minimum. He believes if you go to the age 55 there are some different rules that come into play with HUD and fair housing law verses age 62. What ever works with the developer is probably fine with the city but the city and the developer should be consistent. Mr. Bruce Mogren could probably speak more about this issue. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city gets a report from a housing unit and there are people that are under age 55 or under age 62, then what does the city do? Mr. Roberts said fortunately the city has never had that happen. But if it did happen the city would have to contact the management and see why it happened and try to get the problem resolved as quickly as possible or bring the conditional use permit back into the council for a review. Mr. Bruce Mogren did give Mr. Roberts a slightly revised plan with changes to show additional parking spaces. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Ahl regarding reviewing the initial project they did talk about sidewalks from that development to Flandrau. They ended up stopping short of the three single- family lots. One of the issues was a large tree in front of the existing single-family house. Because the lot is so small, would you move the tree in front of their window to put this sidewalk in or cut the tree down? He is not sure you can get a six-foot sidewalk in and still meet the requirements. Mr. Ahl said his opinion is that the city can make it work, if necessary they may not have to make it a full six-foot sidewalk in some areas. He feels it is necessary to provide a facility to make sure the pedestrians are not out on this roadway. He feels the road has enough traffic that this should be provided for the pedestrians and the traffic will increase if these units are built causing more need for the sidewalk to be there. Commissioner Ahlness asked what the technical way that the city can have the garages come right up to the property line? Mr. Roberts said the term in the past that has been used is called zero lot line. For example, if you have a duplex, you have a property line down the middle between two units, there's wall against wall and there is a property line down the center of that. In speaking to the building official David Fisher, he wasn't sure that could be done along the garage wall because there is an opening there and that wall moves with the garage door going up and down. So the way to possibly resolve that is to do a lot division so the lot line is moved up three orfive feet away from the units and the development parcel becomes a little larger, the existing cottages site becomes a little smaller by transferring that strip of land to this development site. It doesn't change the look of it, it simply moves a line on paper. The intent of the building code is that you don't want building next to building with openings and have a fire spread from building to building. In this case with having the driveway there they know it is going to stay, but you still need to meet the technical needs of the building code. By moving the property line, that may be one way to resolve this issue. Commissioner Ahlness said it would also be true at this point, as it is drawn, the construction is too large for the lot because it does not meet the setback requirements. It requires a change in property line for it to meet the standards. Mr. Roberts said yes, although through the PUD process the city could approve the site plan if they think it is a good fit and wave the normal setback requirements. The proposed plan is meeting the 50-foot setback requirement on the west that is the minimum code requirement for a multiple family building from residential. It is the internal property lines with the buildings that are becoming a difficult challenge. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if this property would be in one-ownership right now then these would not be problems? If you combined the property into one site the problems would disappear? Mr. Roberts said correct. Because it has been under separate ownership and now Mr. Mogren has assembled it there are existing-property lines to deal with. Commissioner Ahlness asked staff about the parking spaces, some of the issues have been answered, but how much green space does that actually leave around the properties once you Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -5- add in the six or eight additional parking spaces? Mr. Roberts said it does reduce the green space some. On the western edge the plan does leave a fairly green area even though it is shown with landscaping and trees. This green space is really no different than the cottages that are already built and occupied as far as the green space verses the number of buildings on the site. It is in character with what is already there. Commissioner Trippler said the one thing that was an issue for him was the parking. When he drove back in that area a lot of the existing cottages have two garages which allows for an additional parking spot and they have adequate spots available behind the garage before you get to the street so if they had company come they would at least be able to park their vehicles on the driveway and off the street. The streets are extremely narrow and you would basically have to pull up onto someone's yard to park to make room for a car to get down the street. Particularly for the eight unit development there just isn't enough space south of where the garages are on the four units to the south unless they park their car diagonally across two garages. He feels real uncomfortable saying go ahead and build this development and if the city finds out that there is inadequate parking something will be worked out to find more parking space. There just isn't enough space for parking. In the new plan where the architect squeezed a few more parking spaces in here and there that may alleviate some of the problem. However, this is senior citizen housing and he uses his parents as a good example, if his father had to walk 30 or 40 feet to get to someone's house, he probably could not go visit them. So, unless you have parking that is very near the door, that is why there is handicap parking near the door and not in the back lot, even if you provide some additional parking spaces here and there that would not be adequate. Commissioner Trippler asked what the developer had in mind if the parking was inadequate to needed to find adequate space? Mr. Roberts said what staff was looking for is exactly what Mr. Mogren provided here with the additional parking spaces in this new revised plan. He agrees that there is not a lot of room for parking and that was a concern of staff as well. This new plan adds eight new parking spaces to the site, four areas with two parking spaces each. It was staff's and the developer's intent to have enough room between the garage and the road to allow a car to park. He believes the parking spots are 18-to-20 feet long in front of every garage door on the south side. On the north side it is about 22 feet. Commissioner Rossbach asked if there is any reason that these would not be exactly the same as the other cottages, are they not owned by the same people? Why wouldn't we take this new area and make it part of the cottages? Mr. Roberts said he would have to defer that question to Mr. Mogren to answer. Commissioner Mueller asked who owns the cottages to the north? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Mogren is a partner in those cottages, but they are not the same partners in this development. Commissioner Mueller asked if it is a matter of conversation with Mr. Mogren and these other partners to determine the property line matter or would this be a significant issue? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -6- Mr. Roberts said that would be a question for Mr. Mogren. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the purpose was for placing the orange fencing around an entire property? Mr. Ahl said it is used to restrict the area that is disturbed so the fence keeps the contractor doing exactly what your plans say. If you get the fence established it makes sure somebody doesn't get carried away in doing more grading and it makes the construction plan equal the plans. Commissioner Ledvina asked if this is something new that is being done now? Mr. Ahl said it is relatively new in the industry in the past five years. Commissioner Mueller asked about the south side of the driveway is far south as it can actually be placed according to the property line of the homes down below? Mr. Roberts said the gap between the driveway and the property line is for screening and landscaping to provide a separation of properties. Commissioner Trippler said on page 6 on item B. 8., does this pertain just to the three single- family dwellings or does it pertain to the three pieces of property that they sit on? Because he noticed in the plan unit development the rain holding basin has a tail that extends across the property of 1733 Gervais. If it is stated that they are excluded from any review or conditions would that possibly cause a problem in the installation of the storage retention pond if they decide they don't want it there? Mr. Roberts said the intent for number 8 was if the plan does go ahead and there are two new single-family homes there and somebody wants to put a deck on or an addition that they do not have to get an amendment to the PUD to be allowed to add on. The rain water garden and the drainage areas and all going to be covered by drainage and utility easements which gives the city some review and control of what happens in those easements. So if people start changing approved plans within those easement areas they would be allowed to do so and would need city approval to do that. So in both ways the city has it covered and he would not foresee a problem. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant address the commission. Mr. Bruce Mogren, of Mogren Development Company addressed the commission. Mr. Mogren said regarding the age 55 for senior housing, you can restrict the age level for senior citizen housing but the lowest age level you can have is 55 years old. He currently has 248 units of senior housing and he would not want to jeopardize his federal standing on any of those existing units so they are very careful to check that. That is federally regulated. He would like to recommend that he could still comply with federal law but drop the age restriction from 62 to 55 years of age for his residents. He would have to verify but he believes his second project age restriction is 55 years of age. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 12-17-01 Mr. Mogren said regarding the onsite parking, he met with the architect to add eight additional parking spaces. Most of the time he has found they don't have issues with parking. Occasionally people have birthday parties or special events then they do need some additional parking but otherwise it hasn't been a problem. Mr. Mogren said he would disagree with Mr. Ahl regarding the sidewalks. In walking the development in the early 1990's that sidewalk issue came up then as well. At that time it was determined he is not sure how sidewalks could be added without taking down three or four decent sized trees. There is also some significant grade changes there between the driveway of the existing home and the lot to the east. Also, when Gervais Avenue was expanded it made the front yards smaller, and if you introduce a six-foot sidewalk into a restricted front yard you will have it right up to the front door. He has a very hard time envisioning putting a sidewalk in that location. He did speak to Mrs. Fenton at 1725 Gervais Avenue and she did not want the sidewalk to be put in all the way through because she has some large trees in her front yard. When you weigh the situation, where does the sidewalk go? Gervais Avenue is four lanes right nOW. Mr. Mogren said in his opinion when you weigh the cost of the trees and the grade change the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of putting a sidewalk in. As far as the property lines go, Mr. Mogren owns the property for the cottages along with two other partners and he and his family own 80% of the cottages. He would appreciate it if he did not have to move the property lines because of the different financing they have for the development to the north and to the east. It becomes more difficult with lenders to work with changes to the property lines. They have financing with Freddie Mac for 15 years and there is 7 more years before it expires. At the end of 15 years then he is sure they will be refinancing that at that point and time they would be paying it off. If they did a realignment of lot lines he would prefer to do it at that time. Mr. Mogren said he would not mind moving the pine trees onto the back of one of the single- family lots to produce more screening. If the pine trees were to be put on the side of the lot they probably would be destroyed or disrupted in the building process. Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Mogren since he owns the three single family residential lots couldn't you move the lot lines to equal out the size of the lots? Mr. Mogren said if he moved the trees onto the back part of the lot that would make the lot size even smaller, if a person likes trees they won't mind the smaller size for privacy. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if the lots are less than 10,000 square feet? Mr. Mogren said yes. Commissioner Rossbach asked how much smaller than 10,000 square feet? Mr. Mogren said you would have to ask Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts said on page 19 of the staff report, one lot is 9,375 square feet and the other is 9,384 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -8- Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if the existing house on one lot and it would be subdivided to create the other two lots? Mr. Mogren said that is correct. Commissioner Rossbach asked why was it chosen to make the lots less than 10,000 square feet which is the minimum lot size? Mr. Mogren said this is the way the engineers laid it out and to accomplish what they wanted and they are applying for under a PUD. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if these lots are to be sold off individually? Mr. Mogren said yes eventually. Commissioner Rossbach asked why would you want to intentionally set up lots that less than 10,000 square feet which is the minimum requirement? Mr. Mogren said in the past when did that over on Lydia Avenue. Commissioner Rossbach said yes but those were R-1S they were designed to be small. None of the adjoining single family residential homes in that area are that way. He finds that to be a big stumbling block that you are creating individual house sites that are less than the city's minimum size whether it is a PUD or not. PUD allows the mixture of the two together. He has a 10,000 square foot lot right next to his and it is a postage stamp. Their backyard is no more than 20 feet wide and it adjoins his backyard, so basically they are in his backyard. He finds it a real problem having these tiny lots. Chairperson Fischer said a tiny lot depends on the zone and the density. If you are on a R-M density when you have those smaller lots they are quite acceptable in that zone. Commissioner Rossbach asked if these lots are in R-1 correct? Mr. Mogren said yes. Commissioner Mueller said right now in looking at this plan it is one big lot. Your engineers have decided to divide it up parcel a, b, c, d. Because parcel c has the largest square feet couldn't you move some square footage over onto parcel b and parcel d to even it out better? It seems kind of arbitrary how the lines are drawn out. Couldn't you make some changes to make it closer to the minimum 10,000 square feet for all three lots? Mr. Mogren said part of the problem is the anticipation of the garage on the existing home. The garage is rough and it is there while it is a rental property but once it is not rental property a garage will be added. To answer Mr. Rossbach's question this is zoned as R-1 at this point. This will blend in nice. If it was single family lots being built instead of carefree villas on this site you would have houses a lot closer than this being within 10 feet of their backyards. With this plan with the villas there is a 50-foot setback allowing more privacy for the residential homes. With a PUD this allows more flexibility with these kinds of things. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -9- Commissioner Rossbach said he is not following the point Mr. Mogren is trying to make with the 10-foot setback he is referring to. Mr. Roberts said he believes what Mr. Mogren is trying to say is instead of more town homes coming off the driveway and the cottages as an alternative if there were single family homes fronting on the private driveway then the setback is only 10 feet verses the 50-feet setback on a multiple family home. Commissioner Trippler said he did not understand that the planning commission was approving parcel a,b,c, and d. Where does that show up in the report? What if the commission disallowed the three individual single-family lots? Can the commission just approve the PUD for the cottages? Mr. Roberts said the commission could make that a recommendation. On page 6, item C, that talks about the lot split which is diagramed on page 19. In the proposal on the front page of the staff report the items are outlined as well. The commiSsion could recommend approval of the 12 units for the cottages and not the three lots if you chose to. Does this seem to fit in this area, if it doesn't than staff would not recommend approval. If the commission is comfortable with the proposal then lets move it forward. Chairperson Fischer asked staff that under administrative powers on a rare occasion you may have a lot that is under 10,000 square feet, and you can administratively make a decision on that lot size, what is the margin of leeway in a situation like this? Mr. Roberts said there is a process for administrative variance approvals for up to 5% of lot area. Which in this case is a minimum 9,500 square feet, and that involves notifying immediate property owners. Staff gives the neighbors a couple of chances to comment and raise any concerns. If they don't and it looks reasonable, then the city staff can approve it. Commissioner Frost said if you look at the three lots, if you look at the total acreage it is 30,000 square feet plus. The average is 10,000 square feet that makes it fairly close. Commissioner Mueller said he feels uncomfortable going with parcel b and d as it is just because there is a proposed garage that they hope to put on parcel c. It is 11,000 square feet and all you have to do is change the property lines. Mr. Roberts said in defense of Mr. Mogren, on page 21 of the staff report it shows the proposed grading plan and the location of the proposed garage. There is some rationale as to why the property lines are where they are because of the location of where the garage would fit in. Commissioner Trippler said in order to get parcel b. to 10,000 square feet you would have to move the property line west five feet. If you did move it five feet and you didn't move the location of the future garage and you did not make it any smaller, you would not be able to put the garage in there anyway because it would be within five feet of the property line. You could put the garage in a different location maybe putting it back behind the house. He looked on the map on page 17 of the staff report and he did not see any lots on Flandrau Street that are less than 10,000 square feet in size. He certainly understands what Mr. Rossbach said earlier regarding living next to someone with a small lot and then they use your backyard as their backyard. He doesn't like the fact that Mr. Mogren is trying to squeeze something in just to squeeze it in. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -10- Mr. Mogren said if you look at the comments made by the residents regarding this proposed development they say it is a very quiet subdued atmosphere. Usually you would see some protests but so far there haven't been any, peOple are generally happy to see this proposed development go forward. When you talk about the existing home and the proposed future garage, someone came out and looked at the property and that is how a garage would be laid out with the notched out home and the property lines. This is how it is shown in the staff report without putting the garage in the backyard of the existing home. Commissioner Trippler said what is being discussed, isn't the senior citizen homes but the three single-family homes and the size of the lots. If these parcels are going to be for sale to anyone then we need to look at would anyone buy these parcels to build a home on it with those property lines. Ms. Linda Olson, a member of the Community Design Review Board, addressed the commission regarding the Carefree Villas. She has an issue with the proposed sidewalks in that area. She believes sidewalks unite a community and provide an alternative means of transportation for people by walking. She did go out and see the site and felt it will be extremely tight to put the sidewalk in along Gervais Avenue. The sidewalk on parcels b,c,d should probably be delayed until the homes are built. Especially since the sidewalk would not be extended any further west at this time. Personally she would like to see sidewalks in every residential and commercial roadway in the city but in this particular case there are some substantial trees that clearly would have to go in order to put a sidewalk in. These lots are small already and putting a sidewalk in the front yard may be an issue as well. Commissioner Ledvina said he has an issue with the overall site plan. There is a private drive that goes into this proposed development and then there are these three single-family lots that essentially will have double frontage. He realizes this is a small drive, but he thinks in terms of design in overall layout it is certainly not optimal. There can be some things with landscaping that has been proposed but he does not feel the design is optimal. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if that private drive that Mr. Ledvina is talking about is that pushed as far to the east as it can go? Mr. Roberts said yes it is. Commissioner Ahlness he continues to get the feeling that this proposed development is very tight. In looking at the garages to the nOrth, they are right up to the property line, the driveways to the south are short and vehicles may be touching to the garage door and may hang out into the street. As a result, the lots to the south need to be made less than the minimum size. It appears that it is being over built for the size of the parcel in question here. They are asking for exemptions at every turn in order to get it all squeezed in. Chairperson Fischer asked members if there areas of agreement or areas of disagreement or do members want to address them individually or as one motion? Chairperson Fischer said the first request is for the change of the land use plan from R-1 to R- 3H for the twelve town homes. The second request is for the conditional use permit for the planned unit development. The third request is for the lot split. Is there a motion? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -11- Commissioner Mueller said personally he thinks the proposed development needs more work. He thinks they need to go back to the drawing board and put this together in a better way. He agrees with a number of the comments of members that they are trying to put a lot of stuff on a small spot of land and it could be packed in tight but yet reasonably and he does not think the reasonably part has been met in his mind. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Mueller if he thinks they are reasonably close or a long way from what you want to achieve? Commissioner Mueller said he is not sure of how it could look unless you decrease the size of the footprint of the town homes. You could maybe spin things and have a driveway down the center off the existing driveways and have the town homes going east and west? That may increase the parcels below because you may not be able to get as many town homes in that plan. Chairperson Fischer asked staff where they are on the time frame with this proposal? Mr. Roberts these plans were received by the city on November 26, 2001, and requires council action by January 25, 2002, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. That would allow one or two council meetings in January. Chairperson Fischer said to staff that a great deal of discussion has been involved around technicalities, lot lines, lot sizes, and variances. The proposal basically that members are looking at is to put an R-H on the entire site that is proposed, is that correct? Or is it just an R-H on the part where the town homes would be? Mr. Roberts said it would be an R-H on the town homes would be his proposal, and keep the single family designation for the single-family lots. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they would have had as many technicalities if the proposal had been R-H for the whole site? Mr. Roberts said yes you would, it is more dealing with lot lines. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the lot lines would have been required to be 10,000 square feet if they were in an R-H rather than in an R-l? Mr. Roberts said yes they still would be. But it was covered in the proposal through a PUD. Chairperson Fischer said to staff that basically takes all rules aside and acts as a law onto itself. Mr. Roberts said yes it becomes essentially a negotiated development between the city and the developer. Commissioner Pearson said he is very uncomfortable with the idea that the footprint is too big for what they are building it on. He is wondering why parcel b. and c. could not be used for another four-unit town home building. That way you could adjust the roadways and have all the setbacks that you need and still allow a 10,000 square foot lot R-1 for parcel d? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -12- Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Pearson was your thought that the existing house would be removed on lot c? Commissioner Pearson yes it would need to be removed? Mr. Roberts said he thought it was the developer's intent to try to work around doing that. That was a trade off that the developer chose. You may want to ask Mr. Mogren that. Commissioner Trippler said we could go on all night with the different scenarios for this proposed development. He thinks members should just decide whether they like the proposal or not and if you don't members should think about whether the developer should come back or not. Another scenario would be to put another four-unit town home built where the eight unit was and move the property line for parcel b,c, and d north ten or fifteen feet. Then those lots would be 10,000 square feet. There are kinds of different ways that given this amount of property you could put structures on it. He agrees with a lot of comments made by members and he thinks there is too much being squeezed onto a relatively small piece of property and it doesn't fit. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they see anything that might be gained by a tabling to work on this proposal that might meet the concerns here or do you think this is a plan that will not be changed and members should act on what is before members? Mr. Roberts that would be a question for the applicant. Mr. Mogren said his team has put a lot of time and effort into this project and he thinks the spirit is to have it fit with his current project. He thinks his architects have improved this proposed project over the other project. He understands that members want to keep a lot to the minimum 10,000 square foot lot. Listening to Mr. Frost's comments as well and there is a PUD here and you have 30,000 square feet and three single-family lots. From all appearances you have the same amount of volume. He always tries to work with staff to the best of his ability and he looks at this as a good project. He wants to introduce some additional landscaping to mitigate 600 square feet that they are shod and he thinks this will add an extra tier of privacy. At this point he would like members to act on what is before the commission tonight. Commissioner Rossbach said to Mr. Mogren in the PUD this is a negotiated development. What is it that the city gets from this verses what you as the developer are getting? Mr. Mogren said he thinks Maplewood gets an additional 12 units of senior housing that he thinks will be very nice. He thinks this proposal would be a great asset to the community just like the other 248 units are. He thinks the homes are on Gervais Avenue and he thinks the lots will be decent as well. He thinks Maplewood would get good quality housing, he has proven in the past that they do that. Not every developer that comes into the community builds as good of a product as he does. He said they take pride in what they do and he thinks it will add 12 great units for senior housing and the community and that is what the city gets. Commissioner Rossbach said he would agree with Mr. Mogren that his company develops projects. He encouraged the staff with the initial visit to the site and the concept seemed really good. He does not know how he possibly went through this and never realized that these lots were less than 10,000 square feet. Up until ¼ hour ago he was very excited about this project Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -13- and thought it would be a good fit. There are certain things where he draws the line and one of them is dealing with the size of lots, he just can't tolerate making exceptions to. He feels very bad that until this point he didn't realize exactly what was happening there. Certainly he would have had the opportunity to express concerns to staff during that process when you Mr. Mogren and the staff were just working this proposed project out. That doesn't change his thoughts about this proposed project. Mr. Mogren said they did not do anything to try and hide anything from anyone. It is right out in front. It is his opinion that this proposed project speaks for itself because if you talk to any of the residents they keep it up and maintain the properties. So it is not a matter of him talking about himself it is a matter of him talking about the project and what he thinks the projects have done for Maplewood. It has created some very nice senior housing for the city of Maplewood. He thinks whenever you get into a negotiated thing like a PUD he thinks one of the things is you could have a 10,000 square foot lot with no trees which would be less desirable, than a 9,400 square foot with trees along the back that provides privacy. The three lots together are going to be a total of 30,000 square feet so they will have trees back there to mitigate the size. Commissioner Frost he is looking at the R-1S that is on Lydia Avenue. He thought those were very nice houses. From the commission members prospective would this be a problem having these single-family lots being R-1S verses R-l? If it is R-1S it is well over the 7,500 square foot minimum. He looks at these three lots as almost separate like a buffer from the proposed cottages being built. These are almost isolated from the rest of the development as is the stuff on Lydia Avenue. From that prospective he would not have a problem having these three single- family lots going R-1S and then proceed with the proposed development as is. And actually you could make the lots a little smaller and get the driveway to work on the north side. Mr. Roberts said again, the PUD accomplishes the same thing. Commissioner Mueller said putting trees and shrubbery on a lot that is already less than 10,000 square feet from his prospective with having children made his lot a lot smaller. Because now I have all these trees on his lot, it gives him more screening but it does not give him any more room, it just lets him not see something in the next neighbor's lot. If this would pass for example, where would you put those trees on this small than 10,000 square foot lot? Would the trees go on parcel b or parcel c's lot? These trees are going to spread out seven or eight feet wide. Mr. Mogren said he would work with staff on that issue. If they fit on the lot that the proposed town homes are going on he would put the trees there. Otherwise he would put them on the back of the other lot, it doesn't matter to him. It creates a barrier or privacy between the town homes. Commissioner Trippler if Mr. Mogren reduced the eight-unit to a four-unit or rotated it, would that make the project undoable for you? Mr. Mogren said yes it would. One last comment if these lots were located on Flandrau Street where everything was 10,000 square feet then it makes a big difference. But this is part of a PUD and it is kind of a separate area itself and he thinks it is not a problem. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -14- Commissioner Frost moved that the planning commission approve the resolution on page 29 of the staff report. It changes the land use plan from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to RH (residential high density) for the 12 town house units of the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The city bases this change on the following findings: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes being next to existing high-density senior housing units, a collector street and near two churches, shopping and Four Seasons Park. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values. b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. Approve the resolution starting on page 30 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carefree Villas, based on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans dated November 26, 2001, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include revising the grading and site plans to show the required sidewalk along Gervais Avenue. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The owner shall not convert the town houses in this development to non-seniors housing without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines senior housing as a residence occupied by persons that are 55 years of age or older. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers at or around the townhouses. 5. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on the town house site. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 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. The three single dwellings are exempt from reviews for conditional use permit revisions for any expansions, additions or changes provided that such changes would meet all applicable zoning and building standards and requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -15- The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the proposed lot split shown on page 19 of the staff report. This plan creates four parcels for the Carefree Villas development on Gervais Avenue. This lot division shall be subject to the developer or applicant completing the following conditions before the city approves the lot division deeds: The developer or owner recording drainage and utility easements along all existing and new property lines, subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer or owner recording cross easement and access agreements for Parcel A to have access to Gervais Avenue across the adjacent property (the existing Carefree Cottages). 3. Signing an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Gervais Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. f. Provide for the repair of Gervais Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. g. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Changing the proposed lot division as follows: Dedicate drainage and utility easements along all property lines. These easements shall be pedestrian and utility easements in the front and shall be ten feet wide, shall be 10 feet wide along the rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off- site drainage and utility easements, subject to the city engineer's requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -16- 6. Record the following with the lot division deeds: a. All homeowner's association documents. b. An access agreement for the proposed town houses that ensures the tenants may use the existing driveway(s) for ingress and egress. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures. 7. The city will not issue building permits until the deeds for the town house site and the three single dwelling lots are recorded and the developer has met the city conditions. Chairperson Fischer seconded the motion for purpose of discussion and to get this item moving. Mr. Roberts said if the commission is so inclined on item B. item 3. in regards to the age change for senior housing, if it does go forward you could change the age from 62 to 55 that should not be a problem. (changed in bold in the motion). Commissioner Frost concurred. Chairperson Fischer asked members if there was any further discussion or amendments to the motion? Commissioner Frost although the three single family lots are under the 10,000 square feet minimum, when people buy the lots they will know exactly what they are getting and what is surrounding the lot. You would be going in eyes wide open. He has no problem with the proposal. Chairperson Fischer said she is in agreement with Mr. Frost. As Mr. Frost said if the lot size is there when they buy into the neighborhood that makes a difference. Commissioner Rossbach said he would go counterpoint in that the neighborhood consists of lots that tend to be larger than 10,000 square feet and the cottages. It is his belief it would be good planning to continue what is there instead of introducing a completely new element into it. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks the small size of the lots, and the possibility of having a rather large house on that lot makes him uncomfortable especially because you cannot restrict what size of house is put on those small lots. They could almost put a house on those lots from lot line to lot line. He has strong concerns about creating a backyard scenario that is a front yard for the town homes. Commissioner Ahlness he said if it just came down to the lot sizes that is something that.may be excused but it seemed like exemptions were asked for and excuses were made to make it work from the north side to the south side. One of the lot's are surrounded by three sides of a private driveway and that is going to be used by multiple people. We say we don't want to take down trees to put in a sidewalk but you would have to take down a big tree just to put a garage in. Just about every where you go in this project you run into problems and he thinks the developer Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -17- needs to go back and see fundamentally what fits in there that is economically feasible. He just thinks this project is too large to fit on this site and it needs to be reduced in size maybe with less units on this site. Chairperson Fischer asked staff about the three proposals, are they all intertwined? Do they all have to be a package as one or can they be divided? Mr. Roberts said he thinks you could divide item a. that is the plan amendment from b. and c. But b. and c. are definitely intertwined. Commissioner Rossbach said he would question whether a. can be divided from b. and c. because it reflects the changes that would follow along the property lines? Or are those property lines right where the land use changes would occur? Mr. Roberts said the intent of the amendment was to shift the high-density line from the north line of the south site to the south line of proposed parcel a. that would be the south line of the proposed town homes. So that line might move three or five feet one way or another. The intent of the plan was accommodate the twelve town houses. Chairperson Fischer said those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Ayes - Fischer, Frost Nays- Ahlness, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Motion Failed. Chairperson Fischer asked staff when this item goes to the city council? Mr. Roberts said it tentatively goes to the city council January 14, 2002. Chairperson Fischer said the city council will make the final decision. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) Mr. Roberts said at the planning commission meeting in November the commission had some concerns about the Water Resources Management Plan and many concerns about the proposed ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) ordinance. Staffwent back and worked on both of those, specifically on the Water Resources Management Plan on page 2 of the staff report items 5 and 6, on page 3 items 1,2, and 6, page 4 item 5, as well as number 2. at the bottom of page 4. Lastly on page 5 under groundwater goal number 2, are all policies that staff changed taking the direction of the commission. On the ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) ordinance and took all the references to Washington County and the numbering to make it strictly a Maplewood code. The technical parts of the code have not been proposed to change. The intent of this ordinance is to go into Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -18- effect for new systems to be Put in or for major city reconstruct or repair of an existing system. Existing systems that are in place would be grandfathered in and would not have to be moved or changed and would fall under the provisions regarding maintenance and pumping. If they have a system that fails then they would have to meet the new standards. Mr. Trippler approached Mr. Roberts before the meeting and has found some technical errors in numbering that need to be corrected. Staff is recommending the planning commission: Approve the revised Water Resources Management Plan starting on page two of the staff report. Adopt the ordinance starting on page seven. This ordinance adds to the Maplewood City Code the standards for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) in the city. Chairperson Fischer, Mr. Trippler and Mr. Mueller had some changes to the ordinance that will be made and given to members for the next meeting. Commissioner Ledvina asked if Washington County is currently using this ordinance? And if so how long has it been used? Mr. Roberts said yes it is currently being used and has been used for a few years now. Commissioner Ledvina asked if this ordinance has a 100-foot separation between the septic and well? Mr. Roberts said yes that is what he recalls. Commissioner Ledvina asked if previously it was 50 feet? Commissioner Rossbach answered it was 75 feet the last time he built. Commissioner Ledvina had a comment regarding implementing this ordinance and operation and maintenance of septic systems on page 62. Under Maintenance of Septic Tanks there is a major discussion stating you need to pump the septic tanks every three years, and then as an alternative the owner can inspect and measure the accumulations of sludge. He thinks this alternative to the three years of pumping is going to be a very difficult thing and also for the staff to determine whether the homeowner has actually done the pumping. He believes the alternative part should be eliminated from that paragraph. If staff thinks the septic systems should be pumped every three years than that is probably enough. Commissioner Frost said he would agree with Mr. Ledvina. However, there are exceptions to having the septic systems pumped every three years. If you had a septic system built for six people and now there are two people living in the house, you will never fill that septic system back up again. So that would be an exception. You would have to call a septic system to come and look at the system, the will charge as much to look at it as they would charge to pump the system. So it would probably just be easier to have it pumped, however, some people are knowledgeable and may know it doesn't need to be pumped. Commissioner Ledvina asked if there should be something said about the owner shall document this and measure the thickness of the sludge in the septic tank yearly after the first three years? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -19- this and measure the thickness of the sludge in the septic tank yearly after the first three years? If the homeowner does it once and they are good for the whole life of the system. It seems to be non-specific in terms of the guidance and it is complicated. Commissioner Frost said it is easier if you just get it pumped every three years and then nobody has to worry about it. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks someone could read the ordinance and say they looked at the septic tank and they do not have sludge therefore it does not need to be pumped. And what would the city say? Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they have a recommendation on this? Mr. Chuck Ahl said on those types of issues typically the staff would inquire as Mr. Frost described, some type of knowledgeable person to have done the inspection and documented the measurement. In most cases staff does not always take a persons word on things, they like to see documents in order to meet the intent of the ordinance. This looks to him like as a staff person is looking for intent and he would suggest it would require a documented inspection. Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Ahl if that should be said in the ordinance? Commissioner Mueller asked if it could read "May have the septic tank inspected by a certified septage inspector and documented". Mr. Chuck Ahl said that would okay. Chairperson Fischer asked about the wording in the water resources management plan and if it should be referred to as retention or detention. Mr. Chuck Ahl said retention means the holding of water forever and never having an outlet. The meaning of detention means to infiltrate, slowdown or detain. The correct word should be detention. Commissioner Frost moved that the planning commission approve the two items: Approve the revised Water Resources Management Plan starting on page two of the staff report. Adopt the ordinance starting on page seven with the modifications that were discussed at the meeting. This ordinance adds to the Maplewood City Code the standards for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) in the city. Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. The motion is passed. Ayes - Ahlness, Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson,Rossbach, Trippler Chairperson Fischer asked staff when does this go to the city council? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -20- Mr. Roberts said this goes to the city council on January 14, 2002. VII. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Frost would recommend having something put in the comprehensive plan that deals with the mall area traffic study. Whether it be a new County Road D alignment study between White Bear Avenue and Highway 61, and the additional lanes and bridge crossing or underpass on Highway 694 and White Bear Avenue. He would recommend that they add something to the comprehensive plan to indicate such before it gets sent to the Met Council so the planning commission does not have to amend it in the future. Mr. Chuck Ahl said on the transportation plan, his suggestion might be, because of the significant nature of those improvements and the extent of the study, to wait and allow the public input. It is a major confine amendment and involves a major shift in change in transportation policies and priorities. VII, VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS The November 26, 2001, city council meeting was reported on by Ken Roberts. Nothing pertaining to the planning commission was discussed at that meeting. It may be of interest was city council gave first consideration of the ordinance tighting the regulations about pawnshops and currency exchange with businesses. The December 10, 2001, city council meeting was represented by Jack Frost. The only item that was discussed regarding the planning commission was the water utility McCarron's Plant CUP Revision and it was approved ayes - all. The December 17, 2001, city council meeting was reported on by Matt Ledvina. Everyone at tonight's meeting was present at the city council meeting but there were no planning commission meeting actions at that meeting. Mr. Roberts added that one thing that was on the agenda was the final purchase agreement for Mr. Bruce Mogren to buy the property on Van Dyke Street that the city owns north of Emma's Place. He is putting a proposal together for a 30-unit town house development on this site. The January 14, 2002, city council meeting will be represented by Will Rossbach. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -21- Chairperson Fischer asked staffwhat the procedure is ifa planning commission member calls the day of the meeting and cannot be a representative at the city council meeting? Mr. Roberts said staff would contact another member to see if they would be available to be a representative at the city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts mentioned that Ms. Fischer, Mr. Ahlness and Mr. Ledvina's planning commission terms are up at the end of the year. Please let Mr. Roberts know what your plans are to leave or continue on with the commission. There were going to be interviews at this meeting to replace Mr. Frost, but because some of the candidates could not attend, the interviews were rescheduled for some time in January. If you want to be reappointed it needs to go back to the city council and a report is done so please let Mr. Roberts know one way or the other. Mr. Mueller said since members received the list for 2002 he thought he would mention that although it is a long time off on the calendar for 2002, he would not be available on April 8, 2002. Mr. Mueller mentioned if anybody would like to switch meetings with him in advance to let him know. Chairperson Fischer said on that schedule for the council meetings for 2002 that second phone number shown for her is only good on Tuesday and Thursdays. Commissioner Ahlness said he has a new work phone number to give to members offthe record. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Carriage Homes of Maple Hills 907 Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) January 30, 2002 Project Description Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex Homes, is proposing to develop a 100-unit planned unit development (PUD) called the Cardage Homes of Maple Hills. It would be on a 20.5-acre site on the north side of Parkway Ddve, on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course. (Please see the maps starting on page 19.) The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, asphalt shingles and vinyl trim, shutters and fascia boards. There also would be a partial main level brick veneer wainscot on the front and sides. Requests To build this project, Mr. Nelson is requesting several city approvals including: A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100-unit housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 38-566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings with more than four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Round Lake and would have 100 for-sale townhouse units in 12 buildings. The 12 buildings would have a mix of four units, eight units and 10 units. In addition, having a PUD gives 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. 2. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street right-of-way width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the public street right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet. 3. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the street from 32 feet to 24 feet from gutter to gutter. 4. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed maps from the Cardage Homes of Maple Hills application materials and the enclosed project plans.) 5. Design approval of the project plans, including architectural and landscape plans. Also refer to the developer's project narrative on pages 30 through 34, the developer's application booklet and the plans for more information about these proposals. BACKGROUND On April 11, 1983, the city council rezoned the majodty of the golf course from BC (business commercial) to R-3 (multiple-dwelling residential) so the zoning would match the R-3 land use designation on the site. On August 23, 1983, the community design review board approved project plans for a development called Somerset Ridge. This development was to have 96 condominium units in 11 eight-unit buildings and two four-unit buildings on the southern 14 acres of the golf course. DISCUSSION Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plans The city has planned and zoned this site for multiple-family residential development since the eady 1980s. Specifically, Maplewood intends areas designated in the land use plan as residential high density (R-3H) as areas for town houses or apartments of up to 16 units per gross acre. (See the land use plan map on page 20.) For areas the city has zoned multiple-family residential (R-3), Maplewood allows a mix of housing types including double dwellings, town houses and apartments. The proposed development plan is consistent with the density allowed by the comprehensive plan and with the zoning designation for the property. Specifically, the 100 units on the 20.5-acre site means there would be 4.9 units per gross acre. This proposal would be well below the high-density residential development standards outlined in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for this site and would even be below the standard of six units per gross acre for medium-density residential development. In addition, the proposed development density would be consistent with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council for housing in first-ring suburbs. This is a good site for medium-density or high-density housing as it is on an arterial street (Parkway Drive), is near two major arterial streets (Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61) and is near open space and park facilities. With a proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to develop his property with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan balances the land owner's dghts to use and develop the property versus the city's interests in preserving the wetland and ponding areas on the site. Open Space The Maplewood Open Space Committee did not rate this property as part of their study in 1991. Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans. Many neighbors prefer to keep this property for open space or a park. Maplewood or Ramsey County would have to buy this property to keep it as open space. There are several areas of publicly-owned open space and park land in this part of Maplewood. Ramsey County has many acres of open space and parkland around Round Lake, Phalen Lake and Keller Golf Course near this site. In addition, the Gateway Trail is to the north of the site so development of this property would not create a shortage of open space or park land in this area. Conditional Use Permit The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 100-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because Section 36-566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) require a PUD for developments with buildings with more than four units. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Round Lake and would have 100 town house units in 12 buildings. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each of the townhomes. Compatibility Staff does not find a preblem with compatibility in terms of land use. The proposed town houses would be next to an existing town house development, single dwellings, an office building and a cemetery. In addition, townhomes are often built next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. 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 and Bennington Woods where this is the case as well. 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 Treffic-generation data from the Institute of Treffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of five vehicle trips per day. In this case, with the proposed 100 town house units, there would be about 500 additional vehicles added to Parkway Drive each day. Currently there are about 8,400 vehicles per day on Parkway Drive. As a four-lane arterial street, another 500 vehicle trips per day would not exceed the capacity of the street. In addition, the residents of this development will have plenty of options for trevel once they get to Highway 61 or to Larpenteur Avenue. Shoreland District Regulations As I noted earlier, most of this site is in the shoreland district of Round Lake. Maplewood adopted the current shoreland district regulations, under the guidance of the DNR, in 1996. The code says that the shoreland district "is to provide specific regulations to protect the city's shorelands. It is in the public's best interest to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands." The objectives of the shoreland code are: Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters. Protect the natural environment and visual appeal of shorelands. Protect the general health, safety and welfare of city residents. As such, there are several shoreland ordinance regulations that apply to this request (including the requirement that the city approve a CUP for a PUD). These include open space requirements, the maximum building height, vegetation preservation and screening requirements. Specifically, the shoreland code requires the following: - at least fifty (50) percent of project area remain as open space; that the buildings have a maximum height of 25 feet (unless the city approves taller structures); that the developer minimizes the loss or removal of natural vegetation; the applicant to prepare a storm water management plan for the proposal; and that the developer design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake. The applicant's engineer has submitted preliminary utility and grading plans with calculations that the city engineer has reviewed for consistency with city standards. The assistant city engineer is generally satisfied with the plans, but does have comments and changes that he will be requiring of the developer. (See the assistant city engineer's comments on pages 36 through 39.) Meeting all city and other agency standards should be a requirement of the conditional use permit and the design approval. Wetlands The developer had the four wetlands on the site delineated by a trained wetland professional. The watershed distdct has classified one of these wetlands as a Type II wetland (located in Outlot B) and the other three as Type V wetlands. The city wetland protection ordinance requires the developer to protect the wetlands and their buffer areas on the site. Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance requires a minimum 50~foot-wide no-disturb buffer around the Type II wetland on the property. The wetland ordinance also requires the building foundations to be at least 60 feet from these wetlands. The proposed development will meet these requirements. In addition, the city does not usually allow any ground disturbance, including grading, within the buffer area. However, Section 9-196(h)(2) of the city code allows a contractor or owner to alter a buffer area where the watershed district has approved a permit for the project. For the Type V wetlands, the city does not require any buffer areas or special protection. In addition, Sections 9-196 (d)(1)(b) & (d) of the code give two examples of exemptions to Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance. These include the construction or maintenance of public drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds or erosion control facilities or where the city council waives these requirements for the construction of utilities or trails. The city code goes on to say that the city may only allow the construction of utilities through buffers where there is no other practical alternative and that the city shall require the owner or contractor to replant the disturbed areas with appropriate native vegetation after construction ends. The contractor should place the silt fence and temporary construction fencing so they protect the buffer areas during all construction; Park Department Review I had Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, review the proposed development plans. Mr. Anderson supp°rts the development plan as submitted, including the proposed trail and sidewalk. Code Variation - Reduced Street Right-of-Way Width The proposed plat shows the public street (Maple Hills Drive) with a 50-foot-wide street right-of-way. Section 29-53 of the Maplewood City Code requires local residential streets to have 60 feet of right- of-way. The developer is proposing to have 24-foot-wide streets in the 50-foot-wide right-of-way. This narrower street right-of-way with a narrower street pavement width will require less grading and will allow for an easier fit between the ponding area and the proposed buildings. The additional right-of-way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience. Code Variation - Reduced Street Pavement Width Section 29-52 of the city code requires that local streets be 32 feet wide (curb to curb). The code says that the city council may permit variations from this requirement in specific areas that do not effect the general purpose of this section. The applicant wants to build Maple Hills Drive as a 24- foot-wide street. I had the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal review this request. As long as the access 4 standards of the Uniform Fire Code are met or exceeded (with parking restrictions), they did not express a preference about the street width. Since 1993, the council has approved narrower street widths with parking restrictions for the Oak Ridge, Maple Woods, Highwood Estates 4th, Beth Heights, Parkview and New Century developments. The narrower street would provide a larger setback between the street and the homes and would put less impervious surface on the site. On-Street Parking Standards The applicant is proposing that Maple Hills Drive be 24 feet wide. I had the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal review the proposed streets 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, all the streets and 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 want to allow parking on one side of the streets, then the streets must be at least 28 feet wide. Preliminary Plat The proposed preliminary plat has 12 lots and five outlots. The 12 lots are for the 12 buildings and the five outlots are for vadous pieces of extra property around the site. The proposed development and preliminary plat with 100 units meets the city's density requirements for medium-density and high-density residential development. The applicant has designed this development as a common interest community (CIC) with the developer platting a lot for each of the 12 buildings. The builder will then divide each building into separate units, with the buyers owning from wall to wall, as opposed to owning the land that the town house sits on and a small portion of the land surrounding it. The developer will be forming a homeowner's association with documents (declarations) specifying the legal responsibility of the association and homeowners for maintenance of the units and common grounds. 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 parties responsible for maintenance. In this case, the homeowner's association will be responsible for the on-site sewer and water systems, rather than one property owner. As noted above, the proposed plat has five outlots. Specifically, Outlots B and C are areas around wetlands. Outlot ^ is an open space area with the trail to the Gateway Trail and Outlot D is on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive between Parkway Drive and the ponding area near the center of the site. The developer is proposing that the homeowner's association own and maintain these four outlots and that each outlot have a drainage and utility easement over it. In addition, the city should require the developer to record an 18-foot-wide pedestrian easement over the part of Outlot A that will have the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail. Finally, the plans show a proposed Outlot E around parts of the existing parking lot on the north and west sides of the existing office building at 905 Parkway Drive. The developer is proposing to deed this outlot to the owners of the office building to better clarify the ownership of the parking lot and the green space areas around the parking lot. (Please see the detail drawing of this part of the site on page 28 and the letter from the owners of the office building on pages 43 and 44.) Drainage and Watershed District Most of the site drains to the existing wetland/ponding area in the center of the property. The developer's engineer told me that by using the existing ponds as storm water detention facilities, the development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. The city engineer supports this design within the plan. The developer's engineer has provided the city engineer with information and calculations showing that this project will not increase the amount of storm water running off of the site. It also is important to remember that the applicant or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or'construction. That is, the watershed district will have to be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed district standards, including the types of plantings used for restoration and providing adequate protection to the wetlands and their buffer areas. The applicant must contact Kad Hammers of the watershed district at (651) 704-2089 to inquire about their plan review and permitting requirements. Building Design, Site Layout and Landscaping Building Design Review The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing buildings in the area. They would have an extedor of horizontal vinyl siding (with a wood grain finish), vinyl trim and shutters, a partial wainscot of masonry (bdck) on the front and side elevations, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. (See the proposed elevation on page 29 and the enclosed project drawings. Front and Rear-Yard Setbacks As proposed, with the lot and building sizes, layouts and site topography, the developer has shown a vadety of building locations on the proposed grading plan. The proposed front-yard setbacks shown on the project plans (20 to 65 feet) do not meet the standard setbacks the city usually requires in the R-3 zoning district. (Typically, 30 to 35 feet from the front property line.) The proposed side-yard and rear-yard setbacks shown on the plans meet all city standards. Having a variety of setbacks in this development will allow the developer to do less mass grading and to save more trees, especially on the east side of the site. Off-Street Parking Standards The city code requires the developer to provide at least 200 off-street parking spaces (two for each unit) in this development. The developer noted that they would be providing at least 224 parking spaces (including two garage spaces per unit) within the site. This number exceeds the minimum city requirement and should be enough parking for the residents and their guests. It should be noted that the city will not allow parking along the new public street in the site since it will be 24 feet wide. The applicant's plan does show 24 off-street parking spaces (besides those in and behind the garages) and 12 proof-of-parking spaces in locations scattered throughout the site. Trails and Sidewalks The developer is proposing to build an eight-foot-wide trail from the north end of the new street (Maple Hills Drive) to the DNR's Gateway Trail. They also are proposing a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the existing wetland/ponding area in the center of the site. Both of these features should be nice amenities for those in the development and will give the new residents in the development off-street access to the Gateway Trail and to each other. To prevent any confusion about ownership and property dghts for trails, the county recommends that the city have the developer locate the trail in a right-of-way or within an easement on the plat. All the trails within the development should be public and for all to use and not just for those living in the development. For paved off-street paths, Maplewood usually requires eight-foot-wide bituminous paths centered in a right-of-way or easement that is at least ten feet wider than the trail. In this case, the developer, is showing the proposed new trail to the Gateway Trail in Outlot A (between buildings 8 and 9). The city should require the developer to record a separate easement for this trail with the final plat. The city should require the developer to install the wetland buffer signs, sidewalks, trails and fences with the streets and driveways before final plat approval. This is to ensure that the lot buyers know that the trails and sidewalks are there. Fencing/Screening Several of the neighbors (primarily in Bennington Woods) requested that the developer install a fence between the properties for pdvacy and security. The floor elevation of the proposed development will be six to ten feet below the elevation of Bennington Woods. It is staff's opinion that having a fence between the project site and Bennington Woods is not necessary because of the grade change that will occur between the two sites. It is unlikely that residents in the new town houses will be walking to the south into Bennington Woods, as they would need to climb up a landscaped slope to get to the existing town houses. A more likely scenario is that residents in Bennington Woods will want to walk into the new development to walk around the pond and to get to the Gateway Trail. Having additional landscaping on the slope on the south side of the development site (primarily near the top of the slope) will better serve the new residents and the existing residents in Bennington Woods. I have outlined this in more detail below in the landscaping discussion. Trees The applicant completed a tree inventory of all the large trees on the site. This inventory found 150 large trees on the property (an average of 7.3 trees per acre) with the plans showing the removal of 74 trees and the saving of 76 trees. In this case, the city code requires the developer to replace the removed trees on a one-for-one basis. As noted on the landscape plans and as I discuss below, the developer will be planting and transplanting on-site more than enough trees to meet the tree replacement requirements of the city. Landscaping The developer should further develop the proposed landscaping plan (page 26 and in the project plans) to increase the screening and privacy between the proposed town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. There are at least three areas that should have additional plantings or another type of screening method. Specifically, the additional trees in these areas should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae for screening. In addition, these areas should have a vadety of shrubs (including Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, Amedcan Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to provide a variety of colors and textures. These additional planting areas should be located: (1) (2) (3) Along the north property line of Bennington Woods. In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive. Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the new building. 7 The evergreen trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to proVide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. The developer has provided a typical planting plan (on page 27) for the foundation area of each building. This plan is acceptable. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the fire department must have clear passage to the buildings. The final project plans should be reviewed by Mr. Gervais to ensure fire safety needs are met, including the location of the fire hydrants. He also noted that the code requires that the buildings have a sprinkler system for fire protection. CONCLUSION The proposed project plans, if built, will provide the city with additional owner-occupied housing while preserving many of the natural features of the site. While many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the dght to reasonably develop and use his land. The proposal provides good protection for the wetlands on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should strive for with every development. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution starting on page 45. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills development on the north side of Parkway Drive on the site of the Maple Hills Golf Course. 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) At least fifty (50) percent of project area (10.25 acres) remaining as open space. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (3) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide. (4) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. 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. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage Homes of Maple. Hills Townhome PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a pdvate driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: none d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 5 feet to a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the town houses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. 6. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (P^C fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Adopt the resolution starting on page 47. This resolution approves a city code variation to have a 50-foot-wide street right-of-way instead of a 60-foot-wide right-of-way for Maple Hills Drive in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city should approve this code variation because: 1. The variation will lessen the amount of grading, ground disturbance and tree removal in the development. 2. The additional right-of-way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience. Adopt the resolution starting on page 48. This resolution approves a city code variation for a 24- foot-wide public street (Maple Hills Drive) in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. This variation is subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no parking on both sides of the street. 2. The developer shall pay the city for the cost of the no-parking signs. Approve the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills preliminary plat. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Have Excel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 10 locations - primarily at street and driveway intersections and street or driveway curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements. e. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. f. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 11-- ................ ~ i i ~ .......................... T ........ I ........... T ..... l'- g. For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following: Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway from Maple Hills Ddve to the Gateway Trail. This trail shall be in an 18-foot-wide trailway or pedestrian way or in an easement. (2) Construct a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the pond in the center of the site. (3) The developer shall build the trail, sidewalks and fencing with the driveways and streets before the city approves a final plat. (4) The city engineer must approve these plans. Petition and work with the city for the realignment of the sanitary sewer and the installation of the sewer lift station on the site. This sewer project also will require an assessment agreement between the developer and the city to compensate the city for the benefit the developer receives from the city sewer construction. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk, ddveway and street plans. Specifically: a. The plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer, including the comments and requirements of the Assistant City Engineer as outlined in his memo of 1-29-02. b.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer 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) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, 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 Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree remoVal in the buffer zones 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 trail (d) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors (e) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south ]0 The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences. (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is done. c. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show the coordination of the water main locations, 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. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. 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. b. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. c. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul-de-sacs or perpendicular to the driveways and street right-of-ways. d. Show the trails in publicly-owned property or easements. The developer shall record with Ramsey County a separate deed for the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail. 5. Secure and record with the final plat all required easements for the development. These shall include: a. Any off-site drainage and utility easements. bo Wetland easements over the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a Class II wetland. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 50 feet of the Class II wetland or any mowing, cuffing, filling, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of the easements is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer and runoff. They also are to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. c. Any easements the city may need for the realignment of the sanitary sewer or the construction of the new lift station on the site. d. The easement for the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the Gateway Trail. 6. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. These documents must assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the pdvate utilities, driveways and structures. b. 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. ]] c. For the property at 905 Parkway Drive: (1) All agreements between the developer and the property owner of 905 Parkway Ddve for changing the parking lot of the office building and for any changes to the existing ingress and egress agreements. (2) The deed that transfers the ownership of Outlot E to the owner of the property at 905 Parkway Ddve. d. All wetland, drainage, utility and trail easements. The applicant shall submit the language for these documents, easements, dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. These are to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures. 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. 8. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the development plans for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city bases this approval on the findings-required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following; 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: ao Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and ddveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and requirements of the assistant city engineer outlined in his memo dated 1-29-02 and the following: (1) There shall be no parking on either side of Maple Hills Drive or on the pdvate driveways. The developer or contractor shall post the street and the driveways with no parking signs. (2) The tree plan shall: (a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or replace large trees. (b) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped together. These planting areas shall be along the south and east sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing properties to the south and east. The ]2 Co deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, 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 Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species. (c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is done. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (f) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (1) near the ponding areas (2) on the slopes (3) along the trail (4) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Ddve to help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors (5) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (4) The site, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (a) A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills drive and the pond in the center of the site. The public works director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. (b) A water service to each unit. (c) · The repair of Parkway Ddve (street and boulevard) and the driveways in Bennington Woods after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways and public street. (d) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be vedfied with the Maplewood Fire Department. (e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) The planting of additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site to provide additional screening and pdvacy between the proposed town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. The additional trees should include Austdan Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae. These additional trees should be located as follows: ]3 (a) (b) (c) Along the north property line of Bennington Woods. In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive. Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the ddveway to the new building. The trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. (2) Also show the areas noted in (1) above planted with a variety of shrubs (including Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, Amedcan Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to provide a vadety of colors and textures. (3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation within the ponding area and on the steep slopes. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with a wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all homeowner's association documents for this development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city code. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new property irons for the new property corners. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the ponding areas. Install a reflectodzed stop sign at the Parkway Ddve exit, no parking signs along both sides of Maple Hills Ddve and the private driveways and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. do Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the pond in the center of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. so Install the trail between Maple Hills Ddve and the DNR Gateway Trail. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the trail. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping (including the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). go Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. ]4 h. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 88 properties within 350 feet of this site about this proposal and received 26 written replies. Those who wrote had several concerns about the proposal. I have summarized their issues with that plan as follows: 1. Possible effects of storm water run-off and drainage (potential for flooding). 2. The effects on the wildlife. The proposed plans have too many units. The density is too high on an acreage this small. Concerned about the loss of privacy by adding new housing and construction next to us. Have the developer install a fence (privacy) or a hedge to separate Bennington Woods from the development. We do not want people cutting through our property (Bennington Woods). 5. Can the existing lift station handle the additional sewage flow? o There would be too much traffic, congestion and noise (especially on Parkway Drive). Can Parkway Ddve handle the additional traffic (especially with vehicles turning in and out)? Keep it as park or open space. It is our hope that this or any other development will not take place. 8. It will ruin the nature area and destroy the quiet. 9. It will alter the character and could decease the economic value of adjacent properties. Also see the letters on pages 40 through 45. I also received several telephone calls from nearby residents about the proposal. They expressed concerns about the loss of open space, storm water drainage, the loss of privacy and increased traffic. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 20.5 acres Existing land use: Maple Hills Golf Course SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Cemetery across the Gateway Trail Bennington Woods and a single dwelling on Larpenteur Avenue Cemetery Single dwellings on Parkway Drive and on Arcade Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designations: R-3(H) (high density residential) and OS (open space) Existing Zoning: R-3 (multiple-family residential) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, baSed on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 45 and 46. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. 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. 2. 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, ordedy and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. 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. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, ]7 town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow-to- moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. - Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. - The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and pdce ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Application Date We received the complete application materials for this request on December 28, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city council would have normally had to take action on the proposal by February 27, 2002. kr/p:/secl 7/Carriage Homes of Maple hills.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Location Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Existing Conditions Map 6. Site Plan 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Example Foundation Planting Plan 10. Exhibit "C" (Outlot E detail) 11. Proposed Building Elevation 12. Developer's Project Justification Text 13. 1-16-02 letter from David Deebach 14. 1-29-02 memo from Chds Cavett 15. 1-17-02 letter from Kurt Trygg 16. 1-16-02 letter from Husten 17. 1-22-02 letter from Hackleman 18. 1-15-02 letter from D. Patdck McCullough 19. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Resolution 20. Street Right-of-Way Width Code Variation Resolution 21. Street Pavement Width Code Variation Resolution 22. No Parking Resolution 23. Project Plans (separate attachments -including 11x17s and full-size) Attachment 1 Gervais Lake C 26zl-ON 2¢00N i PLAZ~ C/R 2 ALVARADO DR ~ BEL~ECREST DR 4 DE. AUVILLE DR 5 UER/DIAN DR RD, B2 I BELMONT LN. BELMONT LWOOD ST. PAUL PALM COUNTY AVE:. GERVAIS g Park G. NT, ON AVE. FRISBIE Attachment 2 / nad OS OS~ " Larpenteur major LEGEND : . ~ ~ R-2 ~. R-3(H), c~ co CFM=CEMETERY ~ . OS = OPEN SPACE ? ,,_R-3(H)R-1: SINGLE DWELLINGS ~ R-3(H) = MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HIGH DENSITY) BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL - aC(M) = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MODIFIED LAND USE PLAN MAP PROJECT 20 SITE Attachment 3 Maple Hills Par 3 Golf Course (Project Site) Larpenteur Avenue Maplewood St. Paul N Location Map 21 Attachment 4 r o'C~,l plaA'~e d PLAT cF ~) ZION ~ '~ H E B REW ' CEMETERY ~'": (l~) LEGEND PLAT A ~F,') .~,~ RESIDENCE -o . ~ R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS: ~t.,~,,o+., ]~RPENTEUR AVENUE IBC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL ' ~ ' BC(M)" BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MODIFIED SAINT PAUL PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 22 PROJECT SITE - r N BLOCK 1 T'-T-~ F 2_1.2 L INGSTON AVE., (NOT BUILT) ~ PLAT A t / Attachment 5 Attachment 6 19181 5 ~-'ZN"b'-P ~---'t' I I IL__6_ _L__[ I I 7 ,.~I__~N GSTON AVE. (NOT BUILT) MOUNT ZION · HEBREW CEMETERY PLAT A SITE PLAN 24 1 / / ! / '~. '- / ' - JAN.2 2 '~X ~ RECEIVED I I BLOCK 1 T-rq I- 19181 1- I I IL /_[_J L__7 ..,z ~IN G~STON AVE," (NOT BUILT) ~ MOUNT ZION HEBREW CEMETERY PLAT A i Attachment 7 / / / 1 PROPOSED GRADING~ PLAN Attachment PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 9 TYP. NORTH LANTING ~ L.ANDSrApI~ L~GEN~ PLANTING D~AIL $CAL~; · ~IPLANTINC NOTES ImII EXAMPLE FOUNDATION27 PLANTING PLAN T ........... ? 'I .... [ I T ........... T ............ '1' r .... I 2 -E¥'~--'~ r ~X~s~N~7~OuTLOT'D 10 UNIT t EXISTING FENC~ TO REM~N- PROPOSED' CARRIAGE HOMES OF MAPLE HILLS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA EXHIBIT "C" McCULLOUGH/BRIDGELAND 1/18/02 Terra Engineering Inc. / / ~ / / / / / / / / / / / / / JAN 2 2 2002 RECEIVED / / / / 50 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET DEVELOPMENT / 28 Attachment 11 CENTEX HOME5 KEY EXTERIOR ELEMENTS Floor Plans Sizes: 1400-16005F Key Customers Demographics Dominant age Group: 25-34 Household Size: 1-2 Household Income: Avg. $50K Group: Young Midseale Suburban Singles & Couples ELEVATION STYLE: Eclectic ROOF STRUCTURE: Front to Back Roof: 5:12 pitch with 1'-0" overhang & 6" rake Side to Side Roof: 8:12 pitch with 1-0" overhang & 6" rake ENTRY/PORCH: Covered entry porch Porch Columns: 8" Architectural column EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Siding: Wolverine Restoration Collection premium, Double 4" Clapboard, low-gloss wood grain finish, vinyl. The Restoration Collection is approved by many preservation commissions. Masonry Veneer: Partial main level wainscot at front and side elevations WINDOWS: Type: Vinyl sliding windows Window Grilles: Colonial grille pattern all windows EXTERI OR TRIM: Comer Boards: Wide 3 lA" outside comer post, vinyl Window Trim: Wide 2 ½" vinyl window and door surrounds reflect architectural tradition; Fascia: Wide 4" aluminum clad Shutters: Louvered Shutters, vinyl Specialty Trim: Decorative louvered vents in gables, vinyl per elevation Attachment 12 Development Request Bridgeland Development is requesting approval of this Planned Unit Development ('PUD) and Preliminary Plat for 100 multi-family homes on the 20.49 acre site. The site is currently zoned R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential which allows a maximum of 213 multi-family units. The proposed development consists of 12 buildings with a configuration of four, eight, and ten housing units per building. Legal Description The attached Existing Condition Plan shows the legal description and the boundary survey for this property as prepared by John Oliver and Associates. The final plat and associated condominium plats _will be prepared by John Oliver and Associates at a future time. Location/Ownershin/Develoner This 20.49 acre parcel is currently operating as the Maple Hills Par 3 Golf Course. The site is located west °fParkway Drive and Highway 61, north of Larpenteur Ave., and south of the DNR Gateway Trail in the western portion of Maplewood. The site abuts ForeSt Lawn Cemetery to the west, Bermington WoOds multi-family residential neighborhood to the south, and single family residential neighborhoods to the north and east. The site also abuts a small oftiee building to the southeast. The applieanffdeveloper is Bridgeland Development and the proposed builder is Centex Homes. The current fee owner of the property is Maple Hills Par Three LLC, 616 Lincoln Ave., St. Paul, MN_ 55102. 30 SITE ANALYSIS Vegetation on the site is a mix of maintained lawn areas, mature trees, ponds, and wetlands. As shown on the Existing Condition Plan, a total of 150 trees were surveyed and inventoried on-site. These trees consist of mostly oaks and pines. Four wetlands/ponds were identified on the site and are described in the accompanying wetland report prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company. Topography/Surface Drainage The topography as shown on the plan is in two foot intervals. The site generally drains fi.om the outside boundary lines to the center land-locked pond. This on-site land-locked pond takes drainage not only fi.om our 20.5 acre site, but also from approximately 33.9 acres off-site. This land-locked pond has no outlet. Eight soil borings and a soil report were prepared for this site by STS Consultants LTD. Their report, dated November 29, 2001, accompanies our proposal. This report indicates that the on-site soils are generally suitable for our proposed townhome development. Their report states that "After appropriate site preparation, it is our opinion that the townhomes can be supported on conventional, relatively shallow spread footings beating on compacted upper sand, stiff naturally occurring clayey and sandy silt, or on compacted fill. The upper sand soil at this site will be competent for floor slab support, and as a subgrade below pavements." Surrounding Land Use/Zoning The present zoning of this site is R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential at a maximum density of 10.4 townhome units per gross acre (213 allowable units). The existing site is currently used as a par three golf course and is called Maple Hills Golf Center. Abutting our property to the south is the Bennington Woods townhome site that is also zoned R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential. The land to the north, across the DNR Gateway Trail, is zoned R-1 and has single family homes. The land to the east is also zoned R-1 and has single family homes. The land to the west and northwest is the Forest Lawn Cemetery and is zoned Cemetery. Abutting our propehy to the southeast if an existing small office building that is zoned B-C(M). 31 Existing Transportation System~/Trails/Sidewalks/Parks This site fronts on Parkway Drive, a Maplewood city street. Parkway Drive connects directly, within one block, of both Larpenteur Ave. and State Highway #61. These public roads provide good and efficient access to this site. This site directly abuts the DNR. Gateway Trail to the north. There is currently no direct access from this site to the paved trail. The Phalen-Keller Regional Park and golf courses are located immediately east of this site across Highway 61. Two neighborhood city parks (Edgerton Park and Roselawn Preserve) are located about 3/4 of a mile northwest of this site. Existim, Utilities The site is served by public sanitary sewer and water from Parkway Drive. The existing storm sewer in the area is too shallow to drain the existing land-locked pond that is on-site. PLAN PROPOSAL The objective of this proposal is to provide a for-sale Multiple Residential Community in the starter to middle pricing range with a Home Owners Association. This community proposal is sensitive to the surrounding needs of single family homes, townhomes, office building, and the neighboring community by providing adequate setbacks and buffers between the proposed buildings and these adjacent uses. The internal layout of the site plan is sensitive to saving trees and careful mitigation of wetland concerns. Land Use/Zonin~Comprehensive Guide Plan The ske is currently zoned R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential, and is appropriate for this project. The existing zoning allows up to 10.4 townhome units per gross acre (or 213 allowable units). Our proposal requests a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning with a density of only 4.9 townhome units per acre. A Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment will not be required. Planned Unit Development (PUD) This multiple family residential development proposes that a PUD be adopted. Through the PUD process, land plan design enhancements can be achieved. The plan proposes that Maple Hills Drive be constructed through the project as a residential 50' right-of-way public street. The drives that serve the individual buildings are proposed to be private and be maintained by the Home Owners Association. No buildings will be fronted or have individual unit driveways on Maple Hills Drive, and all individual driveways will be accessed on the private drives. Additionally, great care has been taken to reduce the impact on the existing trees and quality wetland areas. Due to the topography and other site constraints, a small area of the existing pond (Wetland #3) will be filled and mitigated on-site. Wetland #3 is shown in the City's zoning ordinance as the City's lowest quality wetland, "Class 5." Because of our relatively low site density (4.9 units/acre versus 10.4 units/acre allowed), we are able to save approximately 50% of the existing on-site trees. Per the City's tree ordinance, 74 trees willbe replaced on-site as shown on our proposed Landscape Plan. A minimum 50 foot setback is shown adjacent to all residential areas. As shown on the Preliminary Plat, we are also proposing to deed Outlot E to the owner of the adjacent office building to help the existing parking and setback issues. 33 The proposed plans call for a 20 foot front setback to the public street fight-of-way. The nearest the proposed buildings will be to the street itself will be 33 feet, which is comparable to a typical townhouse project street setback requirement. The proposed project also indicates a 24' one-way street, with parking allowed on one side as discussed with the City staff. In addition to the parking in front of the two-car garages and the on-street parking, we are proposing to construct an additional 24 off-street guest parking stalls. Per the City zoning ordinance (Sec. 36-438), it is the intention of the planned unit developments to "Provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations." This project meets or exceeds the City's PUD standards (Sec. 36-442) described as follows: (1) The proposed project conforms with the City's comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan allows up to 213 townhome units on this site and we are proposing 100 townhome units. (2) This project will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. (3) The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values. (4) This project will not involve any activity that is dangerous, detrimemal, nuisance, noisy or unsightly. (5) This project will not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on Parkway Drive or other adjacent streets. (6) There are adequate public facilities to serve this site including utilities, streets, police and fire, and schools and parks. (7) The proposed project will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. (8) This project will maximize the preservation of the site's natural and scenic features. Because of the relatively low site density, over half of the existing trees on the site will remain. Over 50% of the site will remain as open space. There will also be minimal wetland impacts to the existing on-site ponds and wetlands. , (9) This proposed development will cause minimal adverse environmental effects. (10) This project is not proposed as a public building. 34 Attachment 13 CENTEX HOMES 3anuary 16, 2002 Minnesota Division 12400 Whltewater Drive Suite 120 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Preliminary Plat/PUD, Carriage Homes of Maple Hills, Maplewood, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Robe,s: Phone:952-936-?833 Fax:952-936-?839 2002 RECF. It£b Centex Homes requests that the Tot Lot depicted on the above referenced Preliminary Plat/PUD be modified so as to serve the needs of the typical buyer of the proposed residential product. This requested modification is founded in an analysis of buyer demographi~ revealing the fact that a Tot Lot is not an amenity that will attract or benefit the average resident of this new community. Our experience in building this particular style of home in the Twin Cities is extensive. Since 1990, Centex Homes has constructed and sold in excess of 2,153 of these units in 12 Twin City neighborhoods that are similar to the neighborhood proposed on this Preliminary Plat/PUD. In only one case (Bristol Ridge Carriage Homes, 148 units, Burnsville, Minnesota) did we construct a small play area. The typical Carriage Home buyer is under 40 years of age (64%), is single (72%), has an annual income under $40,000.00 (55%), is a first time homebuyer (55%) and has no children (82%). A demographic analysis of the children residing at our Carriage Home neighborhood in Hugo, (Carriage Homes of Bald Eagle, 88 units) reveals that there are 6 pre-school age children, 7 children in grades 1-8 and 16 post high school age young adults. Tn fact, 74 of the 88 units (90%) do not have any children. It is reasonable to assume the quantity and age breakdown of the children at the new Carriage Homes of Maple Hills will be similar to that of the existing Hugo neighborhood. We at Centex Homes believe the minimal number of children is a result of the housing type and the profile of the typical buyer. Changing the Tot Lot to a grass covered neighborhood gathering area with park benches or picnic tables would provide the opportunity for our typical buyer to meet other neighbors or sit and enjoy a relaxing view of the pond. This area would also serve as the perfect location for a "cool-down" after an invigorating walk on the adjacent Gateway Trail. In either case, the designated use of this amenity should be targeted at the typical buyer of this residential product. Upon your receipt and review, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Centex Homes David B. Deebach Land AcquisitiOn Manager Copy: Steve Nelson, Bridgeland Development Co. 35 Attachment 14 Maplewood Engineering Plan Review - Chris Cavett, 01/29/02 Carriage Homes of Maple Hills, Project 02-03 The developer's engineer shall meet with the Maplewood Engineering Department before finalizing the engineering plans. This meeting will be to discuss the plan review and the findings of the study to relocate the sanitary sewer lift station. Listed below is the Maplewood engineering department's first comments to the preliminary plans. Additional comments and changes may be necessary as the final plans for the project(s) are prepared. Grading and Erosion Control: The applicant's engineer shall submit a finalized erosion control plan that outlines in detail exact measures, phasing and methods of erosion control to be implemented. The submittal shall include, but not be limited to, temporary sedimentation basins, materials to be utilized, locations, temporary turf establishment and phasing. Due to the grades around the site and the "no-outlet" condition of the pond, the erosion control around the pond is extremely critical during the construction and until turf is established on the site. As such, the applicant's engineer shall revise the grading and erosion control plan to address this critical area of the project. Note: Standard silt fence shall NOT be acceptable for erosion protection around the pond. At a minimum, heavy-duty polypropylene silt fence, in conjunction with other measures, shall be required. Revise the grading plan to include a permanent erosion control blanket, (Enkamat, Miramat, NAG C350, etc.) shall be placed in defined 1 O-foot-wide emergency overflow swales on the pond banks between the pond and the low points in the street. Revise the grading and erosion control plan to address the temporary and permanent turf establishment around the pond. Once grades have been established around the pond, the banks around the pond shall be immediately seeded. Erosion control matting and blankets, as well as intermediate silt fencing shall be placed on all slopes 3:1 or greater 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. Appropriate upland and lowland mixtures shall be used in specific locations. Great care shall be taken to ensure that other temporary seed mixtures used in the rest of the site shall not contaminate the native areas with evasive vegetation. Seeding and mulching of the site shall be done in phases to secure the site and shall be completed with in 14-days of the completion of the grading. 36 10. 11. 2:1 slopes shall NOT be permitted on the banks leading into the pond. Revise the grading plan to utilize natural retaining wall systems to maintain 3:1 embankment slopes, with wall stepping not to exceed 2-feet vertical. Consider implementing short boulder retaining walls into the landscaping around the pond to achieve the 3:1 slopes. 2:1 slopes shall NOT be permitted above retaining walls unless a certified structural design detail is submitted. Revise the grading plan to eliminate a 2:1 slope on the north east side of the main entrance. Revise the grading plan to indicate that the retaining walls will be constructed as part of the mass grading of the project. Retaining walls are typically the responsibility of the developer, unless there will be only one builder on the development and the developer is assuming responsibility for the builder's work. The grading plan shall be revised so all other slopes designed to be steeper than 2:1, have a detailed plan for erosion protection and permanent turf establishment and landscaping (including the use of no-maintenance landscape materials). The grading plan shall be revised to include a permanent 4-foot high, black-vinyl, chain link fence around the pond. The location of the fence should be approximately along the 850 contour. This fence shall have three removable accesses (gates or sections) located next to the storm outlets at the north, south and east sides of the pond. Street: Based on the soils report and the soils encounter at boring No. 7, roadwork at the site will likely encounter variability in the soil conditions. The contractor shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Analysis report by STS Consultants, dated 11/29/2001. Roll testing of the subgrade and density testing of the trench and embankment work shall be carefully followed and strictly administered. 2. Submit detailed plan and profile sheets for the street and storm sewer design. Submit a drawing of the typical street sections. Revise the typical section to show a turf boulevard and the sidewalk no closer than 5-feet behind the back of curb. The embankment can slope away from the edge of the sidewalk at a 3:1 slope. Revise the plans to include a traffic guardrail or another means of vehicle protection across from the bottom of the main entrance to the development. The guardrall should also include a bicycle safe railing on the sidewalk side of the guardrail. 37 Revise the plans to make the street two-way. Where it is desired to have parking the street width must be 28-feet-wide. Where space and grade will not allow parking, the width can be narrowed to 24-feet. Drainage/Storm Sewer: Revise the plans to include the following: Provide at a minimum, three additional catch basin structures at the main entrance to the development. Two catch basin inlets should be placed at the bottom of the main entrance to pick up any flow before it enters the street around the pond (ring road). A third catch basin inlet shall be placed on Parkway Drive on the uphill side of the proposed street entrance. Revise the plans to include a new storm pipe installed to direct flow from the existing structure on Parkway Drive to the proposed structure. The existing storm pipe, draining from Parkway Drive to the pond, should be removed or abandoned as necessary. Revise the plans to include a storm water force main and pumping inlet structure. A storm water force main shall be located in the street right-of-way of the main entrance between the pond and Parkway Drive. An inlet structure shall be designed such that a temporary pump can be installed and connected to the force main by the city if needed in the future. The force main shall be directed to either a connection structure or a new storm sewer structure adjacent to Parkway Drive. The purpose of the connection structure is to connect temporary piping to the proposed force main during pumping. The city is also investigating the feasibility to provide a gravity flow connection from Parkway Drive to the east. The final engineering plans shall be revised to correspond to the findings of this study. The developer's agreement shall provide for some cost participation of a gravity line between Parkway Drive and T. H. 61 if the city determines it to be feasible. Ifa gravity storm sewer line is constructed by the city, if would likely be done in conjunction to the lift station relocation. Revise the elevation of the culvert located at the east side of the site, such that it may pond a small amount of runoff between the inlet and the property line. (i.e.: · place the inlet at approximately 850.5 or higher). The locations of the sump manholes are acceptable. Revise the plan to include a sump manhole on the revised line coming from the main entrance. Submit a detail of the sump manholes with the revised plans. Sump structures shall be a minimum 48" diameter with a minimum 36" deep sump. 5. Submit plan and profile designs of the street and storm sewer. Include profiles of sanitary sewer and water utilities to illustrate possible conflicts. 6. Revise plans to show location of perforated PE drainpipe to be used. 38 Sanitary Sewer: 1. Submit plan and profile designs of the sanitary sewer and water main. Include storm sewer profiles to illustrate possible conflicts. Include benchmarks on the plan. Revise sanitary sewer design, if necessary to correspond with the relocation of the proposed lift station. At this time, the city is having a feasibility study prepared for the relocation of the sanitary lift station. Right now it appears that the location of the lift station will be in the general vicinity to where it is shown in the plans. 39 Attachment 15 January 17, 2002 Kenneth Roberts - Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Kenneth, Thank you for the opportunity to express comments regarding the proposed - Carriage Homes of Maple Hills - Parkway Drive. First, let me make my opinion clear of being opposed to this development. Maple Hills Golf Course has been part of Maplewood for 50 or so years, and being one of the few remaining open areas left in the city, would be a shame to allow development of 100 or so Townhomes. Regardless of the size and cost of these Townhomes, more people mean more traffic and crime, and the somewhat isolated setting, which attracted my family here, becomes less isolated. What used to be a few houses on a side street surrounded by parks and a golf course with little, if any crime, now is vulnerable, due to easier access to our homes fi.om the proposed Townhome area, as well as, a potential lowering of the estimated market value in my home because of this vulnerability. Another issue I would like to discuss is the expected increase of traffic along Highway 61/Arcade, onto Parkway Drive. Today, Parkway Drive going onto Highway 61 backs up nearly to Larpenteur Ave. at times during the morning and afternoon commute times. It also becomes difficult during these timefi.ames to exit fi.om my house onto Parkway Drive (Taking a Right!), due to the traffic coming south from Highway 61. Adding another 200 or so vehicles coming in and out of the proposed entry on Parkway Drive increases the likelihood of accidents for cars entering/exiting the development, and to/fi.om Highway 61, due to frequent stopping and slowing down for cars going into the development. Kenneth, I appreciate the oppommity to 'sound off' and hope you and your peers consider the above comments during future discussions. I will plan to attend any public meetings I am able to. Kurt W TryggkDC~) 1791 Arcade St Maplewood, MN 55109 40 Attachment 16 /16/2002 TO: KENNETH ROBERTS FROM: LAWRENCE P. HUSTEN AND SHEILA J. HUSTEN 735B E. LARPENTEUR BENNINGTON WOODS MAPLEWOOD, MN 5517 PHONE 651-772-1362 DEAR MR. ROBERTS: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS/IDEAS ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER OF 6/8/2002.. LET US SAY FIRST THAT OUR OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS THAT IT WOULD REMAIN A GOLF COURSE OR PERHAPS A PARKLAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. WE'LL ADMIT THAT OUR VIEWS ARE SOMEWHAT SELF-SERVING, SINCE WE'VE LIVED HERE 18 YEARS AND HAVE GROWN TO LOVE THE AREA AS IT IS, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMBIENCE WOULD BE THE SAME WITH 100 HOUSING UNITS DESTROYINGTHE LANDSCAPE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY THIS PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED. NUMBER ONE, IT IS A HAVEN FOR MIGRATORY BIRDS. IN THE SPRING AND THE FALL THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF GEESE,, DUCKS AND OTHER WATERFOWL WHO COME TO GRAZE ON THE ACRES OF GRASSLANDS. NUMBER TWO. OUR PROPERTY AND ALMOST ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES DRAIN ON TO THE GOLF COURSE. WEARE WONDERING WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE GET ONE OF THOSE OCCASSIONAL" GULLY WASHERS" OF 3 OR MORE INCHES. WE CAN TELL YOU THAT MORE THAN ONCE IN THE PAST 18 YEARS WEVE SEEN THE GOLF COURSE 2-3 FT. DEEP IN WATER. NUMBER THREE. WE HAVE WORKED HARD AS A COMMUNITY TO MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. AS A RESULT, OUR HOMES ARE HIGHLY DESIRABLE. WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ENHANCE THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES: IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE WILL ALMOST SURELY OCCUR. IN ADDITION, ASSESMENTS FOR SEWERS ETC., WHICH ARE ALMOST ALWAYS A BY-PRODUCT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, WOULD PUT A SERIOUSr,,~,~,,~-~':"^*'~"^' BURDEN ON BENNINGTON WOODS RESIDENTS, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE ELDERLY. I .~.iw*" ~'oun~-'~ ~H~i. ?-.:-, ~- .~.~-* ~ v,~'~ ~ '~,~,~ REASONS I COULD GIVE, BUT I'VE PROBABLY OVERSTAYED MY WELCOME, AND i'M SURE OTHERS WiLL ARTICULATE ~--~,~. ,,,~,--~. -- ,,,~, , ,~, ~,,~ ~,,~,~ ~u,~,v YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING US TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS. SINCERELY. I A,,,,R,_r,~CE.& SHEILA HUSTEN 41 JAN 2 ? 2002 ,,. Attachment 17 I am sorry to see any development of the Maple Hills golf course. However, if it must be developed, I would very much like to see Bridgeland Development be required to plant a hedge along the southern property line between Bennington Woods and the Maple Hills development. A hedge (please, not a fence) might restore some of the privacy we have had for the last 15 years and give the illusion of restoring some the natural view we will be losing. I would also like to propose that building 3 along the southern edge of the site be reduced to a 6-unit building. This would provide for alittle more open land between Bennington Woods homes and the proposed new construction. With the current plan, that building will only be slightly more than 50 ft. from the ~ont living room windows of the home owners at 735 Larpenteur. I drove up to Hugo to Carriage Homes of Bald Eagle Lake to see what the buildings would be like. There are no 1 O-unit buildings at the Bald Eagle site and the 8-unit buildings are very large. Any additional open land that can be created between current homes and the new homes will be good for both the current residents and the future residents of Maplewood. Thank you for sending out this survey. I look forward to hearing from you when any meetings with the city are determined regarding this proposed development. 42 Attachment 18 MoCULLOUGH, SMITH, WRIGHT & KEMPE, D. PATRICK McCULLOUGH*t JEFFREY M. SMITH DIANNE WRIGHT**t JOHN R. KEMPE LISA WATSON CYR LAYNE 13. JEFFERY WRITER'S E-MAIL: d pmcculloug h~ mswklaw.com Attorneys at Law Maple Hills Office Center 905 Parkway Drive St. Paul, Minnesota 55106-1098 (651) 772-3446 Fax (651) 772-2177 January 15, 2002 Office Manager MARGARETA. CORBO Law Clerk MORGAN A. DUSHANE Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Re: Proposed Carriage Homes of Maple Hills - Parkway Drive Dear Mr. Roberts: My wife Marlys and I own the office building known as 905 Parkway Drive and which is contiguous to the proposed development. We have met with Mr. Steve Nelson on more than one occasion, we have corresponded with him and we have talked with him on the phone. He has been very cooperative, forthright and revealing to us as to the plans. Obviously, we will miss the golf course which has been a beautiful scenic site behind my office for over 30 years but, of course, people have a right to utilize their property as they see fit within the regulations of the applicable governmental authorities. Mr. Nelson has provided me with a preliminary plat together with a preliminary draft of an agreement regarding the property that would be deeded to my wife and I. After consulting with others smarter than myself I determined that it would be difficult for some of the delivery trucks or larger trucks, especially in the winter time, to make the turn by the carport to access the back of the building unless a couple more feet were added to the northeast proposed property line and the northwest proposed property line. the entire northwest boundary. I sent a letter to Mr. Steve Nelson on that subject and he immediately called and left me a voice mail that he believed that that would be accomplished. He has since redrafted the plans showing two feet more on the entire northeast boundary and * Board Certi~ed Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and the Minnesota State Ba~ Association ..... t Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers **Also Admitted in Wisconsin Kenneth Roberts 01/1 5/O2 Page No. 2 I also discussed with Mr. Nelson the necessity of removing all of the light standards and their bases that are on the boulevard which are quite old and especially after the wind knocked one of them down and took out the electricity in the area a year a go. Mr. Nelson agreed that they would do that. I also asked Mr. Nelson about the "green area" between the development and the entire boundaries of our property and he assured me that they would be responsible for making sure that that green area was properly prepared and completed such as sod, etc., and at no cost to me. It_appears that Mr. N~!son and his company are quite professional and again, although I really hate to see the golf course go, I am at least gratified that the housing project will be coordinated and completed on a professional basis. The only question or concern that I have and I believe Mr. Nelson already answered it but perhaps you could confirm the same and that is regarding parking. I want to make sure that the land area that is left is at least sufficient and then some for the required parking spaces relative to the number of square feet in our building. Could you please let me know. Thank you. DPM/bjb Cc: Steve Nelson Very truly yours, McCU£'LOUGH, SMITH, WRIGHT & KEMPE ..:'; :" ,'" ...... "'7 ? ,,~:-'D. ,~r~gh 44 Attachment 19 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bfidgeland Development Company, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to Maple Hills Golf Course property for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD north of Parkway Ddve and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61 in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 17-29-22-44-0009.) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 4, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On February 25, 2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present 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. 45 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) At least fifty (50) percent of project area (10.25 acres) remaining as open space. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (3) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide. (4) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. 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. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills Townhome PUD shall be: ao Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: none e. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 5 feet to a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the town houses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. 6. 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. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002. 46 Attachment 20 STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson, of Bddgeland Development Company, requested a variation from the city code. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD that is north of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61. WHEREAS, the partial legal description for this property is: In the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of Sec. 17, T.29, R.22, Ramsey County, MN. (PIN 17-29- 22-44-0009). WHEREAS, Section 29-53 of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets have 60 feet of right-of-way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a local street in the development with 50-foot-wide right- of-ways and reduced street pavement widths. WHEREAS, this reqUires a variation of ten feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 4, 2002. The planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February 25, 2002. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and to present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above- described variation subject to the city engineer approving the construction plans. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 47 Attachment 21 STREET PAVEMENT WIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson of Bridgeland Development Company requested a variation from the city code. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD that is north of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61. WHEREAS, the partial legal description for this property is: In the southeast % of the southeast 1/4 of Sec. 17, T.29, R.22, Ramsey County, MN. (PIN 17-29-22-44-0009) WHEREAS, Section 29-52(a)(9) of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets shall be 32 feet in width, measured between faces of curbs. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 24-foot-wide public street with no parking on both sides of the street. WHEREAS, this requires a variation of eight feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 4, 2002. The planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February 25, 2002. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and to present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above- described variation subject to no parking on the street that is less than 28 feet wide and the developer paying the city for the cost of no-parking signs. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 48 Attachment 22 NO PARKING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood has approved a residential PUD and preliminary plat known as the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. WHEREAS, the developer wants to have reduced street right-of-way widths, reduced street pavement widths and reduced pdvate ddveway widths in this development. WHEREAS, the city has approved reduced street right-of-way widths, reduced street pavement widths and reduced driveway widths in the development, subject to on-street parking restrictions. WHEREAS, Section 29-52(b) of the city code allows variations from the city code standards if they do not affect the general purpose of the city code. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Maplewood prohibits the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of all public streets and driveways less than 28 feet wide and prohibits parking on one side of the public streets and driveways that are 28 feet to 32 feet wide in the Cardage Homes of Maple Hills PUD north of Parkway Ddve in Section 17-29-22. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2002. 49 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT January 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The planning commission has a vacancy created by the resignation of Jack Frost. I have attached a map of where the current planning commission members live, a map of where the candidates live and the candidate's applications. (See pages 2-13.) BACKGROUND The planning commission's rules of procedure state that the commission shall recommend candidates based on qualifications and a representative geographical distribution of members. RECOMMENDATION Interview the applicant's for the planning commission vacancy and then rank them as a recommendation to the city council. After the interviews, the city council should appoint a person to serve on the planning commission. This person would fill the unfinished term on the planning commission that would end on December 31, 2002. kr/p:misc/pcappt.02 Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Membership Map 2. Planning Commission Applicant's Location Map 3. Five Applications Attachment 1 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ~ Courlty ol' Romsey, Minne$0t(3 ~ (6.51) 770-4500 55109 LEGEND MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION L~orraine B. Fischer, Chair 1812 Fumess Street aaplewood MN 55109 le Trippler 1201 Junction Avenue aaplewood MN 55109-3433 ul Mueller 1820 Onacrest Court Maplewood MN 55117 ~)ary Dierich 2624 Promontory Place Maplewood MN 55119 (~Matt Ledvina 1173 Lakewood Dr S Maplewood MN 55119 )William Rossbach 1386 County Road C Maplewood, MN 55109 (-~)Gary Pearson 1209 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 (~ric Ahlness 2062 English Street Maplewood MN 55109 r- CITY OF MAPLEWOOD County of Ramsey. Minnesota (651) 770-4500 55109 LEGEND PLANNING 1. COMMISSION APPLICANTS Julie Lin Beitler 1915 Price Ave. Maplewood, MN 55109 Richard Curde 1937 West Kenwood Drive Maplewood, MN 55117 Larry Hendrickson 1930 Price Ave. Maplewood, MN 55109 Diana Longrie-Kline 1778 DeSoto Street Maplewood, MN 55117 Jackie Monahan-Junek 2430 Larpenteur Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55109 Attachment 2 2O NAME ADDRESS. PHONE NO. Work: IOi ~.- CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM Attachment 3 DATE ZIP_ ~ ~ IOq 1) 2) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? !\[ r'- ~) YY~OK'T~ Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes __ No V/ Comments: ~1L',~-~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) __ Community Design Review Board __ Park & Recreation Commission __ Housing & Redevelopment Authority V/' Planning Commission __ Human Relations Commission __ Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) ~st other organizations or clubs in th~ Community in which you havp been or ar~ an active pa~icipant: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMS\BRD&COMM.~,PL 4 10/96 JULIE BEITLER 1915 Price Ave Maplewood, MN 55109 651-748-0233 OBJECTIVE: To apply my land use planning and GIS skills in a volunteer position. EDUCATION: 2000-present Masters Of GIS (MGIS) expected graduation 2003 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 1994-1998 B.S., Land Use Planning Minor: GIS/Cartography University of Wisconsin, River Falls 1990-1994 Osceola High School - Osceola, WI. COMPUTER SKILLS: Arc/Info Arc/View MapInfo Smallworld IDRISI Office 2000 Windows NT WORK EXPERIENCE: Nov 99-present Reliant Energy Minnegasco, Minneapolis, MN Senior GIS Specialist. Data conversion, raster scanning/placement, extensive research/analysis of gas facilities, interview committee July 98-present The Olive Garden, Maplewood, MN Server. Utilize public relation skills by serving customers and cooperating with other servers June 98-Nov 98 University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI Intern position. Conducted a Cost of community Service Study, data collection, and data management May 95-Oct 95 Douglas-Hanson Co.,Inc., Hammond, WI Oct 96-May 98 Factory laborer. Acquired skills of accuracy and time management May 97-Sept 97 Lake KountrF Landscaping, Osceola, WI Maintain nursery stock and assist customers with landscape designs Sept 94-May 95 Oct 95-Oct 96 Dig Mart, Hammond, WI Cashier/Cook. Duties included: balancing cash register, assisting customers, stocking shelves, inventory, and opening/closing store Jan 95-May 95 University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI Greenhouse Work Study. Duties included: maintain/transplant strawberry hybrids, organize information, and field work CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM ADDRESS / ~ ~.~'~ PHONE NO, Wo~: DATE 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood?./c~.../O ~ ~Lz4~.-~ 2) VVill other cor~mitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes ~ Comments: No 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) ~ Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission ~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority X Planning Commission Human Relations Commission ~ Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED, 6 NAME \--.¢~'~.~7 \~/'-.,, \ ,30 PHONE NO. Work:~,5'l- -l'5(.¢- ~lc)~ Home: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM % ZIP DATE How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? I ~ /V 6-~ S 1) No¥ 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes Comments: 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) _ ~ Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission _~ Housing & ~edevelopment Authority _/x( Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Oommission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or commission's scope of responsibilities?, 5) List other organizations dr clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active pa~icipant: 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board ,or Commission? . , ' ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: , ' . THE INFORMATION CON, TAINED, IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC .... 10/96 8 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM PHONE NO. Work: ~(,~' "'~4f'(" [ 5 ~ [ Home: (o 5 [- "Jr'~'/-/r'- DATE z,P 55 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? l g q f"5 .__~,/ } 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes ~ No ~ Comments: 3) On which BOard or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) ~-~{ Community Design Review Board ~ Park & ReCreation Commission ~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority I~¢' Planning Commission ~ Human Relations Commission ~ Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 'nq~l ~t~ ~ ~ . -.." ~y woul~ou UKe tO se~ on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONA~COMM ENTS: u ~ -- ~ THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. ~ORM$~B~D&COMM.APL 9 10/96 r ............ T ....... T'~ :t ................................T ........ ~ ............... ~ .... T .... CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME ADDRESS Jackie MopahanrJunek ,, 2430 E. Larpenteur Ave., Maplewood, MN PHONE NO. Work: 651-730-2722 Home: 651-777-6384 DATE ZIP 55109~.t ll/l~/01 1) How long have you lived in the City of Mapiewood? 39 ),,ears 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes __ No X Comments: 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) · Community Design Review Board ; Park & Recreation Commission __ Housing & Redevelopment Authority .-X :.:. Planning Commission __ Human Relations Commission __ Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? ~eu attached. 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: See attached. 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ..S~e attached. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: See resume attached. THE INFORMA T/ON CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CIA SS/F/ED A S PUBLIC· FORMS\BRD&OOMM.APL ~ 0 10/96 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? I am interested in land use, zoning, the city's goal in the preservation of wetlands and open space, and the interaction of the Watershed(s) with the City of Maplewood. 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant. I am currently the President of the Beaver Lake Elementary Parent Teacher Organization (PTO). In addition to focusing on parent involvement in their child's education, I am also pushing for the school to get more involved in community outreach activities (e.g., visiting senior residences during the Holidays; providing stuffed animals for non-profit organizations). I also volunteer in my son's classroom at Beaver Lake and help my son create art projects that he can bring to class for his classmates to participate in. I also assist with the Beaver Lake Tiger Cubs den activities. 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? I believe that my personal commitment and professional experience, along with my relationship management and decision-making skills, and my team player attitude will allow me to be an asset to this commission and to the City of Maplewood. 11 JACQUELINE L. MONAHAN-JUNEK 2430 East Larpenteur Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 777-6384 (Home) (612) 539-9080 (Pager) Birdymj~aol.com (E-mail) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Sept. 2001 - Present CITY OF OAKDALE, MN - Administrative Intern 1996 - 2000 IMATION CORPORATION, Oakdale, MN Product/Marketing Manager, Graphic Arts Film, Plates and Chemistry · Negotiated private label product supply agreements/contracts that resulted in improved pricing leverage and increased operating income to business unit. · Structured and deployed marketing plan to launch a private label product, including but not limited to business model definition/implementation, channel definition/implementation, creation of comprehensive marketing materials, pricing strategy and price lists, training and post-launch review. · Established and maintained strategic OEM partner relationships within the graphic arts market place. · Ability to work effectively with management and staff at all levels of experience and disciplines. · Planned and conducted competitive product, pricing, market and comprehensive financial (P&L) analysis. · Responsible for forecasting and implementing segment and channel strategies. · Evaluated new business opportunities - competitive products, pricing, market and P&L analysis. · Established Internet marketing through website content creation resulting in increased product awareness. · Cross-functional team champion for Sales and Operations Planning process; instrumental in reducing product dead/excess inventory to targeted levels that resulted in business unit attaining corporate non-working inventory levels. Supported international colleagues, field sales representatives, corporate account representatives and field service with product/promotion information, presentation materials, decision- making guidance regarding individual customer profitability, and on-site customer visits. Primary product representative interfacing with international colleagues, laboratory, management, finance, legal, sales and OEM partners, ensuring on- time completion of projects. Utilized Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Lotus Notes. Product Development Manager, Halftone Digital/Continuous Tone Proofing · Developed and maintained relationships with strategic OEM partners. · Created product forecasting spreadsheet tool and implemented Sales and Operations Planning for product lines. · Del'reed sales representative training curriculum and delivered product training. · Compiled product summaries, development timelines, beta test plans, and product launch plans for review with strategic OEM partners. 12 JACQUELINE L. MONAHAN-JUNEK (Page 2) · Responsible for delivering to management product development timelines (life cycle planning process), business function, financial and P&L improvement plans. · Extensive on-going communication with field sales organization and strategic OEM partners. · Primary product representative interfacing with international colleagues, laboratory, management, financial, legal, plant locations, sales and OEM partners. · Presented and participated at various meetings: National Sales Meeting, Channel meetings, Management meetings, and strategic OEM partner meetings. Marketing, Graphic Arts Film, Plates and Chemistry · Major contributor during comprehensive financial analysis that resulted in significant profitability improvement to product line. · Lead role in implementing pilot program for Sales and Operations Planning. · Transitioned product line from manufactured to vendor sourced while maintaining profitable revenues. · Developed and maintained strategic relationship with vendor source. · Developed, produced and implemented all sales tools, sales and channel communications tactics, sales/channel product training for an innovative print plate technolOgy. Primary product representative interfacing with international colleagues, laboratory, management, finance, plant locations, sales and OEM partners. 1989 - 1996 3M COMPANY, Maplewood, MN Marketing Communications, Printing and Publishing Systems · Designed and implemented all aspects of Printing Division tradeshows, including but not limited to booth design, product content, graphics, display house activities, booth expectations, installation/dismantle, while adhering to budget guidelines. Demonstrated products to customers and channel partners at tradeshows. · Managed creation of and implemented product label requirements for the Printing Division (including interaction and coordination with package engineering, legal, regulatory, toxicology, plant locations and government agencies). Managed adherence to corporate branding policies. · Organized all aspects of content, writing, layout, editing and production of projects that supported business' channel organization while maintaining adherence to planned budgets. · Co-editor of Printing Division newsletter - organized all aspects of content, writing, layout, editing and production of printed newsletter. EDUCATION Metropolitan State University, St. Paul, MN · Currently pursuing Master's Degree in Public Admnistration Concordia University, St. Paul, MN BA, Business with concentration in Finance · Graduated Magna Cum Laude Inver Hills Community College, Inver Grove Heights, MN AAS, Legal Assistant · GPA: 3.6 13