Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 15, 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. March 18, 2002 b. Apdl 1,2002 5. Public Headng a. Gladstone Park Addition 1. Land Use Plan Amendment- P (Park) to R-1 (Single Dwellings) 2. Vacations 3. Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. Beaver Lake Townhomes 1. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) 2. Street right-of-way and easement vacations 3. Preliminary plat b. Resolution of Appreciation - Eric Ahlness 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Apdl 8 Council Meeting: Ms. Diedch b. April 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina c. May 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 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, MARCH '18, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner CommIssioner CommissIoner Staff Present: Staff Absent: Eric Ahlness Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present until 8:05 p.m. Present Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner R°ssbach moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for March 4, 2002. The commission requested the following changes to the minutes. On page 9, in the second paragraph, in the third sentence, it should read he would recommend to staff and to the city council that if the can et those two arties to be willin sellers at a reasonable cost to include them in a broader development. Another change is in the third paragraph in the fourth sentence the word should be tie_._r (,not pier). On page 13, in paragraph five, change the abstention to Nayfor Mr. Ledvina. In paragraph six change the sentence to read h~ voted Na..~L.instead of he voted with an abstention_. On page 14, in the third and the fifth paragraph, change the wording to read will represent the city council meeting to read will represent the commission at the city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -2- Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the March 4, 2002 minutes with the proposed changes. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstentions- Ahlness, Fischer and Monahan-Junek V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Maplewood Mall Area Traffic stUdy Mr. Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer reported that the city council has established, as one of their top priorities, a resolution of traffic concerns around the Maplewood Mall area. On May 29, 2001, the city council authorized a study of the traffic concerns in the mall area. The study recommendations were presented to a joint meeting of the planning commission and city council on December 17, 2001. Direction was given by the city council to present the study findings to the public and implement the study into the city's comprehensive plan. The public meetings have been held and a public hearing has been called for the planning commission to consider adoption of the final report. Mr. Ahl stated that staff is recommending the commission to adopt the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It has a transportation section and staff suggests that this plan be adopted as an appendix to that section. It provides guidance to the northern portion of the community and to the area surrounding the Maplewood Mall. And should be the guide and construction plan for a minimum often years for the area as they look at the various improvements. Mr. Ahl said that one of the recommendations of the report is to extend County Road D westerly from Hazelwood Street. The new roadway would be a reestablishment of County Road D but would likely be required in a new location at T.H. 61. The current County Road DfT. H. 61 intersection is too close to the 1-694/T.H. 61 intersection to operate effectively. The study suggests that a realigned County Road D should intersect with T.H. 61 south of the current location, approximately one-half way between existing County Road D and Beam Avenue. The County Road D alignment would likely intersect with Hazelwood Street at its current location. An alignment study to determine the most appropriate roadway location, intersection alignment and property acquisition needs is recommended within the next 6-8 months. This alignment study would include a review and update of the land use within the area. Mr. Ahl introduced Mr. Karl Keel, the consultng engineer for URS who prepared this study and presented it to the commission. Mr. Keel gave a presentation of the Maplewood Mall Traffic Study that was similarly done in December of 2001. It consisted of a background of what the study contained and a simulation of the traffic, which was one of the tools used in putting together the report itself. They looked at an introduction and summary of the actual demonstration and talked about the next steps to take, many of which have already been discussed. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 03-18-02 Mr. Keel said traffic in this area has been a concern for many years. In doing research they found reports that dated back more than 25 years that identified traffic issues in 'the mall area. Currently there is no reference to remedies for traffic in this area as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The traffic in the area has been identified by the City Council as a top priority so it is an important project for the city. Mr. Keel stated this project began back in May of 2001 when the City Council authorized this study. In July 2001, there was an advisory panel formed to help guide the study and it was completed in November 2001. The advisory committee is made up of representatives of all the government agencies that have jurisdiction of roadways or an interest in roadways in the area including MnDot, Ramsey County, Metro Transit, City of Vadnais Heights, City of North St. Paul, City of VVhite Bear Lake, and the City of Maplewood. The study area is rather large. On the north is Buerkle Road, on the west is Highway 61, on the east is McKnight Road, and on the south is Highway 36. They also looked at the potential development of the 85-acre parcel owned by the Hajicek family that is to the west of the mall. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Keel if closing County Road D access to VVhite Bear Avenue was ever considered. Mr. Keel said at one time access was shut down for one week but due to the volume of complaints the access was re-opened. The ultimate solution would be to add two left turn lanes on eastbound County Road D at White Bear Avenue to help move vehicles through that intersection. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Keel if it was possible to hook up highway 694 to County Road D? Mr. Keel said they looked at a number of alignments and how that connection would occur. One would be to connect at the off ramps at Highway 61 and highway 694 that would basically provide a direct way onto County Road D from the Highway 61 interchange. That had some advantages and disadvantages. You would have to install a full-to-diamond interchange. All the movements would be on the west side of Highway 61. MnDot has some concerns about those types of interchanges and they are not as accommodating for trucks as some of the other interchanges are. The alignment study would have to determine what the most appropriate connection to Highway 61 would be. Commissioner Rossbach stated that Mr. Keel mentioned a bridge over Highway 36 at Hazelwood Avenue. Where would that come into the equation? Mr. Keel said they looked at what impact a bridge may have on traffic as another way to get out of the mall area on Hazelwood Avenue. It was so far away from Maplewood Mall that it had almost no impact on the traffic in the mall area itself. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Keel if they looked at why all these cars are on this stretch? He asked if this comes into play with the projections on what the traffic will be in 20107 He is assuming these cars are there because of the mall. He asked what would happen if people started buying on the internet and stopped going to the malls and the impact that would have on the traffic? ............... i F ..... T ................... Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 Am Mr. Keel said he would suspect that if that were the case you would see traffic at the malls going down. Commissioner Trippler said the other thing that he found interesting is the program shown. He said it presupposes that everything is pretty much static and that situations won't change. Shopping patterns won't change and the travel times won't change. He stated URS did not take a look at changes in the overall pattern of what causes the problem today? Mr. Keel said that is correct. This is basically on the general travel patterns that have occurred for many years. Mr. Ahl said in the Comprehensive Plan there is a document that tends to try to answer some of the questions that Mr. Trippler asked. One of the guidants that they looked at out 5,10,20 years and working with the Metropolitan Council and some of the trends that people are seeing are really going to see an expansion of the types of things being talked about. In order to project in the future they tend to look back and see the trends over the past ten-to-twenty years. He said one of the biggest trends people have seen in the past twenty years are the number of trips generated by the single-family homes. Twenty years ago homes did not have very many three- car garages being built, now it's the standard. Mr. Ahl said what they are seeing in traffic generation numbers is that people are driving more. He commented that before families had one car to share sometimes two cars to share. Now everyone has their own cars because there are two parents working in the househOld and kids are driving. The malls are providing more and more services which is causing more and more traffic. Commissioner Trippler asked what types of assumptions did they make when looking at the Hajicek property? Mr. Keel said they looked at a number of land-use scenarios ranging from big box retail to all residential. They talked about what would be a reasonable use for that property that would be relatively Iow traffic volume. The volume of traffic generated from that site has a definite impact on the adjoining properties. Commissioner Ahlness said his biggest concern is circling around the White Bear Avenue enlarging the bridge there. It seems rather a stretch he said to spend 8 million dollars to provide more parking area for vehicles. When the MnDot expressed in the meeting the other night in the long range plans to increase that to three lanes anyway, and at that point they can increase that little to no cost. What is the net effect of the White Bear Avenue changes verses the County Road D at Highway 617 Mr. Keel said the larger impact project is the White Bear Avenue project. Commissioner Ahlness said he knows Mr. Keel said that MnDot does not like to have other exits off that but has anyone looked at something coming into Southlawn Avenue off of Highway 694 or any other exits that would also have a large effect on the area, but would not be such an expensive change? Mr. Keel said they did look at a slip ramp down to County Road D that started east of Highway 61 they found that did not have as large of an impact as realigning County Road D. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 03-18-02 Mr. Ahl said he wanted to make clear that the project costs that are shown in this report are not proposed to be totally paid for by the taxpayers of Maplewood. VVhen the city talks about those types of projects it is not something that the city would go at alone however, the format that the city needs to be in to get those types of dollars the city needs to get federal funding, MnDot funding, Ramsey County funding are all types of these improvements. The only way to get the funding is to begin the planning process now. It is a five to ten year process to get that done. Right now MnDot is projecting a shortfall in the 15 billion dollar category over the next 20 years. Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, the owner of Hillcrest Animal Hospital at 1320 East County Road D, addressed the commission. She is generally in favor of this plan. As a business owner at the corner of County Road D and Highway 61, she would like to see County Road D go through and have traffic go that direction for her animal hospital. Her main concern in watching this proceed is Where exactly the reroute of County Road D is going to be. Mr. Ahl said they need to have those discussions over the next four-to-five months and those decisions are very critical. Mr. Michael Winicki, a business owner on County Road D east of Highway 61 addressed the commission. He said as a landowner he wanted to know if the impact on landowners has been addressed in any way? Specifically if the city is talking about rerouting County Road D will that restrict access to his property and will they have to change access to their property in any manner? He asked if there would be any future restrictions on the use of their land as far as the type of business they operate and type of tenants they have? Mr. Ahl said they do anticipate trying to explore that. Obviously some changes to access are likely for your property, but as the city works through the process those are the types of things that they are going to want to sketch out. He anticipates that the consultant that works on this project will come up with some various options that will be explored. The city is not set on any particular alignment at this time. The city needs to look at the options and the impacts, the land use changes and how that all comes together. The city anticipates having to come back with a couple of options and a recommendation to the planning commission who will then make a recommendation to the city council. Access is a huge issue and the goal is to have an alignment established in September 2002. They don't anticipate major changes in the land-use restrictions. · At the meeting he attended on March 1,2002, the owner of the golf course did announce that the golf course property is now up for sale and has some residential uses in mind. There will be a thought process involved with that. Mr. Ahl said as far as existing land use, one of the major issues that the city looks at is what exists? The city's business owners are very important and that is the whole genesis of this study. The city wants the businesses to thrive and provide a good solid base for the community and he would not anticipate trying to relocate any businesses as part of this study. VI. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -6- Mr. George Suppan, a Maplewood resident at 3050 Hazelwood Avenue addressed the commission. He said he appreciates as a resident in the area, the opportunity for the discussions that were held in early March, as they had a chance to ask questions and offer suggestions. Years ago, before County Road D was increased and turned onto Hazelwood Avenue suggestions at that time were placed to have County Road D continue with possibly a one lane going underneath the bridge so that it would move the traffic from the mall area onto Highway 61 and then out to the freeway. That did not go through and now they could look at that again. Maybe taking the bridge out and moving traffic through there would help the situation. He said the concern at that time was the amount of traffic that would be going past the residents, and over the years as the area developed it has increased and the flow of traffic passed the residents on Hazelwood Avenue. At times the residents cannot get out of their driveways because of the heavy traffic. The traffic is already here today, forget about the year 2010, we have the problem today. Mr. Suppan said as a resident in that area he and others are in favor of the traffic study and for people to take a real serious look at this study for the projects that are being recommended. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommends to the City Council adoption of the resolution in the staff report adopting the Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study as a referenced appendix to the Transportation Section of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, and directing an alignment study to be conducted for the extension of County Road D, westerly, and potentially southerly from Hazelwood Street to T.H. 61 and eventually returning northerly, west of T.H. 61, to the original County Road D alignment, and, further, that a comprehensive review of the area land use, adjacent to the new proposed roadway alignment, be conducted prior to the final roadway alignment being determined. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Mr. Roberts said this item will be presented to the city council on April 8, 2002. NEW BUSINESS a. Dearborn Meadow Preliminary Review and Discussion (Castle Avenue) Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to develop a nine-unit housing development called Dearborn Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common areas. To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -7- 3. Lot-area and lot-width variances for each lot. The city code requires that each lot have 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of width. The proposed lots would be 5,200 square feet and would have 80 feet of width at the building line. 4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units and a tenth lot for the common area. 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. Commissioner Trippler asked staff for some assistance with Number 3 in Mr. Ackerman's requests. It states the city code requires that each lot have 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of width. The proposed lots would be 5,200 square feet and would have 80 feet of width at the building line. As he understood the proposal it is going to be a joint ownership. He asked if that would change this request then? Mr. Roberts stated that in a typical R-2 zoning, the lot would layout across the front, it would be 60 feet wide and 6,000 square feet of area. He said what Mr. Ackerman is showing is a property lot that is just bigger than the building pad, so it is smaller than the minimum required by the R-2 zoning code. If Mr. Ackerman were to change the property lines, all the lots would probably meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Roberts said what is most important is the total number of units on the property. If it doesn't make sense than the commission should look at the existing zoning or changing the zoning to something else. Commissioner Trippler said he was hoping that is what staff could come up with. If there is something other than an R-2 that makes sense that is close to the 5,200 square feet he would rather see it rezoned as something else rather than using an R-2 and have it look like the city permitted a use that is less than 50% of what it is supposed to be. Mr. Roberts said there could be an R-3 zoning which does not have a minimum lot size. But the risk that is run is that allows any kind of multiple-family residential. So if the commission changed the zoning and Mr. Ackerman walked away from this site, another plan could come in with 8-unit buildings and if they met the density than they would be allowed to go ahead. Another alternative would be to do an R-2 with a PUD instead of variances. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the commission is looking at the proposal that generally meets the R-2 densities but has a zero lot line ownership pattern with it with the rest of the space being common green space rather than individual lots? Mr. Roberts said correct. He said Mr. Ackerman redrew all of the lot lines and had no common ownership and had individual chunks of land he could meet all of the R-2 code and that may have been an alternative that would be acceptable to the city and to the commission. Mr. Roberts said you have some common ownership and you have an association that hopefully will help guarantee that it is all maintained and cared for. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about the road. She liked the density but she had some concerns after walking the lot. She is concerned about the drainage especially in the section that is to the east of the road going in. It is quite wet there and she is concerned about the turn around and no ability to plow and get emergency vehicles back in there. The two units just to the left of the driveway, was there some reason this was not connected to the common drive she asked? She asked staff how close the class ¥ wetland was to the road? ....... T 1-- ...... -F .......... Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -8- Mr. Roberts said the class V wetland does not require any buffer area. As long as they do not grade into the wetland they will be okay. He said these are the types of things they would be concerned about if they received an application. Commissioner Dierich said that is a pretty level lot and she is thinking to herself that the road is so close she wonders if the road is going to be underwater a lot of the time? Mr. Roberts said if they got an application, that is something staff would take a look at, but the staff is not at that level yet. The reason the driveway was not connected to the common drive is that it won't fit. If they tried to turn it, to make the 30-foot setback off of Castle, you would get into the wetland. If there were only one unit there it would probably fit, but then they are back into trading units in density. Commissioner Pearson had a question regarding the access to Castle. If the applicant is looking at building on the current elevation there is quite an uphill to get onto Castle, will there be any fill or raising of that roadway surface? Mr. Roberts said he is sure there would be but there is not a grading plan yet. Commissioner Mueller asked staff when he was drawing the lot lines on the screen is that does that mean that inside each of those lots than you would have to place a separate building unattached? Mr. Roberts said no. What he was showing is there would be a lot line going right down the center like the center of a duplex or a twin home and that is allowed on R-2 zoning. The common wall of the twin home can be the dividing line. Commissioner Mueller said when he read the report it sounded like there was a section outside of the footprint that was green space that was owned by the lot owner and then there was a space that went outside of the green space that entered a common green space. He asked if the owner is only owning the footprint of the building? Mr. Roberts said yes and a little bit beyond, maybe a foot around. Most of it will be in common ownership, they can put a hose there and that is about it. Commissioner Trippler said to staff, as he remembered in past conversations, there was a concern about the people that live off of Cope Avenue that if this property would be developed they were concerned about the runoff that would go down the hill and into the homeowners homes. He asked if that issue had been addressed at all or is that the next phase? Mr. Roberts said part of that has been looked at, and in the memo handed out, Chris Cavett talked about that a bit. There is a small pond on Cope Avenue. With the current standards that the public works department and the engineering department use, Mr. Cavett notes that they would be looking for more onsite-storm~water control. Mr. Cavett is comfortable that the storm water issues can be addressed. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 03-18-02 Commissioner Dierich said she understands the developer is not very far in the developing stage yet. She thinks the issues of the elevation and the drainage are all going to impact. The developer will have to bring in fill, grade, and raise the level of the homes in order to allow for adequate levels of drainage. She feels the commission needs to talk about the issues so that the developer knows that these things will need to be addressed at the end of his plan. Commissioner Mueller said he is assuming the commission will not get a plan unless the engineers have looked at the water drainage and all of the issues have been addressed? Mr. Roberts said correct. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Mike Ackerman, the developer for Dearborn Meadow, addressed the commission. He said these are all questions that he wanted to be at the meeting for to respond to. One of the biggest problems was with the homeowner next to the drainage pond along Cope Avenue. Some improvements have been made since the past two years to try and alleviate storm water in that area. The water does drain from the east to the west on the site so by putting this road in the middle of this site any water runoff that is coming from the east will mostly be captured by the road. In fact the watershed district was more concerned that he would be cutting off water to the wetland area. He said they felt that the road was catching so much water that now they would have to worry about the wetland area actually being a dryland. In the utility plan for the project there is a catch basin that will be located behind the units on the east that will catch water and it will divert the water to the wetland. When the wetland fills up there will be an outlet on the wetland that will then filter into the storm-sewer system area if all other areas are full. So the wetland area will be used for a filtering device for the storm-water runoff as opposed to a rainwater garden to filter onsite storm water. Mr. Ackerman said the watershed district was fine with using the wetland for storm water. Mr. Ackerman said the density issue is probably higher than the grading issue. To answer Mr. Trippler's question earlier, if you take the entire square footage of the entire site to have nine units instead of ten makes it more that the size or the acreage will more than support in terms of square'footage and lot size. Where the road is located north-to-south there is an existing easement. On Cope Avenue to the south is where the storm sewer and water comes from and currently the water main goes the entire distance of the site from north to south where the road is. No matter what is put on this site, nothing can be built where the road currently is because of the existing water main is in this location. He said that leaves some trouble in how to lay out the site in any type of use. In the previous proposal he had six units on the east side of the road. The applicant's original proposed plat had the utility plan, the grading plan, and it was hard to tell exactly what part was the building and what part was everything else. Mr. Ackerman said that plan did not provide any help in giving the idea of the density there was too much information on it. This time he provided a color drawing of the actual units on the site as well as the aerial photo showing the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood to the south is much more dense than what he is proposing in terms of distances between the units. There is 30 feet between the units and he said that many of the houses in the neighborhoods are at a ten-foot minimum. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -10- Mr. Ackerman said regarding the setbacks, the existing homes on Cope Avenue to the south of this project are on 130-foot deep lots. The current zoning ordinance from the city would allow someone to build structures as close as 26 feet to the rear property line. None of them are but the current zoning of those sites would have allowed them to build that. He said by going down to five units on the east side of the road, the unit on that side is 38 feet from the property line and the unit on the west side of the road would be 31 feet from the other property line. Mr. Ackerman asked why the site cannot be single-family homes? This site has a few unique problems it does not currently have a sanitary sewer service other than what is located at Cope Avenue. It has the easement going through the middle of it and it has the wetland. To make this site into a single-family site will probably be three units on this site. Because of the significant drop on Castle Avenue this makes single-family houses that front Castle Avenue quite hard to construct. It gets better from the road to the east side. Where the wetland is, it starts going up in the other direction again. He said that is one of the reasons why the unit on the northwest corner is facing Castle Avenue. It can't be turned to face the private drive because of the wetland and also because of the grade of the road. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Ackerman if there was about 2,200 square feet in the homes? Mr. Ackerman said the footprint is about 1,415 with unfinished basements. Commissioner Ledvina said he noticed one of the changes in the letter from the previous proposal, was increasing the width of the roadway from 24-feet-to-28 feet that increases the impervious area of the site. He did nst see any commission comments from that at the previous meetings. Mr. Ackerman said the reason was because the city code does not allow parking on the side of a road for a road as narrow as 24 feet. The theory being if a car is parked on the road then there is not enough room for other cars to pass. He said to increase the width of the road allows for parking that is not in the driveways of the units and that was the primary reason for increasing the width of the road. Commissioner Ledvina stated that does increase the amount of impervious space on the site. Mr. Ackerman said yes. Commissioner Ledvina said when he looked at the design he had a strong concern about the position of the buildings on the southern portion of the site. He suggested that those buildings face the north that would put the backyards in the backyards on the existing homes. It would also eliminate perhaps 100 feet of the private drive. At the time the comment was that could not be done because the applicant would have to eliminate a unit or two. He asked Mr. Ackerman if he looked at that in more detail? Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 03-18-02 Mr. Ackerman said one of the biggest problems is the easement traveling through the property. The other problem is if you turned one of the units you would be encroaching on the wetland area. He touched on that question and answer a bit earlier as well. The city doesn't have a zoning designation for this type of development and that is why the way he proposed this development before was to include these variances for the lot sizes. R,3 would allow this type of development the way that it is but as Mr. Roberts said if you change the zoning and he walks away from this site someone else could facilitate an apartment building. He said one of the suggestions was to go with a PUD but Mr. Rossbach said the commission had just talked about not using PUD's. Mr. Ackerman was not sure how to take that. He thinks the way the variance is seems confusing. Commission Dierich asked Mr. Ackerman if the decks on the east side are over the setback? Mr. Ackerman said yes the decks are closer than the 30 feet. Commissioner Mueller said he has not done much with planned unit developments but the city does not have anything that allows this type of thing in the city's codes. His understanding of a PUD is the question of does it fit, does it work, and how is the city going to plan this area to make a planned unit development work? He said personally that is what a PUD is for. Mr. Roberts said one site the commission saw that is similar to this proposal is The Gardens on McMenemy. They are 20 units on a private driveway coming in with two-unit buildings with small properties right around each building pad and a common area that would be owned by an association. Chairperson Fischer asked staff at one point the developer had to have a certain amount of acreage to have a PUD that was 5 acres. She asked what is the minimum acreage on a PUD now? Mr. Roberts said the last time the city amended the PUD ordinance 5 or 6 years ago they dropped the minimum acreage requirement. Chairperson Fischer asked staff that this development would need it then? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff about the water easement. He asked what the width of the water easement was and if it is along the proposed private drive? He asked if it can it be moved? Mr. Ackerman described to the commission where it is located on page 21 of the staff report. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they were looking for a recommendation or was this just for suggestions and input for the benefit of Mr. Ackerman? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Ackerman is here to get input and suggestions. Chairperson Fischer asked what the vote of the commission members would be? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -12- Chairperson Fischer stated that the vote showed six members agreed that there should be a PUD as Mr. Mueller had mentioned. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks about typical design elements for developments that are fitting into where other developments are and he does not think this is optimal. If it is necessary to lose one more unit than that may have to be. If the developer did that perhaps the length of the drive could be shortened. He believes there are drainage issues associated with this development and if you reduced the amount of driveway, the width of the driveway would be changed to 26 feet. He would rather see it be 24 feet, and the issue with the southerly buildings changed. Commissioner Pearson said he still has a concern with how that roadway is going to access Castle Avenue. It is quite a steep area and it could be a problem for people getting out in the winter. He likes the plan overall. He would like to hear some comments from people living in the area and he would guess that people would be in favor of looking at the side of homes rather than the homes being back to back. Mr. Pearson said there would seem to be more privacy there. He sees there would be a line of pine trees to prevent headlight glare. He agrees this is a good candidate for a PUD. Commissioner Trippler said he remembers when this was brought before the commission last year. He had an opportunity to talk with neighbors last year and he can't remember anybody that wasn't in favor of this proposal. They were concerned about having any more storm .water dumped into their yards but that was about all. If the developer accommodated that than that would alleviate his concerns about the development. He really does not like using a' PUD anymore than they have to, but it does seem to fit in here. Commissioner Pearson said he likes the plan and he thinks it fits the cities over all goal for providing more affordable housing than an R-1 development. Commissioner Trippler said he wouldn't want to go to an R-3. He remembers people weren't concerned about double units but they really did not want to see eight, ten, twelve units popping in the middle of R-l's. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked Mr. Ackerman what the selling price will be for the proposed units? Mr. Ackerman said the price will be about $190,000 to $250,000 if they finished the basement off. b. Zoning Code Amendment- BC - M (business commercial modified) District Mr. Roberts stated that last December, Chili's Restaurant constructed a food-to-go counter in their restaurant. To better accommodate their food-to-go customers, Chili's also added an exterior canopy over their side door, a drive-up lane, a call box, and also designated three parking spaces for the food-to-go customers. This curbside service was designed so that a customer who previously called in a food order can drive up to the call box, announce their name, park in one of the designated food-to-go parking spaces, and wait for a h~l~ s employee to deliver their food to their car. Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 03-18-02 The food-to-go counter and curbside facilities were constructed without the required building or zoning approvals. Once the city became aware of Chili's-curbside service, city staff obtained the city attorney's opinion on whether this service is a violation of the city's zoning code. The city attorney states that Chili's-curbside service violates the ordinance only to the extent that Chili's serves food to patrons in their automobiles. Mr. Roberts stated the city attorney's opinion was shared with Chili's Restaurant management who then indicated that The Outback Restaurant, also located within the BC(M) zoning district at 1770 Beam Avenue, offered a similar type of service. City staff contacted the management of The Outback Restaurant who indicated that they have been offering food-to-go for the past two years. Outback's to-go service involves customers calling in an order and identifying the type of vehicle they will be driving when they pick up the order. Once the customer arrives at the restaurant, they park in one of the designated to-go parking spaces. He said a camera mounted on the building notifies the Outback employees of the waiting customer and an employee then delivers the food to the patron in their automobile. Because two restaurants located within the BC(M) zoning district were conducting a similar to-go service where food was being delivered to patrons in their automobiles. Chili's management requested that the city review the BC(M) ordinance for possible changes. Specifically Chili's Restaurant is requesting that the city allow restaurants within the BC(M) zoning district to serve food to patrons in their automobiles. This is being requested in order to facilitate Chili's and Outback's existing food-to-go service. Commissioner Rossbach said he was around when that zoning was put into effect. That zone was created and put in place to protect the residents. He felt at the time it was a great imposition that the city put any kind of commercial development in their backyards. He would be hesitant to expand in any way the ability of those businesses to add any annoyance to the residents that live along Radatz Avenue. He realized that it may sound minor what they are planning on doing but it creates the opportunity to have idling cars, the additional noise and commotion, and he personally would not be in favor of this. Both Chili's and The Outback Restaurant went ahead with these improvements without any permits and any discussion with the city. Any contractor of any type would have known that this work requires permits. Mr. Rossbach said any owner of a business that is in a conditional use permit area knows that they can't do anything to their business without approval from the city. He finds it to be extremely disturbing that those restaurants made those improvements without following the proper channels. He would certainly urge the commission not to allow those restaurants to flaunt the city's ordinances in the city's face. Mr. Roberts stated that after Ms. Finwall wrote the report, The Outback Restaurant did contact Ms. Finwall and told her for the internal improvements in the restaurant they did get building permits from the building official. Chili's Restaurant has not gotten any permits to do this work. Commissioner Trippler said when a company goes ahead and violates the city code and does whatever they want to, couldn't the city tell Chili's Restaurant that they have to put the building back the way it was? Mr. Roberts said yes that is an option, or try to get building permits, and it was by Ms. Finwall because of the zoning issues. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -14- Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they meant the restaurant tried to get a building permit after the work was all done? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler said it seems to him if the city allows this kind of thing to go on and there is not some type of recourse that the city institutes then the only people that pay any attention to the city are the people who are generally good citizens and the rest can say why should a person bother? It irritates him, and there is no way that anyone that runs a chain restaurant like Chili's Restaurant didn't know that they just can't go and make changes to their business without getting approval and permits first. The city should either fine them heavily or make them put it back the way it was and have them submit plans for a permit. Mr. Trippler said maybe the city will approve it and maybe they won't. If the commission wants to change the ordinance he doesn't have a problem with that, but he thinks if the city doesn't do anything to this case the city is opening themselves up to being ignored. Commissioner Pearson said this is the kind of thing that tends to happen in small degrees. He draws distinction between the two uses and that the Outback Restaurant basically has a silent system. The only thing different at Chili's Restaurant is that they put up an awning outside and an outside call box. The Outback Restaurant has been going on for a long time and he has used it himself. They have a camera and a monitor and there is no noise, no horn honking, there is no more automobile exhaust or pollution than if someone was waiting to pick someone up at the restaurant. He doesn't see any great infringement on the area, although it is a violation. He agrees that when violations occur there ought to be a process for a fine or something. In terms of the service to the public, he thinks it is a good one and if the city is going to have something, he would be in favor seeing what The Outback Restaurant has done rather than a call box or anything that has voice emissions one or two ways outside. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if putting up a call box, an awning, and remarking some parking areas is a code violation and you have to pull a permit for that work? Mr. Roberts said yes, for the awning you do, and if you are changing the site plan, at minimum the restaurant needs staff approval. Commissioner Dierich said to her putting up an awning isn't a big thing, although she would agree that they are changing the nature of the business probably for the better. She said the city sees a lot more blatant things going on than this and she has a hard time saying this is a code violation. She knows the lawyer has looked at this, but still she thinks to herself, other than striping the parking lot, there was an inspector there already, they put in a counter. Mr. Roberts said Chili's Restaurant did not get any permits for any of the changes interior or exterior. Commissioner Dierich said then for sure the city needs to fine them because the violation to her is that they did not pull a permit for the interior work or maybe restriping the parking lot. Mr. Roberts said as he said earlier The Outback Restaurant did get permits for doing some interior work a few years ago, so that was looked at that time. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 03-18-02 Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Mr. Trippler and Mr. Pearson that the city should fine people for not following ordinances. The City of North St. Paul makes the companies rip out work that was done without approval. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if what they violated was that they carry food outside the door? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Mueller said otherwise, what they are doing, anyone can do. People drive up and walk in and bring it out. Although they did not ask permission to make a parking spot to have a place that customers can park and wait, that is not a violation, but it is a violation to make it without permission? Mr. Roberts said changing the site plan, the number of parking spaces, changing drive aisles, safety issues, all of those are all issues that the city would typically look at. He said they went ahead and did it without permission from the city. Commissioner Mueller said his opinion is if the city wants to make these restaurants poster children then let's go ahead and do it. He thinks the city can find somebody else in Maplewood that they can make a better poster child than this. Their management should have known better, they wrote a letter explaining what they did. The city has all these people that are unloading car deliveries off of trucks on Highway 61, they are parking them on grass and the commission does nothing about it other than to tell them not to do it anymore, they do it again anyway and they know they are not supposed to do it. He would rather find someone else to fine and make a poster child. Mr. Mueller said the violation is that they did some changes without permits and they are carrying food outside the door. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if Maplewood has a system that fines for violations for use, zone, permits, etc.? Mr. Roberts said as far as permits go, the building official can double the permit fee for doing work without a permit, that is a fine in a sense. He does not know how much the city collects because it gets passed onto the state and other agencies. Mr. Roberts said as far as zoning violations that is a misdemeanor and it could go into coUrt, but the time spent and energy is not worth it. It has been city practice to work with people and accommodate what they want to do. Commissioner Ledvina said regarding the issue for code amendment, when this was set up years ago regarding district BC(M) they were looking at impacts to the residential area. He does not put much stake in the fact that the city has not had complaints from the neighboring property owners because property owners change. This activity can escalate now that people know about it, there is going to be more traffic, there is more signage now, and an audible box that Chili's Restaurant has. Mr. Ledvina said although it is not the big menu board, or lines of cars waiting for their order type of scenario, it is a use that was not intended. He just wants to make sure it does not escalate to the point that the city can't control it. Chairperson Fischer said one thing that comes to her is the lack of complaints from the neighbors from the south. Neighbors can change and the neighbors who are in there now may not know what the conditions were for the zoning. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -16- Commissioner Trippler said it seemed to him that Chili's Restaurant did not do anything that would cause the fall of the western hemisphere but just the fact that they did not ask permission from the city to do any improvements. They have completely ignored the city and the blatant disregard for the city's authority. Mr. Robert said the question that comes to the commission and the city is, what do we do to resolve this. There are about four options. He said you could tell them they have to take all the improvements out, you can try and work with them, propose a code amendment, or tell them to get a building permit and let it go. Mr. Roberts asked if the commission liked the code amendment? If not what would the commission like to see and what alternatives if any to try to allow the restaurants to go with normal operations. If the commission does like the code amendment, then it could be moved forward. Commissioner Dierich said she believes the commission should not do a code amendment because the commission will be amending codes all the time every time somebody decides to flaunt the rules, the commission will amend the code. She believes Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant should come back to the planning commission and ask permission to do these changes. She also thinks the city should fine Chili's Restaurant for not pulling permits. Not to make them a poster child but possibly doubling the permit cost as the fine. She also thinks it is more environmentally friendly to pull up the way they have in the parking lot and it probably would have been approved had they gone through the proper channels. It should be done on a case- by-base basis. Commissioner Ahlness said his concern about making a change to the zoning district and changing the code is that he feels very strongly that the commission needs to protect the residential areas that abut these restaurants. Either the city allows people to come in and start using some type of a drive-in service or not. They can already do a business where people drive up and park their car and go in and pick up the food. He said the city is not disallowing the restaurants to conduct a take-out business but the city is disallowing some form where people drive up and let their car idle while the food comes. Whether it is a drive-in window or where someone from the restaurant comes out to bring the food out is a subtle difference, but it is something the city needs to consider in how the city applies this situation. The fact that there have not been any complaints from the neighbors he thinks that is a new point at this point. Mr. Ahlness said if you look at the past few months and there are not a lot of people in their back yards enjoying the weather. If one looks at this situation going into spring and summer there could be a substantial difference. The city may not be getting complaint calls currently, but lets say the property owners decided to put their home up for sale. The potential buyers are out looking at the property and they hear blaring music from the idling cars in the parking lot of the restaurants, this could change the situation, and the city could receive complaints and calls at that time. He said if the city is concerned about the intent of the zoning at the time it was implemented, which was protecting the residential neighbors, then he thinks the commission needs to leave that switch in the off position and not allow the restaurants to do a delivery or drive-up window or have restaurant employees go out to the customers car. The customers can go inside the restaurant and get their food-to-go as it is allowed by the zoning ordinances. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 03-18-02 Commissioner Trippler said if the city has a policy of doubling the permit fee when somebody fails to get the proper permits that is what should be applied in this case. For every permit the restaurants failed to apply for they should be charged a double fee. He doesn't necessarily think this language is bad but he feels a little uneasy about going ahead with changing the ordinance for this particular case. He said not because the restaurants went ahead and did the changes without getting the proper authority but because it sounds like there was an implicit agreement by these facilities when they went in that they would be particularly careful about the kinds of activity that they had so they would not interfere or disrupt the residential neighborhood adjacent to the restaurants. He said without knowing the history and what was said when the zoning was first put in place he doesn't feel comfortable midstream now that the restaurants are there. He thinks about Olive Garden where they have signs that say for carryout only. The customer's park their vehicle, go into the restaurant and pick-up their food, and they go back out and drive away, there is nothing wrong with that set-uP. Mr. Roberts said the restaurants with the drive thru windows are geared towards people with small children that are in strapped in their car seats. The people can leave the children in the cars and have the food delivered to their car verses going in and un-strapping their children and bringing them in to get the food-to-go, or a worse case scenario would be that the parents leave the children unattended while they run into the restaurant to bring the food back out. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the commission does not change the ordinance the way it has been proposed, would that disallow what The Outback Restaurant is currently doing? Mr. Roberts said yes. People would have to get out of their cars and go into The Outback Restaurant and to Chili's Restaurant to get their food. Commissioner Mueller said he thinks businesses are changing all the time and he thinks the commission needs to consider that the businesses need to change. He also believes that people and their attitudes are changing all the time and the commission needs to consider that possibility. Consumers would not have McDonald's Restaurant be as popular if they were not allowed to have a drive-thru window. He said he would hate to be a group of people that stood in the way of a business that believes in light of other business practices that this is something the restaurants needs to do to be competitive. In some respects the code that is there the commission needs to look at the reasonableness of code in relationship to changing attitudes and changing values and systems. It may not mean the commission changes the code but he thinks the commission needs to think about that as a possibility. The big issue at stake is not offending the residents, which is the intent of the code. In terms of changing the code he has heard Burger King's intercom speaker from quite a distance away and he thinks that does affect the residents quite a distance away. He would not be in favor of those intercom box speakers but he does not think that the code as it is worded would eliminate that. He believes it says you cannot bring food out to the cars and food should not be visible to the residents. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -18- Commissioner Mueller said if he would go inside the restaurant and bring it back out, or a restaurant employee brings it out, technically it is visible to residents either way people are going to see the food. He does believe it would be helpful for a handicap person not to have to get out of their car. He would be interested to know if this code is a violation in that regard as the code stands now. If a handicap person wants Chili's food, and is willing to drive there but will not be given that food because the city has a code that states nobody can bring it to them. Is that an issue or not, maybe it isn't. He doesn't think that ignorance is an excuse not to get permits but it surely can be a reason. He is more upset with people who have violated city ordinances a number of times and the city has never done anything to them. He liked one of Mr. Robert's comments that an option is that the city works with these people and to find a way to work this out. It may be to bring them here and tell them they should have gotten the proper permits and not to do this type of thing again. The city has brought people forward and asked them not to do something again and they do it again and again anyway and still the city does nothing to them. These are the types of people he believes the city ought to make poster children. If they have to pay a double fine because of this then fine, it is not a big deal to him. He thinks the city needs to be careful not to let the double, triple, or quadruple offender get away with things as they city has allowed them in the past. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks it is as simple as asking Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant to come back in to the city and work with the city to work with the traffic plan. They have changed the flow of the parking lot, they changed the parking spaces, and they need to come back and ask for a change in their permit. She does not think it is an unreasonable thing to do and that would be to work with them. They pulled a fast one, ignorance or not. She would not have known about the striping in the parking lot even as a planning commissioner. They know it isn't okay so the city just needs to educate them further and review those plans. Chairperson Fischer asked staff as the ordinance now sits, the city could not allow delivery of food to the car? Mr. Roberts said that is correct. The main issue is the use of the property having the food service going to the car. The secondary issue is the site plan changes to implement that service. Commissioner Dierich said a site change would necessitate them coming before the planning commission and the commission could consider that individual request or variance. Mr. Roberts said there is no need for a site change if the code doesn't allow the restaurant to do food service to vehicles. Commissioner Dierich said she understands what staff is saying but she doesn't think the commission should change the code cart blanche because you will have those code changes all over the city. It needs to be done case-by-case and maybe it needs to be put in the permit. Is this something you may be doing in the future? Planning Commission -19- Minutes of 03-18-02 Chairperson Fischer said as Mr. Rossbach pointed out earlier, the BC(M) was developed because the city had some instances where there was zoning going up to pre-existing residential. The usage going in this particular area was more intense than one would have put next to residential existing. Radatz Street was there first and then Beam Avenue came through and it brought big assessments along with it. Obviously with the type of assessments on Beam Avenue you were not going to see single-family detached homes developing on the south side of Beam Avenue. The BC(M) was created for this stretch to meet the challenges of putting the Beam Avenue mall type of development adjacent to pre-existing single-family homes. Some safeguards that were considered safeguards at that time, were placed in the restrictions on that zoning that don't apply to other plain BC(M) zonings throughout the city. As staff pointed out in the report there are a few other places where the city has this zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was a _nyone in the audience that wanted to speak to this issue to come forward. Mr. Steve Parr, the Managing Partner.of The Outback Restaurant at 1770 Beam Avenue, Maplewood, MN, addressed the commission. Mr. Parr said The Outback Restaurant did go ahead and do the curbside food-to-go for almost three years. He said they did the right thing and got the permits and had it inspected by Marge Ostrom. They explained it to her exactly what they were doing regarding how people call ahead, the camera, ask them what type of car they are driving, and then bring the food out to the designated parking spots. Maybe they were ignorant not knowing what the designated parking spots or this ordinance but they thought they did the right thing at the time. The two neighbors directly behind the restaurant have been there almost five years and have not had any complaints from them. He would hope that the commission would not make a decision based on what Chili's Restaurant had done. He asked the commission to please consider the fact that The Outback Restaurant tried to do the right thing. They are trying to grow their business and the drive up is a large part of their restaurant. They have over 600 restaurants across the Country that do this exact thing. If you pull into The Outback Restaurant you will not see stripes on the ground, if you did not see the picture you would not even know it is a take-out area, you would just think it is part of the restaurant. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Parr if when Marge Ostrom came out to inspect the restaurant did you explain to her that you would be carrying food out to the cars? He asked if she noted that this was illegal? Mr. Parr said yes we did explain to Marge Ostrom that we would be carrying food out to the cars and no she did not explain it was illegal. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Parr why she didn't explain it was illegal and why didn't he know that it was illegal? Mr. Parr said he would not know why she did not know it was illegal. He said he did not know it was illegal to carry food out to the vehicle. Mr. Roberts said Marge Ostrom was the building official who is now retired. The carrying out of food is really a zoning issue, and to her defense, she would not have known. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -20- Mr. Parr said if they would have known about this ordinance he would guarantee that The Outback Restaurant would not have gone ahead and done this it is not the kind of thing his operation does. Mr. Roberts said the question is was there any input given by anyone on the planning staff to check the zoning and that he can't answer without going through the file.. Marge Ostrom may have thought it was just some interior remodeling. The zoning question may not have even come to her. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Parr how frequent is carrying food out to the customers as opposed to having the customers carrying out their own food? Mr. Parr said there is three designated parking stalls for customers to wait at. When they take the customers order the employee asks them what type of car they will be driving, the color of the car, and the customers name and phone number. There is a camera in the take away area and one in the kitchen, and when they pull their car in the employees see what type and color of car it is, look at the ticket, the employee brings the food out to them, the people pay the employee and go back into the building. Chairperson Fischer said then essentially it is 100% that is brought out to the car. Mr. Parr said hardly anybody goes into the restaurant to get the food to go, although some people will call and come in and have a drink at the bar while waiting for their food to be ready. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Parr how many to-go-orders a day do they get? Mr. Parr said it varies from day to day. Friday through Sunday is their busiest times. There are probably 10 to go orders per day during the week and around 25 to-go orders per day on the weekends. When the customer's pull into the marked parking stalls to wait for their food, most people leave their cars running in the winter, but in nice weather most shut their vehicles offwhile they wait. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Parr if the city council decides not to change the ordinance, what kind of an impact would you say it would have on The Outback Restaurant? Mr. Parr said it would have a major impact on his business because most of the people that come to The Outback Restaurant are expecting that service to be available and be brought out to the customer's car. The service is available for busy families. Many are with two parents working who pick up their children and call on their cell phone on the way home because they don't want to bring their children into the restaurant for a sit down meal. Commissioner Pearson said he wants to point out that these parking spaces do not preclude the most favorable spaces for handicap parking. Mr. Parr said the handicap parking is located in a different part oj~ the parking lot. In some instances, on a busy night when the handicapped spots are full, people have parked in the take- out only parking spaces and management just has to deal with that situation. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -21- Commissioner Mueller asked if there is a representative from Chili's Restaurant available to speak? Mr. Parr said no there is not. Commissioner Mueller said maybe Mr. Parr could help. He asked if Chili's Restaurant would say the same thing he is saying or would they have a different scenario? Mr. Parr said they would probably say the same thing but they have a different cliental. He is really not too familiar with their situation. Commissioner Pearson recommended that the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the ordinance amendment on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report. The amendment allows restaurants within the BC(M) zoning district. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Commissioner Mueller said he is in favor of changing the code, however, he would like it to be amended slightly. He does not want to allow the intercom call-box speaker. To make it possible to let restaurants take food out to customers needs to be something that doesn't require any sound boxes but cameras are fine. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they would rather this be tabled to come back with appropriate wording? Also bearing in mind some discussion that occurred earlier about creeping erosion of conditions that were originally placed. What could be an acceptable practice today wouldn't be 20 years ago when that ordinance was written. Without opening it wide open she is looking at commission members and she sees some nods in the group. Commissioner Ahlness said he thinks this item should be tabled. The business has been operating for over three years without complaints. Chili's Restaurant did not appear for the discussion that was the restaurant that caused concern and The Outback Restaurant did send a representative. Staff wanted to look at this further to consider a viable option that contains the spirit of the modified nature and protects the residents from encroachment of the business he thinks that would be a prudent action, otherwise, he is concerned it would go through tonight. Commissioner Pearson said one thing that he would have liked to see in the packets would have been if the R-1 residents would have been polled as to their feelings about this subject. Mr. Roberts stated the residents were not polled. Commissioner Pearson said he would have serious interest in knowing how the residents feel about this. Commissioner Ledvina said he wondered if there were other properties in the BC-M zone that could develop in this manner? Mr. Roberts said BC-M zoning on undeveloped property that is next to residential is BC-M is right next to Chili's Restaurant and that is the only other property that he is aware of. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -22- Chairperson Fischer said she gets the consensus that the commission doesn't have a problem with the silent approach to the drive-ups and she asked if the commission has a feeling about the speakers being allowed or not allowed? Commissioner Pearson said his preference in offering this is to use the model that The Outback Restaurant is using with no speaker and that is as silent of a service that could be offered. As far the restaurant doing this in violation, he doesn't think they did it in a clear intent to violate an ordinance, he thinks they did it in the spirit of trying to provide customer service. In terms of fines, or permit costs, or making them go back through the process that is up to the city council. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she agrees with what is being said that it shoUld be silent, but what she would not like to see is the commission asking staff to take on of other duties for this type of item. Maybe the commission could come to some type of consensus at the next meeting based on the wording. She doesn't want to open up ordinances to be changed every time somebody violates it. She agrees that the city needs to do something to fine them like doubling the fees or something. On the other hand if the commission takes each issue that comes up and keep beating it and not come to some type of consensus after some level of discussion, members need to try to stream line that. Commissioner Pearson the commission is getting to an area where the planning commission has had a lot of conversation with the city council and the staff in the past, and the city is going to have to create another staff position, not only for things like code amendments but also for many other types of enforcements. It is not something that the planning commission is going to be able to solve here. It will have to be figured into the budget somewhere along the line to get another staff person to help with things like this. Commissioner Trippler said he appreciated the fact that The Outback Restaurant came to the city and instructed the city as to what their plans were and assumed that they were doing the right thing. Where he works at the Pollution Agency people try to do the right thing all the time, they make the contact and down the road they find out they should have gotten another permit from another part of the company. The agencies should know what permits and issues the individual needs it should not be the person that should know all the rules and laws, although ignorance isn't justifiable. He thinks the difference between the Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant is night and day. The fact that Chili's Restaurant did not send a representative here to answer questions or concerns is really a sign. On the other hand, when he thinks about how the commission is splitting fine hairs between somebody driving up and walking into the restaurant to get their food order, verses driving up, parking and having a restaurant employee walk out to give the customer their food is just ridiculous. He thinks the situation that The Outback Restaurant has probably causes a lot less pollution and aggravation than any of the other systems. When he has been to other restaurants that have the 5-minute pick-up windows, a lot of times he sees people leave their cars running and go in and pick up their food and come back out. Where as if you call ahead to pick up your food, you probably pull into the parking space, and while you are waiting for the delivery, you make a cell phone call or two and turn your car off while you wait. Planning Commission -23- Minutes of 05-18-02 On one hand he would like to accommodate The Outback Restaurant and the ability for them to offer that kind of a service. He doesn't want to see the commission developing any kind of drive- up service window that is sort of a high class McDonald's or Burger King Restaurant. He would not vote for anything that allows any kind of a voice-box ordering system. If they have a camera where the restaurant can monitor when the customer is there and the restaurant employee can bring the food out to them immediately when it is done, he doesn't have a problem with that. Mr. Roberts said the way the amendment is written it says on page 16 (c) (3) "Restaurant, where there are no drive-up food or beverage windows or outdoor menu or ordering boards." So the city is trying to address what Mr. Trippler is saying as well. Maybe the commission could add into it to have no outdoor speakers as well. Chairperson Fischer said she thinks it would almost be necessary to add that because if you are silent on this speaker subject you would assume that the speaker sound would be allowable. Mr. Roberts said except that an ordering board has a speaker in it, so you could place an order and hear an order. Chairperson Fischer said that may be the case now and it may be the case some places. But you could still have a speaker system without having an ordering board. Mr. Roberts said the commission could certainly add that there should be no speakers as part of the system to move this along. He said to point out there is a motion on the floor that was being discussed. Chairperson Fischer said there is a motion for recommendation for approval. Commissioner Ahlness would like to make a friendly amendment. His suggested friendly amendment would be (c)(3) adding after the words ordering boards to add or call boxes speaker systems. Also adding a number (c)(_8) screening whether a fence or trees would corn letel screen the waitin area if in view from residential areas. Also adding (d)(8) after the words ordering boards, or call boxes or speaker systems_. Mr. Roberts said typically screening is looked at very carefully as part of the community design review board of any commercial site plan next to residential. He does not know if that is needed as a specific condition here. All screening is looked at by the CDRB and by staff and he is confident that would be covered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Ahlness said he would want to withdraw that part regarding screening if that was the case. Commissioner Pearson said having moved the motion he would accept the changes to (c)(3) and (d)(8). Commissioner Mueller said as the person to that made the second motion he would agree with those changes. He would assume that if a commercial business wanted to do that than anything that has to happen inside or outside would come through the city for the correct permits? Mr. Roberts said that is covered by other sections of the code. ............................... T ......... --T ................ -1- ...... f ...... Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -24- VII. Chairperson Fischer asked for a vote on the motion with changes. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the amendment with the above changes and Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Ayes-Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nays - Ledvina Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks if the city has a specific zone, and the intent is very clear where you do not allow this kind of service, he does not think it is appropriate to go back on it. He said the zoning designation was designed very specifically. He thinks this is a fine line. He does not think this will be a real detriment to the community but he thinks it goes back to what the original BC(M) was set up for. Commissioner Mueller said he is not sure what was decided to do about Chili's Restaurant. He asked staff if that is something the planning commission makes recommendations to staff for or does staff just figure that out on their own? He asked what the staff does when somebody violates the code? ' Mr. Roberts said the first step is to process the code amendment and assuming that gets approved and adopted by the city council, then that would allow the restaurants to provide this service delivering the food to the car. The next step would be to work with the restaurants on building permit needs and any site plan changes that they want to do to implement the code change. Mr. Roberts said yes the staff will continue to work with these businesses, primarily Chili's Restaurant. If the code amendment gets done The Outback Restaurant did not make any changes. Mr. Roberts said this item will go to the city council for its first reading April 8, 2002. Chairperson Fischer said the code requires two readings by the city council? Mr. Roberts said it takes two readings by the city council to have it adopted. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. March 11, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Ahlness was the planning commission representative at the city council meeting. He reported on the pawnbrokers and currency exchanges and this was the first reading and the city council voted ayes all. However, there were three of the city council members that told the staff to re-look at the distance of 350 feet increasing it to 500 feet away from residential properties. The city lawyer weighed into that saying that the city may cause legal problems for themselves if the staff recommended 350 feet and the city went with 500 feet away from residential properties. If the staff recommended 500 feet and the city went with the 500 feet away from residential properties, then legally they could get away with it. The second item was a conditional use permit for Maplewood Toyota. The city council voted ayes all, but they stressed that the city engineer should approve changes as it relates to the wetland area and that they should look at that closely to ensure the wetland is protected. The city council was also interested in the details from the planning commission when conducting a conditional use permit that the plan for the entire site should be brought up to code. There were a number of planning commission members that brought up that issue before and the city council was interested in hearing about that as well as having staff look at that in the future. The third item was St. Jerome's Catholic School and that was an ayes all vote and there were no issues to discuss. They also voted in the newest member of the planning commission, Jackie Monahan-Junek and members welcome her to the commission. b. March 25, 2002, Mr. Trippler will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be The Annual Report and the Hillcrest Animal Hospital conditional use permit. c. April 8, 2002, Ms. Dierich will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. d. May 13, 2002, Mr. Mueller will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Xl. None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 1, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Matt Ledvina Absent Commissioner Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Commissioner Paul Mueller Present CommissIoner Gary Pearson Absent Commissioner William Rossbach Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present III. Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts said the only addition to the agenda is the memo from Melinda Coleman regarding the upcoming training session on April 29, 2002. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-01-02 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Street right-of-way vacation - SE corner of McKnight Road and Reaney Avenue (Cardinal Realty) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tom Weiner, representing Cardinal Home Builders, is asking the city council to vacate part of a street right-of-way. This vacation is for the unused right-of-way on the southeast corner of McKnight Road and Reaney Avenue. Mr. Roberts said Cardinal Home Builders is requesting this vacation because the city and the neighbors no longer have a use for this right-of-way for a public street. Maplewood, Ramsey County and the state have no plans to develop or use this right-of-way for a pUblic street. The additional land area that this vacation would provide the adjacent landowners room to expand their parking lot. Commissioner Trippler said the staff report states that the city acquired the parcel in 1967 for street purposes. If the city council approves this vacation, the city would be giving this parcel of land to whoever is there? Mr. Roberts said that is correct. Commissioner Trippler asked staff how much did the city spend for that parcel of land? He asked how much is the city loosing by just giving it away? ' Mr. Roberts said the city's records did not have the purchase price. The applicant, Mr. Weiner, representing Cardinal Builders is here and he may have that information. Commissioner Trippler said staff said there is no public interest in this piece of property. He asked if that meant if he had come to the city and said he was interested in purchasing the property he could have purchased it? Mr. Roberts said no, public interest is defined as there is no public need or use for the property. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Tom Weiner, representing Cardinal Home Builders addressed the commission. Mr. Weiner said his mother owns one of the office buildings that abut this piece of property and the office is at 2297 Stillwater Road. His family acquired the building in 1980-81 when the buildings were built, and at that time the property was already part of the right-of-way. They have been maintaining that strip of property, caring for the grass, and they keep up the property outside the building. They would like to expand the parking lot and possibly put some trees on it. Commissioner Dierich asked staff what the zoning is on this property? Mr. Roberts said staff would adjust the zoning map for this. Typically zoning districts go to the center of street right-of-ways and in this case because the right-of-way will be shifting, the city will adjust the map to compensate for that. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 04-01-02 Chairperson Fischer asked staff what the zoning is on the existing property? Mr. Roberts said the zoning is BC-M (business commercial modified). Commissioner Rossbach made the recommendation to adopt the resolution on page nine of the staff report. This resolution vacates the unused right-of-way on the southeast corner of McKnight Road and Reaney Avenue. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. Commissioner Ahlness seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler The motion carried. Staff said this item goes to the city council on April 22, 2002. b. Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study Update Mr. Roberts said that over the past year, the community development staff has been involved in a "Smart Growth" study with the Metropolitan CoUncil. The Metropolitan Council is studying six commercial neighborhoods in the metro area. The Hillcrest Shopping Center, including the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue, is one of these. The Smart-Growth study is a new initiative that involves citizens in shaping the future growth and redevelopment of their neighborhoods. The goal is to create livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs and services are linked by walkable streets. Mr. Roberts stated that on April 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates and HGA held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood. This workshop allowed area residents, business owners, St. Paul and Maplewood staff, and government personnel, to participate by offering their desires and preferences on how they would like this area to redevelop. Mr. Roberts said on May 24, 2001, the group met again at Woodland Hills Church to present the consultants' two development alternatives to the community. Since this last session, the consultants have been working on a final development concept taking into account comments from the participants and the community. Mr. Roberts also said on July 2, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and had the following comments: The Planning Commission liked these features: 1. Realignment of North St. Paul road to meet White Bear Avenue at a right angle. 2. Grocery store. 3. The walkable/bikeable aspects of the plans. 4. The large Neighborhood Square ("village green" concept) Planning Commission Minutes of 04-01-02 5. The townhouses - provided they are affordable to the average person and not overpriced. 6. Attempts at traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue. The Planninq Commission did not like these features: 1. The potential nuisance of parking spaces behind buildings visible to residential units. 2. Possible difficulty for the elderly or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are back doors. The Metropolitan Council, the design consultants and the St. Paul and Maplewood staff will present this final concept plan to the community at an upcoming meeting at Woodland Hills Church on Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. This plan will be used as a guide for both cities in planning redevelopment in the area. The design criteria Maplewood plans to create will become part of the development guidelines for Hillcrest Village. Mr. Roberts said the current zoning code for the most part would not accommodate many of the ideas that are shown in the staff report as far as setbacks, green coverage, and landscaping on properties. The city may even get into some design or architectural design details or requirements. Those are going to be worked on in the next few months as part of the study while the moratorium is on. The moratorium for the area is good for one year. Commissioner Trippler said he was having some difficulty understanding the diagram in the staff report. He looked at the six features that the planning commission liked that are listed on the first page of the staff report. He could not see how number 3,4, and 6 are implemented in this new plan. The feature that the planning commission did not like was the potential nuisance of parking spaces behind the buildings and it looks like that is the way this plan was constructed. Could staff point out how this plan accommodates number 3,4, and 6? Mr. Roberts pointed out the "village green" concept on the map. The walkable/bikeable aspects in his mind means there is a mix of residential and commercial properties near each other, so if someone is living in the residential area they can walk or bike to a commercial area without having to get into a car. He would agree that the traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue is not clear. There are no dollar amounts given on the proposed town homes and there is no specific guarantee that they would be affordable. Mr. Roberts asked commission members to look at this plan asking themselves if the mix of land uses and the general layout of the land uses make sense? Does it seem like a reasonable plan assuming it can be put together financially? Commissioner Ahlness said his comments were that the parking on this plan is vastly superior to the other course of actions commission members have seen in the past. The parking is clustered and it is not all behind or in front of the buildings so you will not have the appearance of a used car lot with all the cars in front. It will be tucked in Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 04-01-02 various locations. With the traffic flow people have choices to exit off of other streets other than White Bear Avenue. If they are residents or just shopping in the area they could go over to Van Dyke Street or on the secondary roads. Generally this will help the traffic flow on White Bear Avenue. Unfortunately he sees two areas that may be cause for potential problems. Larpenteur Avenue will remain a high traffic corridor. If you look to the east of Larpenteur Avenue, the alley way between the parking areas or even on Van Dyke Street he sees the potential of people wanting to cut across Larpenteur Avenue. You would want to minimize cross traffic on Van Dyke Street due to the high traffic on Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked staff if the overall commercial square footage on this plan is greater, less than, or equal to the current commercial business in the Maplewood corridor. She would think Maplewood would be concerned about the city's tax base in that area? Mr. Roberts said he asked that question today and nobody had that answer. He doesn't think Maplewood should be concerned about their tax base in this area with 3M and Maplewood Mall in the city. He is not sure how much it decreases the commercial business and nobody has done that calculation. Chairperson Fischer said the coloring on the maps between the mixed use and the residential buildings is so slight maybe some alternative colors could be used to differentiate areas easier. Commissioner Ahlness said a few commissioners have had difficulty pointing out the parking maybe the parking on the map could also be shaded differently. Mr. Roberts said that either Mr. Ekstrand or Ms. Finwall told him today it was the Metropolitan Council's intention that the three-story buildings have underground parking. That would mean there is not as much surface parking as what is shown in the staff report. Commissioner Mueller said on attachment 3 on blocks E4a and E4b. It is a bit confusing because it says 2 single-family units but it looks like there are four units there with garages because of the lines put in. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if there was going to be some kind of a connecting walk way or a bridge between the green spaces that used to be the town square? Mr. Roberts said no there would only be a crosswalk across Larpenteur Avenue. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the traffic light at Van Dyke Street would remain? Given the usage from the church and the amount of traffic that is generated there she doesn't think anybody should write that traffic light off without a second thought. Mr. Roberts said he would be surprised if the light came out. Commissioner Ahlness said he was thinking about the bus stops. They are proposed to be by the busiest intersection of the complex area. Is that the wisest place to put those bus stops with the bus stopping and holding traffic up? If the bus stops were even a block off that would ease some of the congestion at that intersection he said. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-01-02 -6- Chairperson Fischer asked staff if any action is needed at this time or was this for general information only. Mr. Roberts said no action is needed at this time. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. March 25, 2002, Mr. Trippler represented the planning commission for the city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler said the first item discussed at the city council meeting was the Hillcrest Animal Hospital. Mr. Ledvina brought up a concern by the community design review board regarding the proposed retaining wall to put in on the east side of the property facing Highway 61. The retaining wall would run about 50 feet in length and at the greatest height be approximately 12 feet high. Mr. Ledvina brought up that a retaining wall that large would be unsightly and he had asked if the developer could step it up. The developer said if there was a step up it would increase the cost of the retaining wall significantly. The purpose of putting the retaining wall up was to save two out of the three mature oak trees that are on the front of the property. By putting a step up in there they would lose two out of the three trees instead of one out of the three. The Hillcrest Animal Hospital could save themselves $30,000 to $40,000 by not putting the retaining wall in at all and still have the trees. The city council suggested to the developer to find a way to break that retaining wall up. One of the things that was mentioned was to put a sign into the retaining wall with The Hillcrest Animal Hospital sign on it and planting ivy to climb up the wall. There'were not many questions by the city council and it was passed ayes - all. He said the second item was the planning commission annual report that passed ayes - all. Council member Wasiluk wanted to thank the commissioners for all their service. b. April 8, 2002, Ms. Dierich will represent the planning commission for the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be Dearborn Meadow, the Comprehensive Plan Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study, and the Zoning Code Amendment for Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant, first reading. c. April 22, 2002, Mr. Ledvina will represent the planning commission for the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the street right-of-way vacation and the Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study Update. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-01-02 -7- STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts said just a reminder to read the memo from Melinda Coleman. It is regarding the upcoming training session on Monday, April 29, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Maplewood Room with Barbara Strandell. Surveys will be distributed on April 15, 2002, at the city council meeting to turn in to the consultant and she will prepare information for the meeting. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if it is possible to e-mail reminders and other information to members? Mr. Roberts directed the question to the recording secretaq/. Ms. Kroll answered she currently does not use e-mail on her computer other than to receive internal mail. Mr. Roberts stated that at the next meeting items to review will be the Beaver Lake Town Homes and the Gladstone Park Plan. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Gladstone Park Addition Burke Avenue, east of English Street April 3, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bruce Anderson, representing the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department, is proposing to develop a seven-lot plat for single family homes called Gladstone Park Addition. It would be on a 2.7- acre site on the east side of English Street, south of County Road B. Refer to the maps on pages 7 - 14 and the enclosed plans, r Requests To build this project, Mr. Anderson is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from P (park) to R-1 (single dwellings) for the site. (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 9 and 10.) 2. The vacation of an unused street fight-of-way and an unused alley. Refer to the map on page 11. 3. A preliminary plat for seven lots. (See the map on page 12 and the enclosed project plans.) BACKGROUND On November 20, 1964, the city bought this site for use as a neighborhood park. (See the memos from Bruce Anderson for additional information starting on page 15.) In fall of 2001, the city engineering department held two neighborhood meetings about the possible reconstruction of English Street from Frost to Cope Avenues. staff also discussed the idea of developing the Gladstone Park site into a cul-de-sac with lots for houses with the neighbors at these meetings. On October 8, 2001, the city coUncil reviewed a concept plan for an eight-lot subdivision for this site. On November 13, 2001, the city council adopted a resolution ordedng the preparation of a feasibility study for an eight-lot subdivision for this site. The city engineer has been working on these plans with the engineering consultant that is preparing the plans for the reconstruction of English Street from Frost to Cope Avenues. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change TO build the proposed plat, Mr. Anderson wants the city to change the land use plan designation for the site. This change would be from P (park) to R-1 (single dwellings). (See the existing land use plan map on page 9 and the proposed land use plan map on page 10.) The city intends R-1 areas for single dwellings. For park (P) areas, the city plans for parks and playgrounds. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to this request. They include: · Provide for orderly development. · Minimize conflicts between land uses. ~ · Provide a wide variety of housing types. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. · Include a variety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate-income housing., and rental and owner-occupied housing. · Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. · Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural areas. · The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. As proposed, the seven units on the 2.7-acre site means there would be 2.6 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single-family and Iow density residential development. In addition, the proposed change would expand the residential uses on a street that is now primarily used by the existing homes in this area. Thus, the proposal meets the goals in the comprehensive plan by having similar uses fronting on the same street. Vacations As part of approving the proposed plans, the city needs to vacate an unused street right-of-way (Burke Avenue) and an unused alley. (See the map on page 11.) These existing public facilities have never been used or developed for their original purposes and do not fit with the street and lot layout on the proposed plans. The city will be dedicating a new street right-of-way for a cul-de-sac and all the necessary easements with the new plat. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 10,148 square feet to 26,138 square feet with an average lot size of about 16,696 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 12.) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. All of the proposed lots would meet or exceed the city's zoning standards. City Engineering Department Comments · The city engineering department has been working directly with the city's engineering consultant in the development of this proposal, including the proposed plans. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in English Street to serve the proposed development. The city will be installing the public improvements (utilities, curb and gutter and street) for this cul-de-sac as part of the planned English Street improvement project. Specifically, the storm sewer in English Street was designed to accommodate drainage from a large area south of County Road B. The proposed plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the water plan Drainage The city engineer told me that the existing on-site pond was designed to accommodate the storm water drainage from the site. The development will not alter the designed rate of runoff from the pond. In addition, the city will be constructing two rainwater gardens on the two comer lots to capture and infiltrate a part of the site runoff. Trail and Sidewalk The project plans show an 8-foot-wide bituminous trail from English Street to the existing Ramsey County Trail east of the project site. This trail may extend east of the Ramsey County Trail onto the Weaver School property to provide better pedestrian access to the school property. The city would construct this trail as part of the improvement project and also will be building a sidewalk along English Street with the project. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the development proposal. They noted that the contractor must get a grading permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. Other Comments Lieutenant Banick of the Police Department and Butch Gervais of the Fire Department did not have any concerns with this proposal. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 25. This resolution changes the land use plan for the proposed Gladstone Park Addition plat on the east side of English Street, south of County Road B. This change is from P (park) to R-1 (single dwellings). The city is making this change because it will: 1. Be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. Eliminate the planned park that would have been between two residential areas. 3. Be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. 4. Provide for orderly development of land uses. 5. Help minimize conflicts between land uses. 6. Provide additional moderately priced housing stock. 7. Allow for the construction of an in-fill residential housing development in the city. B. Approve the resolution on page 26. This resolution is for the vacation of an unused street right-of- way and an unused alley on the east side of English Street, south of County Road B. The reasons for these vacations are: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The existing street right-of-way does not fit the location of the proposed street layout. 3. The city will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the proposed plat. Approve the Gladstone Park Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on March 8, 2002). The developer shall complete the following conditions before the city council approves the final plat. 1. The city council shall order the public improvement project for the Gladstone Park development. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall show the lot design and layout consistent with the preliminary plat. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat to show the street as Burke Circle. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 7. Record the following with the final plat: a. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits the driveways on Lots 1 and 7, Block 1 from going onto English Street. b. An 18-foot-wide easement for the trail across the southern parts of Lots 5, 6 and 7. The applicant shall submit the language for these covenants or restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 4 8. If the developer decides to final plat 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. 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 50 properties within 350 feet of this site. There was one reply. 1. If you are going to do this project, get it done before they resurface English Street as I am getting tired of paying for the resurfacing job on English. This is the third time English is going to be resurfaced. Lets not make it four times. After all there are a few of us here that are retired and you are forcing us out - it's not fair. (Jerusal - 1277 Junction Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.7 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings on English Street and a storm water pond Single dwellings on English Street Single dwellings across English Street Weaver Elementary school across Ramsey County trail PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: P (Park) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwelling residential) Proposed Land Use designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on March 12, 2002. State law requires the city to take action on this request by May 11 2002, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. ' p:sec 15~lladstone park addition.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan (Existing) 4. Land Use Plan (Proposed) 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat and Proposed Vacations 6. Proposed Preliminary Plat 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Proposed Grading Plan 9. March 21,2002 memo from Bruce Anderson 10. June 18, 2001 Park CommissiOn Minutes 11. February 18, 1998 memo from Bruce Anderson (w/ attachments) 12 Land Use Plan Change Resolution (P to R-l) 13. Vacation Resolution 14. Project Plans (separate attachments) PALM OOUNTY CONI~ AVE. ROAD SEXTANT AV~. SKILL g DEMONT Jl AVl F_. ~ V~KING SH-ERRI:'N AVl[. Loke LARK ~ t~WA y AV~ ROSEWOOD AVE. D AVE. $. . FRISBIE AVE. LOCATION MAP ST. PAUL I? 2156 POND ~ '--S'E'C-GND---L- A V E I I WEAVER SCHOOL 2090 Ii I 12 -- BELMONT '°~ ~ I 81 ? I ~, PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP SITE8 ATTACHMENT 3 36 __. ~~ R-3(, 'E irrt-~r :ha e --- ' p _.f3_.r q._~_r M-1 OS LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) ATTACHMENT 4 'E ~C_ R-3( y 36 irTt'ercha e ~~ip_al.~_. M-1 OS O "- N SITE LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) l0 ATTACHMENT 5 -- \ f AREAS TO BE VACATED - ALLEY = 8,755.21 SQ. FT.__ STREET = 24,60¢.27 SQ. I ----$ 89'46'08'£ 2651.88-- 7 I 5 2110 the W I/4 co~ Sec. 15. T. 29 N., R. 22 W. Ramaey County Cast iro~ Monument Ramsay C~nty Coordinates: N: 176075.705 E: S873~2.~86 50 5O / / preliminary Plot of GLADSTONE PARK Prepared for: City of Mapiewood PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PROPOSED VACATIONS 11 ................... T T .......... -1 ..... T ....... ATTACHMENT 6 PROPOSED LOT AREAS LOT 3 = 19,74g.60 SQ. F'r LOT 7 = 34,340.14 SQ. F3' T. 29 N,, R. 22 w.. Ramsey County_.3 / Preliminary Plat of GLADSTONE PARK Prepared for: City of Maplewood PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 12 ATTACHMENT 7 (895'0)s~-, 901.0 FB 901.0 f f RKE AVEI' 2+00 901.0 901.0 MFBWO (897.O) 100 YEAR ~ .__.~' FLOOD ELEV. I I I I PROPOSED TRAIL r ......-'-l-- ............... T ..... T ATTACHMENT 8 901.0 9OO 901.0 POND PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 14 ATTACHMENT 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation March 21, 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Gladstone Park Enclosed is a vadety of information regarding Gladstone Park, formally known as the Amold property. The city acquired the three-acre site on November 20, 1964. The site is located at English Street and Burke Avenue. The legal description is Lot 12 - Block 20 (which was acquired December 1971), Lots 1 through 10, Block 21, and Lots 13 through 21, Block 20, Sabin's Addition. Also, Lot 12 - Block 20 was purchased in December 1971 from Anthony Jungman. Gladstone Park's address is 2120 English Street. Gladstone is a small neighborhood mini- park which is intended to work in concert with Timber Park to serve as the neighborhood park in the westem portion of the Sherwood Glen neighborhood. Interconnection with the nearby Weaver School site does not exist to date and would be an important consideration with respect to any future development. The current site is disturbed and has been used pdmadly as a site for city street sweepings. The comprehensive park plan (see attachment) recommended that Gladstone Park be sold and be developed as residential property. The Parks and Recreation Commission formally reviewed this proposal on February 23, 1998 and unanimously recommended that the city declare Gladstone Park as excess park property and that an eight-lot subdivision be developed with the proceeds of the lot sales to be committed to the city P.A.C. fund. The City Council received a memo at their October 8, 2001 City Council meeting redommending the public works department proceed with an eight-lot subdivision which was ultimately approved by the City Council. City park staff recommends that the land use plan designation for Gladstone Park be changed from P (park) to R-1 (single dwellings) and that a seven-lot single-family residential plat be developed as proposed. It is estimated that the lots will sell for $55,000 to $60,000 per lot with estimated construction costs of $200,000. The proceeds from the project should be forwarded to the P.A.C. fund. Should you have any questions regarding this proposed project or Parks and Recreation Commission or City Council action to date, please contact me directly at ext. 4573. kd~ladstn2.mem Enclosures 15 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of 6-18-01 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 10 Commissioner Chdstianson questioned whether YMCA members will receive a discount to the wheel park. Director said he will get that information from YMCA representatives and report the Commission. Commissioner Fischer questioned whether Maplewood would ,ire a large number of passes annually to the wheel park, which could then be given to M C members. Commission( Brannon said if YMCA members receive a discount, M, C members should als, a discount since Maplewood would be fin~ y ~bsidizing their n Director Anderson said he would contact YMCA to get these questions and report back to the Commission. 6. LIGHTING ORDINANCE Director Anderson explained the pro ordinance which would create minimum standards for the design and insta of outdoor lighting on multi-family and nonresidential property. Director n said this ordinance would effect the Parks and Recreation Department in lightir recreational facilities such as soccer and baseball fields and basketball tennis Commissioner Fischer courts are cu~ently The commissioners allowed untillO:30 in the summ{ 'we have daylight until 10 p.m., but the tennis to be lit ur il 10 p.m. when needed in the spdng and fall. that games sho~ Id be scheduled until 10 p.m., with lighting to allow time for indi~ duals to exit the field. A commissior the ordir Commissio accorr ~ested that if the city deft maximum light-intensity requirements in city needs to have a means to check foot-candle intensity. The ,reed that the time is approaching when more fields will need to be lit to the large number of youth involved in recreation programs. 7, SALE OF PARK LAND Director Anderson identified Gladstone, Kenwood and Mailand Parks as under-utilized city park lands and that an option would be to sell these park lands with the monies to be credited to the park development fund. Mr. Anderson said he has received a letter of interest from a building contractor for purchase of Gladstone Park. Commissioner Christianson said that if this park land is sold, the monies should be used to buy other park land; other commissioners agreed. Commissioner Chdstianson moved the Parks and Recreation Commission establish a policy regarding sale of city park land stating that if city park land is sold, monies from the land sale must be used to buy land or land easements. Commissioner Fischer seconded; Ayes - all. Commissioner Christianson suggested that neighbors be notified by staff before any city park property is sold. Commissioner Brannon moved the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council that Gladstone and Kenwood Parks be declared excess property and sold, with the monies to be credited to the park development fund. Commissioner Fischer seconded; Ayes - all. 16 ATTACHMENT ll MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Maplewood Parks and,~,~ Bruce K. Anderson, DE~/~ February 19, 1998 for the~l~el: Commission Meeting Gladstone Park ~ffl~sion ~nd ~~l;l~'2~9;c;~a~i;~nd Recreation INTRODUCTION Enclosed is a memorandum which was forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission April 29, 1996, regarding the status of Gladstone Park. Gladstone Park is three acres in size and located on English Street and Burke Avenue. BACKGROUND Gladstone was originally acquired as a neighborhood park to serve the Gladstone neighborhood. This site has never been developed, but was utilized from 1977 to 1987 as a small pleasure skating rink. At the Commission'.s direction, staff has reviewed the city's park land and determined that this is the only site that would be appropriate for sale and/or disposition at this time. Enclosed is a proposed preliminary plat prepared by the engineering department that would propose the development of eight single-family homes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city declare Gladstone Park as excess park property, assuming a positive response from the neighbors and develop an eight-lot subdivision with the proceeds of the lot sales to be committed to the city's P.A.C. fund. kd~gladstne, mem Enclosure 17 GLADSTONE PARK - 3 ACRES 1 TEMPORARY WARMING HOUSE (20'X15') (REMOVED 1987) RINK LIGHTS (220 AMP) (REMOVED POLE 1989) SMALL TREE NURSERY (TRANSPLANTED TO OTHER PARKS) 1987 - OLD BUILDING REMOVED 1988 - REMAINING NURSERY STOCK OF TREES TRANSPLANTED TO VARIOUS PARKS AND SITE WAS GRADED 1989 - NSP REMOVED FORMER TELEPHONE POLE USED TO LIGHT SKATING RINK 1989 - FILL DONATED TO PARTIALLY BRING UP LOW LEVEL OF PARK, SOUTH BANK EXCAVATED TO PROVIDE NEW SKATING AREA 1990 - LEVELED OUT FILL AREA & BROUGHT IN ADDITIONAL FILL (TURNER EXCAVATING - $800) 18 PARK AND PLAYGROUND ACQUISITION I(AI~E OF PARK: DATE ACQUIRED: SIZE IN ACRES: LOI:AT I ON: PREVIOUS OWNER: METHOD ACQUIRED: PURCHASE PRICE: ARtIO'LD '(GLADSTONE PARk) November 20, 1964 3 Acres Lot 12, Block 20 (December 1971) Lots 1-10,Blk.21 '& Lots 13-21,Blk.20, Sabins Addition '"£nglish'& Burke Avenue Arnold & Arnold Contract For Deed $1600(11/20/64); $1600 ~ll/l/6~); $1600 (11/I/66); $16'00 (,1!/1/67; 14)1600 (11/ /(iB) , ~ SBO00.O0 Lot 12, Block 20 purchased December 1971 from Anthony Jungman. 19 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation October 1, 2001 for the October 8, 2001 City Council Meeting Gladstone Park Development Agenda INTRODUCTION Gladstone Park, also known as Amold Park, was acquired by the city November 20, 1964. The three-acre park was acquired from the Arnold family on a contract for deed for a purchase price of $8,000. BACKGROUND Gladstone Park has had a variety of uses during the past 30 years and was at one time utilized as a neighborhood park with a small warming house and pleasure skating rink. With the development of Timber Park at the intersection of Burke Avenue and Atlantic Street, Gladstone Park received less use due to the busy intersection of English Street. Following its active use as a neighborhood park, the city used it for approximately ten years as a tree nursery. The site is in a residential neighborhood and provides a trail access to Weaver Elementary School. The Parks and Recreation Commission has declared Gladstone Park as excess city property. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the city develop the site as an eight-lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac off of English Street..In addition to the proposed development, the trail access to the Bruce Vento Trail would remain. Each of the proposed lots would be in conformance with city code and road, sewer and water improvements would be done as part of the English Street public works project scheduled for 2002. The timing of this project is critical, as there would be great cost savings to the city for the underground and road improvements to be completed at the same time as the English Street roadway project. It is further recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff that the city serve as the developer of the project, not unlike the project at Sunset Ridge Park. Although no definitive market research has been done, preliminary estimates indicate that the lots would sell for a minimum of $50,000 per lot or $400,000 with the monies to be allocated back to the park development fund. This subject has been discussed at length with public works director Chuck Ahl and he supports and recommends the proposed improvements. Staff is looking for conceptual approval of the city developing an eight-lot subdivision and that Gladstone Park be declared as excess park land. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the public works department to include the eight-lot Gladstone subdivision as part of the English Street project and refer back specific numbers and final approval plans for Council approval as part of the English Street redevelopment project. 2O kd~gladston.mem Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan Maplewood Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan 21 , , 5.31 Name: Gladstone Park V- Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan Neighborhood: Sherwood Glen Park Statistics Classification: Neighborhood Park / Mini Park Location: 2120 English Approximate Size: 3 Acres Basis for Park Need/Primary Program Focus ... Trail Access . , Trail access from the neighborhood has not been developed. The parks location adjac~tit to the Burlington ,Norb~em · Regional Trail offers e~tensiye 0pportuni~ to llnkthe neighborhood tothe larger pa~ ~d trail system. Also, linking the park to the nearby s~ool site offers lfi~ potential ~o expand If' developed, the park could erv~ce some of the nearby neighborhood park needs in this fully de~eloped reside~tiat area. However, with Timber Park, and Weaver School So dose. by, the need for this park for seWldng neighbOrhOod park · needs is limited. Except for retaining enough propert~ for a traiI corridor from the neighborhood to the rel~nal ~il ~nd site, strong consideration should be given to adtually setllr~§ this property. If' retained, the greatest opportunity is to develol~ b'ie park as a simple trail access point to the regional trail. ' Interrelationship with Other Parks Gladstone is a small neighborhood/mini park that is intended to work in concert with Timber Park to service neighborhood park needs in the western portion of the Sherwood Glen neighborhood. Interconnection with the nearby Weaver School site is also an important consideration with respect to the development program for this site. The nearby regional park also factors into meeting neighborhood need for parks and open space. This is particularly important here in that the neighborhood parks themselves do not offer much in the way of open space. Park Features/Amenities_. The park has not been developed. Visual Characteristics Given the disturbed, gravel pit appearance, the park does not offer much in the way of visual aesthetics. Extensive remedial work is required to create a visually appealing park property. recreational o tfme avoiding duplication of'facll ~ areas. Ecological/Natural Establishing a final grading plan and vegetation, whether turf grasses or native plantings, should be completed to forestall site erosion. Developm*ent Program , If the park is retained, its development program should be considered within the context of Weaver School and Timber Park to take advantage of the facilities already available in these parks and thus avoid duplication. With the focus of the fadlities provided at the school and Timber park on active recreation for younger children, the development of Gladstone could focus on trailhead opportunities and a more relaxed atmosphere. If the park is retained, potential futura development considerations include: Extensive grading and landscaping to improve site grades and aesthetics and buffer adjacent properties. * Trailhead features, including sitting areas and architectural features, like an arbor, to add visual interest. - . ~ Adding a few picnic tables and bike rack. 22 Maplewood Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan 5.32 V - Par~ Open Space~ and Trail System Plan Maplewood Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan 23 5.33 Name: Sherwood Park V - Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan Neighborhood: Sherwood Glen Park Statisffcs Classification: Neighborhood Park Location: Cope and Hazelwood Approximate Size: 15 Acres Basis for Park Need/Primary Program Focus The park services neighborhood park needs in this fully developed residential area~ The primary focus of the park is: * Providing neighborhood recreation facilities focused on non-structured individual and family activities. * Creating a social center for the neighborhood. Open space for informal group play and limited use for organized/programmed activities. Interrelationship with Other Parks Sherwood Park works in concert with Robinhood Park to service the neighborhood-level park needs for the eastern half of the Sherwood Glen neighborhood. John Glen and Weaver schools also factor into servidng neighborhood park needs. The comblnaffon of these park and school sites provides a full palette of actJve recreational opportur~Ities in the neighborhood. The two regional trails bisecting the neighborhood provide recreational opportunities not found in the park or school sites and also help offset the absence of a neighborhood preserve-type park in the Sherwood Glen neighborhood. Park Features/Amenities Numerous upgrades have been made to the park over the years, with a particular focus on play areas, tennis courts, and sports fields. As illustrated by the aerial photograph, current features of the park include: 1) Hardcourt area for tennis 2) Parking lot for 15 to 20 cars 3) Small picnic area 4) Children's play area 5) Ballfleld 6) Soccer field 7) Drainage way with mowed turf 8) Stormwater pond Visual Characteristics Visually, the park takes on a functional character with limited aesthetic variability and appeal. The sports fields dominate the park and are a bit imposing in the context of the neighborhood' park setting. The extent of mowed turf seems excessive. Significant opportunity exists to introduce additional ornamental plant materials and/or native plant communities (especially wildflowers) to add interest to the park and create a more relaxed, natural, and inviting feel. Trail Access No trail access to the park is provided. The local streets provide vehicular and pedestrian access. There are no internal trails. Ecological/Natural Resource Issues. With the majority of the park covered by manicured tuff, ecological issues are limited at this time. However, there is some potential to introduce a more naturalized land~pe in selected areas of the park. This could create a more diverse and interesting overall aesthetic appeal and reduce turf maintenance. Native plant materials could also be used more ex~nsively around the pond to help remove contaminants from stormwater runoff before it runs into the pond. Management of any introduced natural areas should be included in the dry-wide program for restoration and management. Development Program With many of the existing site amenities in relatively good shape, future development should focus on the overall character of the park alongwith replacement of any current amenities that may wear out over time. One of the key design challenges is tying the individual use areas of the park together into a cohesive whole. Currently, the park has a spread-out feel with no real center of activity or sense of place. Consideration should also be given to shifting some of the programmed uses of th e park to other, more suitable sites to reduce the extent of programmed activities in a neighborhood park setting 5ome of the areas now used for active sports, such as soccer or baseball, could be redesigned for other uses or left as open space. In addition to the existing features, potential future development considerations include: Enhancing the landscaping to improve site aesthetics and buffer adjacent properties. Introducing some naturalized areas should be considered to enhance the park's overall aesthetic appeal and add visual interesL Adding trails to link use areas within the park. Volleyball court - grass or sand Basketball court * Children's hardcourt * Si~ing areas and architectural features, like an arbor, to add visual interest General amenities enhancements (i.e., benches, picnic tables, grills, bike rack, drinking fountain, etc.) 24 MaDlewood Parks. Ooen Soace. and Trail Sv~em Plan ~ ~,4 ATTACHMENT 12 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Bruce Anderson, representing the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department, proposed a change to the city's land use plan from P (park) to R-1 (single dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to: Lots 12-21, Block 20 and Lots 1-10, Block 21, all in Sabin Addition, together with adjacent vacated alleys and streets, in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be knowr~ as Lots 1-7 of the proposed Gladstone Park Addition) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On Apdl 15, 2002, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a headng notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council ~ this change. 2. On May 13, 2002, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change because it would: 1. Be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. Eliminate the planned park that would have been between two residential areas. 3. Be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. 4. Provide for orderly development of land uses. 5. Help minimize conflicts between land uses. 6. Provide additional moderately pdced housing stock. 7. Allow for the construction of an in-fill residential housing development in the city. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 25 Attachment 13 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood applied for the vacation of the following: The Burke Avenue right-of-way, between the east fight-of-way line of English Street and the west line of the former Northem Pacific railroad fight-of-way (the Ramsey County Trail) as platted as part of Blocks 20 and 21, Sabin Addition in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The alley in Block 20 of the Sabin Addition between of the east right-of-way of English Street and the west line of the former Northern Pacific railroad right-of-way (the Ramsey County Trail) in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On Apdl 15, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these vacations. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: For the Burke Avenue right-of-way, Lots 12 through 21, Block 20 and Lots 1 through 10, Block 21, Sabin Addition. (PINS 15-29-22-22-0041 and 15-29-22-22-0042) For the alley, Lots 7 through 11, Block 20, Sabin Addition (PIN 15-29-22-22-0040)and Lots 12 through 21, Block 20, Sabin Addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacations for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public-interest. 2. The existing street right-of-way does not fit the location of the proposed street layout. 3. The city will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the proposed plat. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 26 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Beaver Lake Townhomes Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street April 9, 2002 Project Description Mr. Tony Emmedch, representing the AJE Companies, is proposing to develop a 148-unit planned unit development (PUD) called Beaver Lake Townhomes. It would be on a 27-acre site on the south side of Maryland Avenue, between Sterling Street and Lakewood Ddve. (Please see the maps starting on page 28.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Emmerich is requesting several city approvals including: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 148-unit housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36-566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings having 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 Beaver Lake and would have a mix of housing with 40 single-family detached townhomes and 108 rental units in 11 8-unit and 5 4-unit buildings. 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. Street right-of-way and easement vacations. These would be for the unused street right-of-ways and easements on the site. (See the map on page 34.) 3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the proposed site plan on page 35.) 4. The on-street or driveway parking standards and no on-street or driveway parking requirements for the development. 5. Authorization for city staff to spend city open space funds and to use a $150,000 DNR grant to buy about 8.9 acres of the project site for park and open space purposes. I also should note that the applicant has not yet applied for design approval. If the city approves the above-listed requests, then the applicant will apply to the city for final plat approval and design approval (including architectural and landscape plans). Please also refer to the developer's project plans for more information about these proposals. BACKGROUND On March 20, 1980, the city council approved a preliminary plat, street vacation and a planned unit development (PUD) for this site called Beaver Lake Hills. This plan was for 46 4ounit buildings (184 units). See the plan on page 40. The preliminary plat approval was subject to eight conditions and the PUD approval was subject to nine conditions. On December 13, 1983, after several time extensions, the city's approval of the preliminary plat and PUD for the Beaver Lake Hills development expired. On February 27, 1984, the city council changed the zoning map for the property on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Lakewood Drive and Steding Street. This change was from F (farm residence) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). On March 12, 2001, the city council held a public headng to consider a development proposal by Mr. Emmerich for this site. This plan had 162 housing units in 42 detached town houses and 120 rental housing units in 15 8-unit buildings. At this meeting, the applicant agreed to a time extension for city council action until May 14, 2001. This time extension was to allow the developer to possibly redesign the project and to have a meeting with the neighbors. (See the minutes on pages 41 and 42.) On May 14, 2001, the city council considered a revised proposal for this site. This plan had 148 housing units in 42 detached town houses and 106 rental housing units in 4 and 8-unit buildings. At this meeting, the city council ordered the hidng of an independent consultant to prepare an environmental assessment worksheet (EAVV) for this proposal. They ordered the F_AW because of potential significant issues including traffic, effects on the creek bed, the size of the proposed buffer area and storm water ponding and run-off concerns. (See the minutes on pages 43 and 44.) On September 24, 2001, the city council received all comments and responses to the F_AW and the proposed findings of fact for the proposed project. It is important to note that the EAW recommended that the developer make several changes to the project plans to make the project more sensitive to the existing environmental conditions on the property. (Refer to the minutes starting, on page 45.) At this same meeting, the council also adopted resolution 01-09-91 about the Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD E. AW. This resolution made a "finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) from the proposed project. The resolution also stated that the environmental review rules had been met and that the potential environmental effects were not considered significant enough to warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement (ELS). DISCUSSION Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) As I noted above, the city had an F_AW prepared for this site in 2001. This study looked at the potential impacts that the proposal could have on environmentally important features of the site. These include the woodlands, ecologically sensitive resources (including the wetlands and the creek), state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) plant or animal species and storm water and water runoff. The EAVV also studied shoreland district concerns, erosion and sedimentation, geological hazards and soil conditions, solid and hazardous wastes, traffic and traffic mitigation, vehicle-related air emissions, odors, noise and dust, archaeological, historical and architectural resources, scenic views and vistas, visual impacts, impact on infrastructure and public services. I have included a summary of the issues that the F_AW identified starting on page 51. It is important to note that the EAW found that the proposed project, if carefully constructed, would not cause great harm or damage to the environment or to the area. The EAW, however, did identify several areas where the developer could change the plans to make them more sensitive to the existing conditions on the property. In response to the concerns that the city and the EAW identified, the developer's engineer redesigned much of the project. These changes are in the current proposed plans and include moving the south driveway north on Lakewood Ddve and widening the undisturbed area along the creek. The proposed changes are to address the concerns and issues identified by staff and the F_AW. It is staff's opinion the latest plans (dated March 12, 2002) have addressed the major design concerns and issues identified to date by the city and in the EAW. An area of concern raised by the neighbors and studied in four pages in the EAW is traffic. I have included details about this issue in a separate section of the report. (See page 8.) Open Space The Maplewood Open Space Committee ranked this site fifth out of 66 when they rated properties in 1992 and first out of the two they rated in this neighborhood. When the open space committee reviewed this site, they gave the property points for several characteristics. These aspects included that it is part of a linear open space corridor, it has running water (a stream) and valuable wetlands, that it was an area with natural processes or ecological relationships that are unique or have area-wide significance, it is near a public school and the site could be or is part of a public trail system. 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 about 85 acres of open space land along the west, north and east sides of Beaver Lake (south of Maryland Avenue and west of Lakewood Ddve). Geranium Park, a 9-acre neighborhood city park, is about 500 feet to the east of the site on the south side of Geranium Avenue. In addition, Maplewood has a use deed with the State of Minnesota for drainage and open space purposes on the vacant 34-acre parcel on the north side of Maryland Avenue (east of Sterling Street). Metro Greenways Program In 1999, the city received a $100,000 matching' grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Greenways program for this property. Since the initial grant approval, the DNR has approved the city for another $50,000 in grant money to spend On the purchase of property for the greenway at this site. The purpose of the Metro Greenways is to protect, connect, restore and manage a network of significant natural areas, parks and other open spaces interconnected by habitat corridors. The grant for this site is for the city to acquire part of this property (primarily along the stream) as a natural greenway between Beaver Lake and the city pond to the south and west of the site and the wetland area north of Maryland Avenue. This greenway would serve several purposes. These include acting as a natural buffer area around the stream and wetlands (to protect the water quality and the natural features from human impact) and to be a wildlife corridor between existing open space. I had Al Singer, the Metro Greenways Coordinator from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), review the first proposed project plan. He had several concerns about the eadier proposal and its probable impacts on the stream corridor. Specifically, Mr. Singer noted that the removal of the existing conifers (pine trees) and other plant material on the site, along with the damage due to construction equipment, soil compaction and slope alteration, would further degrade the aesthetic and ecological value of the corridor. He also noted that the city park dedication requirements should take the form of donated property adjacent to the corridor and that any property that the city wants to acquire with Metro Greenways funding must be for all to use, not just for the adjacent residents. The developer, in response to staff and neighborhood concerns, hat revised the proposed project plans. The latest plans now show 148 housing units (instead of 162) in 40 detached town houses and 108 rental housing units in 4-unit and 8-unit buildings. The developer made most of the changes on the east side of the project site (between the pipelines and Steding Street). An important change to note in this area is that the developer has shifted the detached town houses to the south away from an area of natural significance. This change has moved the town houses (buildings 26-34) so they are no longer in the grove of coniferous trees (pines) along the south side of the stream. In addition, the changes have widened the corddor along the stream. The undisturbed corridor along the stream is now 155 feet wide (at its narrowest point) - up from the 80-foot-wide narrow point on the first proposal and up from 130 feet from the last proposal. Mr. Singer and his assistant, Ross Sublett, have reviewed the revised development proposal. (Mr. Singer's comments are in the letter on page 64.) He noted that they have reviewed the plans and "are very pleased with the significant changes that the owner and developer have now . proposed." Mr. Singer also states "this new proposal adequately addresses many of the concerns shared by the neighbors, the larger community and the DNR. We believe this project will be a win- win for all of the involved parties." Wetlands and Stream The developer had the wetlands on the site delineated by a trained wetland professional. The watershed distdct has classified these wetlands as Class II wetlands. The existing city wetland and stream protection ordinance requires the developer to protect much of the stream and wetland corridor on the site. Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance requires a 50-foot-wide no-disturb buffer around the wetlands on the property. The wetland ordinance also requires at least a 50-foot- wide no-disturb buffer area along both sides of the stream (as measured from the top bank of the stream) and the building foundations must be at least 60 feet from these wetlands and from the stream. As such, the city does not usually allow any ground disturbance, including grading, within the buffer area. The proposed plans meet these requirements. 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. 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. 4 The proposed grading plan shows little grading in the 50-foot-wide buffer. These areas are near the rear of buildings 8 & 9, 21 & 22 and 42. The proposed grading in the buffer area is to accommodate the proposed storm water piping and overflows and the utilities (storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water mains) to serve the development. As I noted above, Section 9- 196(d)(1)(b) of the city code allows utilities in the wetland buffer areas. The contractor should place the silt fence and temporary construction fencing so they protect the buffer areas during all construction. City ordinance requirements will protect the immediate area along the stream and around the wetlands from development. There has been much interest from city staff, the neighbors and the RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed Distdct in increasing the size of the protected area along the stream and wetlands. Using the Greenways grant from the DNR, while matching the state dollars with city open space money, (as is required) to buy through negotiation the area along the stream (to provide additional wetland and stream protection) is a goal the city should consider. Park Issues I had Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, review the revised development plans. Mr. Anderson supports the revised development plan as it lowers the project density, it will increase the public open space on the site, and it should be "a positive project for the city, abutting property owners and for long-term park purposes." With the revised ptans, the developer has agreed that the city should own the property along the stream and pipelines for public benefit. To have fewer housing units on the site while increasing the width of the public corridor, staff has negotiated with the developer to pay him up to $400,000 from city open space funds and the DNR Greenways money. The city would then own about 8.9 acres of property through the center of the site so it would be available for all to use and enjoy. Trails and Sidewalks Mr. Anderson also noted that the developer is not proposing to build any trails with the development. He notes that the city will be receiving park dedication funds that the city will use for the construction of the trail through the site. The city has been planning for a north/south trail corddor to go through this site. This trail is to eventually connect the Maplewood Nature Center with the Priory open space to the north. The developer, however, has not shown any trails within the site. Mr. Anderson recommends that the city install a trail along the creek corridor in the property that the city would own. However, Mr. Anderson wants to ensure that the developer provide an internal trail system that would connect the west and east sides of the proposed development (including a bddge over Beaver Creek). The developer's plans do not show any walking paths or sidewalks within the development. However, the Maplewood Parks, Open Space and Trail System Plan that the city adopted in 1999 identified the natural corridor along the stream on this site as the location of a park trail. This trail would connect Stillwater Road on the south with the open space(s) north of Maryland Avenue. The Implementation Plan of the 1999 Parks Plan identified this trail segment as the highest priority trail to build of those the city identified for the trail system. That is, the city should make the building of this trail its top priority when discussing the building of trails or when reviewing development proposals for this site. r ............ T ............. -!- ...... 1- To be consistent with the adopted Parks Plan, the city should build this trail. Section 9-196(e)(2) of the city code, however, states that a trail within a wetland or stream buffer "must not be of ' impervious surface." As such, any trail within the buffers on this site must be constructed of wood chips or another material that is not impervious. Any trail construction on the site will need to be coordinated with the project's utility construction. The responsibility of the developer would be to install 8-foot-wide connecting trails from the city trail in the center of the site to the east and to the west to connect the respective sides of the development with each other. To accomplish these connections, the city should require several things. First, the city should require the developer to install 8-foot-wide trails on top of or near the proposed storm seWer pipes between buildings 8 and 9 and between buildings 21 and 22. Secondly, require the developer to install a trail bridge or crossing over the stream that would allow people to easily cross from one to the other. These links will give the new residents in the development access to the trail corridor and to each other. All the trails within the development should be public and for all to use, not just for those living in the development. In addition to the above-noted trails, the plans show a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Steding Street and the west property line of the site. The city engineer told me that the city should consider building the rest of the sidewalk from the west line of the site to Lakewood Drive to complete the sidewalk along this part of Maryland Avenue. This sidewalk would give the residents of Rosewood Estates and the new residents on Maryland Avenue a place to walk off the street while going to and from the trails north of Maryland Avenue and to the new trail along the stream. For paved off-street paths, Maplewood requires 8-foot-wide bituminous paths (when not in a buffer area) be in a publicly-owned right-of-way or pedestrian way that is at least 10 feet wider than the trail. As such, the developer will need to dedicate the outlots between Lots 8 and 9 and between Lots 21 and 22 to the city to meet this code requirement. The developer should build a fence on both sides of the paved trails within this plat. The city should require the developer to install the sidewalks, trails 'and fences with the streets and driveways before final plat approval. This is to ensure that the lot buyers know that the trail is there. Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plans The city intends areas designated in the land use plan as residential medium-density (RM) as areas for town houses or apartments of up to 6 units per gross acre. (See the land use plan map on page 29.) For areas the city has zoned multiple-family residential (R-3), the city 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. The 148 units on the 27-acre site means there would be 5.48 units per gross acre which is consistent with the density standards set in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for this site. 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 a mix of housing styles and densities. It is on a major collector street (Maryland Avenue) and on an artedal street (Lakewood Ddve) and is near open space. With a proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and dghts of the property owner to develop his property with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan (dated March 12, 2002) balances the land owner's rights to use and develop the property versus the city's interest in preserving the stream corridor. Conditional Use Permit/PUD The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 148-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 having more than four units. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Beaver Lake and would have a mix of housing with 40 single-family detached townhomes and 108 rental units in 11 8-unit and 5 4-unit 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 zoning requirements would normally allow. In consideration for the PUD, the city should require improved architectural design or landscaping elements within the development. As proposed, the 148 dwelling units would be on about 27 acres for an overall project density of 5.48 units per acre. For a comparison, the comprehensive plan allows developments with single dwellings to have up to 4.1 units per gross acre. As such, on a 27-acre site, there could be up to 110 single-family homes. Shoreland District Regulations As I noted earlier, most of this site is in the shoreland distdct of Beaver Lake. Maplewood adopted the 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; that the applicant prepare a storm water management plan for the proposal; and - that the developer design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake. Specifically, Section 36-574(e)(4) of the code says "This design shall use vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color or other means. The city may require additional vegetation to help 7 screen these ~acilities." The proposed project plans say that the development will have 68 percent open space. The applicant has not provided any building or landscaping plans, so staff cannot yet determine if the plans will meet the maximum height and screening requirements noted above. The applicant's engineer has submitted a grading plan with calculations that the city engineer will review for consistency with city standards. The proposed plans appear to meet all city platting, wetland and setback requirements. Meeting all city and other agency standards should be a requirement of the conditional use permit and of the design approval. Traffic As I noted eadier, traffic (especially at the intersection of Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue) was and still is a concern of several of the neighbors. The EAW analyzed the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection for how it operates (or how traffic flows) for both the morning and afternoon peak hours. This analysis was done for the existing conditions (2001), for the year 2005 with nothing built on the proposed site and for 2005 if the development was complete. The study also looked at the year 2020 with no development and with development on the proposed site. (Please see the traffic section of the F_AW (pages 20-23) for a summary of the traffic impact study on pages 47-50.) The traffic study explains that traffic operations for intersections are rated by level of service (LOS) from A to F. Specifically, a LOS of A is the best and smoothest operating intersection while a LOS of F is a congested and poorly operating intersection. According to the traffic study, the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection now operates at an acceptable level both in the moming and in the afternoon. The study notes that the intersection, especially the south approach (northbound traffic), with no development on this site, will operate at a level of service (LOS) E during the aftemoon peak hour in 2005. The study goes on to say that in 2005, with the addition of the proposed development, the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue interSection will operate at a LOS E dudng the afternoon peak hour. For the year 2020, the traffic study notes that the intersection will operate at a LOS E or F for the peak hours (with or without the proposed development), depending on which direction one is traveling. In all caSes, the decreasing LOS for this intersection (and for all intersections in the area), can be partially attributed to the increasing level of traffic on all roads. That is, more people are driving more often on all the streets and roads in the region. For the years 2005 and 2020, the traffic study suggests that the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue would improve the operations of the intersection to a LOS D during the peak hours and the overall operations to a LOS B. Dan Soler, the Ramsey County traffic engineer, reviewed the revised plans. His comments are in the memo on pages 66 and 67. He notes that he is satisfied with the proposed changes to the plans and that the county will be monitoring the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection to determine if or when the criteria or warrants are met for the installation of a traffic signal. Site Plan Changes Stream Corridor and Wetland Buffers As I noted above, the city wetland and stream protection ordinance requires the developer to protect much of the stream and wetland corridor on the site. Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance requires a 50-foot-wide no-disturb buffer around the wetlands on the property. The wetland ordinance also requires at least a 50-foot-wide no-disturb buffer area along both sides of the stream (as measured from the top of the stream banks) to help protect it from the effects of the proposed development. The proposed plans meet these requirements. I also noted earlier that the revised plans (dated March 12, 2002) show a wider corridor along the stream and around the wetlands on the site than the earlier proposal. This revised plan, with the publicly owned corridor, should provide the stream and wetlands with more protection from the development and human impacts than the earlier proposals. North Side (along Maryland Avenue) The proposed development plans now show a driveway parallel to Maryland Avenue to provide access to the homes on the south side of the street. Mr. Soler of Ramsey County suggested this design. 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. Front and Rear-Yard Setbacks The developer has shown a variety of building locations on the proposed grading plan and also is proposing all private driveways within the development. Maplewood's setback standards usually do not apply to buildings when next to a private driveway (versus a public street). Having a variety of setbacks in this development will allow for less mass grading and more individual town house styles. Off-Street Parking Standards The city code requires the developer to provide at least 296 off-street parking spaces (two for each unit) in this development. The developer's engineer noted on the project plans that they would be providing at least 337 parking spaces (including garages) within the site. Of the 296 parking spaces, 132 would be on driveways behind garages. The total number of proposed spaces should be enough parking for the residents and their guests. I also should note that, as proposed, Private Driveways A and D on the plans would be 28 feet wide. This width would allow for parking on one side of each driveway. .............. -r ........ T ..................... T----T Street and Easement Vacations Mr. Emmerich has asked the city to vacate all .the unused street right-of-waYs and easements within the project area. (See the map on page 34). These existing public facilities do not fit with the proposed street, ddveway and lot layout on the plans. Since the developer will be dedicating all the necessary easemer~ts with the new plat, there is no need to keep the existing right-of-ways and easements. Preliminary Plat The proposed development and preliminary plat with 148 units meets the city's density requirements for medium-density residential development. Having a lot under each detached town house unit will allow the developer to sell each unit individually. Drainage and Watershed District Most of the site drains to the existing stream in the center of the property. This stream runs to the south to an existing city ponding area on the east side of Lakewood Ddve and then into Beaver Lake. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed ponds as storm water detention facilities, the development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. He said that the runoff leaving the site would be at or below current levels. The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District reviewed the proposed project plans. Refer to the memo on pages 59-61. 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 stream, wetlands and their buffer areas. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water in Maryland Avenue and in Sterling Street to serve the proposed development. The developer will need to extend the water main between the west and east sides of the proposed development to connect and loop the water system. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the water plan. I had Chris Cavett and Chuck Ahl of the city engineering staff and Ed Nadeau, the city sewer foreman, review the proposed plans. They noted that the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the site near the stream is difficult to maintain and may need repairs. They believe there is an opportunity to work with the developer to design new sewer lines that will serve the needs of the development and that will better serve the city as a whole. The city council ordered a sewer improvement study in 2001 (that is still ongoing) to review this matter. The city engineer expects this study to be done in May. Trees As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade much of the site to create the private driveways, the ponding areas and the building pads. This grading would disturb about 18 acres of ]0 the 27-acre site while preserving many of the slopes and some of the large trees on the site, especially near the stream and pipeline. (See the proposed grading plan on page 37.) The applicant, however, has not yet prepared a tree plan for the property. Before grading the site, the city should require the developer to submit a detailed tree plan to staff for approval. Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading. For this site, the ordinance requires that at least 270 large trees remain. If the developer cannot keep that many large trees, the ordinance requires him to plant replacement trees. This would be up to a maximum of 10 trees per gross acre so there are at least 270 trees on the site. The developer should provide this plan, along with the proposed landscape plan, to the city for review by the Community Design Review Board. Fire Department Review On-street Parking standards The applicant is proposing private driveways within the PUD with widths from 20 feet to 28 feet in the development. I had the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal review the proposed driveways and their widths. According to Article 9, Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code, all fire access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. As such, 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 wants to allow parking on one side of the driveways, then they must be at least 28 feet wide. Any driveway that is less than 28 feet wide must be posted for no parking on both sides. Police Department Review Lieutenant Banick of the Maplewood Police department reviewed the proposed project plans. His comments start on page 57. He noted concerns about the safety of motorists who exit from the south driveway onto Lakewood Drive and if the proposal would generate a substantial increase in emergency service calls. CONCLUSION The revised project plans will provide the city with additional housing in two styles not common in Maplewood. While many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the right to develop and use his land. The current proposal provides protection for the stream and 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. 11 RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution starting on page 77. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Beaver Lake Townhome development on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Ddve. 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 date-stamped March 12, 2002 except for the following changes: ao Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) No grading or ground disturbance in the park dedication area and in the wetland and stream buffer areas except: (a) As allowed by the watersh'ed district. (b) For the utilities, trails and footbridge. (2) The required trails and sidewalks. (3) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district Or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (4) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting the grove of coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural significance) that is in and near the south side of the stream corddor near the rear of proposed buildings 26-34. (5) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of a driveway, then that driveway must be at least 28 feet wide. (6) All parking stalls with a width of at least nine feet and a length of at least 18 feet. b. The developer deeding the area labeled "Park Dedication" on the plans to the City of Maplewood. This dedication is to help protect the most sensitive natural features on the site and would protect this part of the site from building, fences, mowing~ cutting, filling, grading, dumping or other ground disturbances. This dedication also would help ensure the natural linear or corridor aspect of the site (primarily around the stream) would remain as it is now. The Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the land or the area(s) for dedication to the city. The city shall use the Greenways grant from the DNR, while matching the state dollars with city open space money, (as is required) to buy the protected area along the stream and wetlands labeled as Park Dedication on the plan dated March 12, 2002. 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. ]2 3.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Show no grading or ground disturbance (except where utilities or trails are installed) in the: (1) Required wetland and stream buffer areas. (2) Park Dedication area. This land will be for city park and open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect the park dedication area, including the grove of coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural significance) that is in and near the south side of the stream corridor, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. City-required trails are allowed in the buffer and park dedication areas. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. d. Include a coordinated plan with the public works department for the design and installation of the sanitary sewer lines or for the repair or realignment of the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the site. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping. d. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. e. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the wetlands, stream corridor, park dedication area and site. f. Install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the west property line of the site. The developer's engineer shall show this sidewalk on the grading and construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the details of these plans. g. Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: (1) From Private Drive ^ in the west side of the site between Lots 8 and 9 to near the stream in the center of the site. (2) From Private Drive D in the east side of the site, between Lots 21 and 22 to near the stream in the center of the site. ho The trail must have a surface that is not impervious when the trail is in a wetland or stream buffer area. The developer's engineer shall design the trails to follow the existing property contours and proposed utility corridors to save as many trees as possible and to minimize the amount of grading necessary to install the trails. Restore all disturbed areas within the stream corridor and park dedication area with a native seed mix approved by the watershed district and by the city engineer. The developer shall give the city wetland easements over the wetlands and the stream. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland. The easements also shall cover the stream and any land within 50 feet of the top of the stream bank. These easements shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within fifty feet of the wetland and the stream or within the wetland itself. The purpose of this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands and the stream from fertilizer and to protect the wetland and stream habitat from encroachment. 7. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Beaver Lake Townhome PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 25 feet, maximum - 40 feet c. Rear-yard setback: none d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 5 feet to a property line and 10 feet minimum between buildings e. Side yard setbacks (apartments): 20 feet minimum between buildings 8. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes or for the apartments. The project design plans, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a° Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. The buildings in the shoreland district shall have a maximum height of 25 feet (unless the city council approves taller structures). ]4 c. The developer shall design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake. This shall include using vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color or other means to accomplish the screening. The city may require additional vegetation to help screen these facilities. d. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width- 20 feet. (2) Maximum width - 28 feet. (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for no parking on one side. e. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 9. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots for any outlot in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. 10. The developer paying the city $94,000 in Park Availability Charges (PAC fees) for this development. 11. The city council shall review this permit in one year. B. Approve the resolution starting on page 82. This resolution vacates parts of the unused Magnolia Avenue and Sterling Street lying west of Lakewood Drive and south of Maryland Avenue in the Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD. It is in the public interest to vacate these fight-of-ways for the following reasons: 1. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. 2. These right-of-ways are not needed for the public purpose of street construction. 3. The developer will be building pdvate streets and driveways in the project. C. Approve the resolution on page 83. This resolution vacates the unused drainage and utility easements lying east of Lakewood Ddve, west of Sterling Street and south of Maryland Avenue in the Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD. It is in the public interest to vacate these easements for the following reasons: 1. The adjacent properties have adequate street and utility access. 2. These easements are not needed for their odginal public purposes. 3. The developer will be dedicating new easements with the final plat for the project. Approve the Beaver Lake Townhomes preliminary plat. (received by the city on March 12, 2002). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 15 locations - primarily at street and driveway intersections and street or ddveway curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. Complete and replace as necessary all curb and gutter on Sterling Street and on Maryland Avenue. This is to replace the existing driveways and driveway aprons on these streets. This shall include the repair of the pavement and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. h. For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following: (1) Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: a. From Pdvate Drive A in the west side of the site between Lots 8 and 9 to near the stream in the center of the site. b. From Private Ddve D in the east side of the site, between Lots 21 and 22 to near the stream. All trails between lots shall be in a publicly-owned pedestrian way or outlot. (2) The developer also shall build a six-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the west property line of the site. (3) The developer shall install a two-rail split-rail fence on both sides of each trail and posts at the end of the trails to prevent motorized vehicles from using the trail. (4) The developer shall build the trails, sidewalks and fencing with the driveways and streets before the city approves a final plat. (5) The city engineer must approve these plans. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland and stream buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the area labeled "Park Dedication." These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a public park area and that there shall be no building, fenCes, mowing, cuffing, filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. Install signs where the driveways for the apartments and for the town houses interSect the public streets indicating that they are private driveways. 2.* 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. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for eaCh building' site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads. that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) (5) The street, driveway and trail grades as allowed by the city engineer. All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes Steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The develOper shall install a protective rail or' fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins,or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) Additional information for the property south of the project site. This shall include elevations of the existing ditch, culverts and catch basins and enough information about the storm water flow path from the proposed ponds. (10) Emergency overflows between Lots 8 and 9, Lots 21 and 22 and south of proposed building 42 (out of proposed ponds 1, 3 and 4). The overflow swales shall be protected with permanent soil-stabilization blankets. ]7 (11) Restoration in the stream corridor and park dedication area being done with native seed mix or vegetation as approved by the city engineer and by the watershed district. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) 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 Black Hills Spruce, Austdan pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, park dedication areas 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 trails (d) along the east side of Lakewood Drive to screen the proposed buildings from Beaver Lake (e) along the south side of the site (west of Steding Street) to screen the development from the existing house to the south The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences. (7) Show the planting of at least 270 trees after the site grading is done. d. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (1) An eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: a. From Private Drive A in the west side of the site between Lots 8 and 9 to near the stream in the center of the site. b. From Pdvate Drive D in the east side of the site, between Lots 21 and 22 to near the stream. The parks and recreation director shall approve their locations and design. ]8 (2) The public streets and driveways shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (3) All the streets, parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (4) The removal of the unused driveways and ddveway aprons and the completion of the curb and gutter on Sterling Street and on Maryland Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (5) (6) 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. All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (8) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. (9) A coordinated sewer realignment and reconstruction plan. The city engineer must approve the sanitary sewer realignment plans. (10) ^ six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the west property line of the site. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run- off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Vedfy inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer vedfy the drainage design calculations. 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. Show the park dedication boundary and area on the final plat. r '1' ......... ]- d. 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. e. Show street names for the driveways as follows: (1) Pdvate Driveway A in the west one-half of the site shall be called "Beaver Creek Parkway." (2) Private Ddveway B in the west one-half of the site shall be called "Beaver Creek Lane." (3) Pdvate Ddveway D in the east one-half of the site shall be called "Stealing Circle." (4) Private Driveway E in the east one-half of the site shall be called "Sterling Lane." f. Show the existing pipelines and pipeline easements on the final plat. g. If necessary, increase the lot widths for the lots next to the pipeline to ensure that the building pads will be at least 100 feet away from the pipeline. (code requirement) h. Label the common areas as outlots. i. Show the trails in publicly owned property or easements. j. Show the area between buildings 8 and 9 and buildings 21 and 22 as separate outlots and dedicate each of these to the city. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include: ,Any off-site drainage and utility easements. Wetland and stream easements over the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland and a stream. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 50 feet of the wetland or stream or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the stream, wetland or within the wetland itself. ,A stream buffer easement that is at least 50 feet wide on each side of the stream that crosses the site. The easement shall prohibit any building, structures or any mowing, filling, cutting, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream. The purpose of these easements is to protect the water quality of the stream and wetlands from fertilizer and runoff. They also are to protect the stream and wetland habitat from encroachment. d. Any easements the city needs for the realignment of the sanitary sewer through the site. 6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: 2O a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Lakewood Drive, Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the driveways. Work with the city as necessary for the realignment of the sanitary sewer through the site. This sewer project also will require an assessment agreement between the developer and the city to compensate the city for the benefit that the developer receives from the city sewer construction. 7. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. Co A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new ddveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Lakewood Drive and onto Maryland Avenue. A deed restriction prohibiting the construction of a dwelling or its attachments within 100 feet of the Williams Brothers pipeline. This affects Lots 1 through 3, Lots 19 through 24 and buildings 41 and 42 of the proposed preliminary plan the city received on March 12, 2002. The developer also shall notify the purchasers of the pipeline location. d. A deed dedicating a stream buffer easement (50 feet from the top of each stream bank) for the stream that crosses the site. e. Deeds for the stream and wetland buffer easements surrounding the stream and the wetlands. f. 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. g. A deed that transfers the ownership of the park dedication area to Maplewood. h. Deeds that transfer the ownership of the outlots between buildings 8 and 9 and buildings 21 and 22 to the city. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the Director of Community Development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the pdvate utilities, driveways and structures. 9. Show the wetland boundaries on the plat as approved by the Watershed District. A trained and qualified person must delineate the wetlands. This person shall prepare a wetland delineation report. The developer shall submit this wetland information to the Watershed Distdct office. The Watershed District must approve this information before the city approves a final plat. If needed, the developer shall change the plat to meet wetland regulations. 10. 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. 11. 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. Adopt the resolution on page 84. This resolution is for the on-street parking standards and no on-street parking requirements for the Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD south of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. Authorize city staff to spend up to $400,000 of city open space funds for the purchase of about 8.9 acres of the Beaver Lake Townhome site shown as park dedication. This purchase is subject to the: 1. City council approving the PUD, street vacations and preliminary plat for the proposal. 2. Developer recording the final plat for the project that shows the park dedication area. 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approving the use of the $150,000 matching grant money from the Greenways program for this site with the proposed plan. ?-2 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 65 properties within 350 feet of this site about the first proposal (in 2001) and received 15 wdtten replies. After receiving the latest plans (in 2002), I sent a new survey to all those that had expressed an interest in this site (about 118 people). I received 16 replies to the latest survey. Those who wrote had several comments about the revised proposal. I have summarized their comments about the most recent plan as follows: 1. I do not agree with the proposal. I would like to see the land left alone. There is a lot of wildlife that will have nowhere to go. Also, I do not want Section Eight brought into our neighborhood. It is nice and safe and peaceful, that will no longer be. (Winkel - 1044 Mary Street) 2. I would like to know if the proposed park is eligible for the $100,000 matching grant from the DNR. Also, I see no playground facility. Furthermore, I do not see how this is really changed except for reducing the units by 14. Lastly, the F. AW is full of so many conditional words as could. This development will be a traffic and environmental nightmare. If the council approves this, it only furthers the case that they are not representing the people. (Lutfey - 1076 Mary Street) 3. We did want to say that the one problem we were concerned about before was the driveway going out to Lakewood Ddve along Magnolia. If we are reading the plans correctly, it shows it will move it further north which should be much better traffic wise. We hope this plan will remain for our sake and many of our neighbors. (Dreawves - 1070 Lakewood Ddve North) 4. Adding a driveway onto Lakewood Ddve is dangerous. Can the existing lift station on Lakewood Ddve handle the additional sewage flow? In the spring when the water in the creek gets high there will be children drowning in the creek if a high fence is not built on each side. A traffic signal will have to be installed at Lakewood and Maryland to handle the increase in traffic. (Rogers - 1000 Lakewood Drive North) 5. This is too much density shoved into this acreage. However, I feel 2/3 of the Maplewood City Council doesn't dare say no to the developers. I feel our input is not being heard and is only lip service to us. We've changed 2 members - elections will come again. (Axtman - 2510 Geranium Avenue) 6. I am against that many rental units - looks more like an army camp than planned housing. What good are comments - no one listens. Nothing has been changed from last year. Please no rental units. (Kemper - 2513 Geranium Avenue) 7. I am totally against this development. I attended all the meetings on this last year but all things brought up against it went on deaf ears by the council. (Clarke - 2515 Rose Avenue) 8. Where are all the animals going to go if you use all their land? As it is, they are looking for food now. Building as you plan 'leaves them with even less to eat than now. (Hendricks - 1013 Bartelmy Lane) 9. I am still against this plan. I feel that apartments will not add to the community. Build affordable houses, not apartments. People take pride in homes that they own - it is a fact. (Couture - 1020 Bartelmy Lane) 10. I would prefer the development not go in at all. There are numerous issues this will bring to our area including traffic congestion and public schooling - considering Beaver Lake School 23 11. 12. will be closing. I would like to see more land preservation rather than continual construction~ (Meisner- 1031 Steding Street) · I have been against this project from the start, but my opinion does not mean anything or the rest of my neighborhood. (Lindorff- 1037 Sterling Street) I am opposed to this project in any way, shape or form because the wildlife that will be rousted from this area. Also because of the oasis of quiet that will be disturbed. Since it will go forward in spite of objections, I hope that all those pine trees from the comer of Stealing Street to the west will at least remain and the stream untouched. (Caswell 1118 Steding Street) - 13. The city does not maintain the street now. What happens to our street after bdnging all those people in this area? Where are all the deer going to go? (and the animals)? Next election any board member who votes to OK this will not get my vote. (Sablak - 1172 Sterling Street) Also see the letters on pages 68 through 76. I also received several telephone calls from nearby residents about the odginal proposal. They expressed concerns about the loss of open space, the potential effects on the stream, corddor and wildlife, storm water drainage, the proposed housing mix (including rental units and town houses) and increased traffic. 2.4 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTI°N Site size: 27 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Rosewood Estates and Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park across Maryland Avenue Houses on Lakewood Drive and on Sterling Street and city ponding area Rosewood Estates and Ramsey County open space across Lakewood Drive Town houses and quad-homes across Sterling Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designations: R-3(M) (medium density residential) 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 77 through 81. 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, 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 vadety 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 price 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 the first development request on January 18, 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 March 18, 2001. On March 12, 2001, the city council held a public hearing about this site. At this meeting, the applicant agreed to a time extension until May 14, 2001 for the city council. Since that headng, the city had an F_AW prepared and has been working with the developer on revised plans for the site. On March 12, 2002, the city received the latest plans (reviewed herein) for this site. The developer agreed to have the city council hold the public hearing for the latest proposal on May 28, 2002. p:/sec25/beavrplt 2002.mem Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 32. 33. Location Map Land Use Plan Map Property Line/Zoning Map Area Map Area Map Area Map Proposed Public Vacations Proposed Site Plan dated 03-12-02 Proposed Utility Plan dated 03-12-02 Proposed Grading Plan dated 03-12-02 Proposed Preliminary Plat dated 04-30-01 Proposed Grading Plan dated 04-30-01 City-Approved 1980 Development Plan - Beaver Lake Hills 03-12-01 City Council minutes 05-14-01 City Council Minutes 09-24-01 City Council minutes 08-06-01 F_AW (pages 20 - 23) 08-06-01 F_AW (pages 31- 33) 03-27-02 letter from Robert Whiting, Army Corps of Engineers 03-23-02 memo from John Banick 03-18-02 memo from Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District 04-01-02 Engineering review from Chris Cavett 04-03-02 letter from Alan Singer (DNR Greenways Program) 04-04-02 memo from Dan Soler (Ramsey County) 03-29-02 letter from Sue Dwight 03-20-02 letter from Jody Northouse Survey comments from Carlson (1198 Sterling Street) 03-28-02 letter from Kathleen Peterson Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Resolution Street Right-of-Way Vacation Resolution Easement Vacation Resolution No Parking Resolution Project Plans dated March 12, 2002 (separate attachments -including 11x17s and full-size) 27 Ill Attachment I Illl~ Aw 7 AV~. LOCATION MAP 28¸ AVF- R-1 1 R-3(M) lector Attachment 2 Ivy Ave. R-2 -1S R-3(H) M) ,l~tnd Ave. ,Stillwater Rd. BC ~-' BC(M) ~C arvester Ave,, R-31 BC! BC M-1 OS GEM Lsc° Minneha. ha Ave. BC LBO R-3(H) ~S LAND' USE MAP I I (o ROSEWOOD ESTATES . -.- -?, ~-~' ..... l-.-. ~ pROjEC;r SITE RANIUM AVE. (~) I ~CATED ~-~. ,.' .~. :~.:~-, I ', ~ ~ :': ~ I ' I '~-" 8 I /7 6 PROJECT SITE : ' ' "~1085 (~) ' 1083 GERANIUM 0.~) 070 (,,) (?3) $CHOOL~ DIST. O.t~.), PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 3O Attachment 4 . ,:, :~,~ ...' . ~.'~ ............... :. :: ~ ~ ..., .~, ~,..,,~,~t¥~- ~lL~.~.t~,~.~ ~ o ~::~-~ .':-'- : C~ ' ~..~- ' .L__. i .... '~:~:' rt'~ ' ~ ~ ~Z,.. ~_~ ~ IL;~ S' ..... L ........... LJ I: ..,~--' 211 : ~a r ".- '-;'.-.L~,.I'?'~.- ': O, / ......... , PARK ' ' /-'?~-~-~..~ - · u ~- ' --- ~ -~' ,]~r r / - ?.~,, o ' d]I , ..... I . ~ ~o ~,'~ ...... 4: ~?~-,:=5-¥_~il~iD .~-;~'-f-F,~:l~:-~:[~-..h~:q: / i I ..1 ...... o' ,¢,~"~ .' -,h¢:':Q ..... i i -4-~: o', · -, ~ - . .-,,.., C,~'~., ~ ~ I.I ~- h-~-i:.: [~%1~ '!~'~, /~ ?-~ io~ .., I -:i ~'.:' ! >" li~.~ ' N recorded map or survey and is not intended to be WATERg6; HALFSECL; LIMITSA; PARREG; used as one. This map is a compilation of LIMITSP records and information from vadous state, county, and city offices, and other sources. AREA MAP 31 Attachment 5 PROJECT SITE Limit on Liability: This document is not a legally recorded map or survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records and information from various state, county, and city offices, and other sources. [: ,.o--~ o1:: Current Layers; ROADS96; STRUCTURES96; WATER96; HALFSECL; LIMITSA; PARREG; LIMITSP AREA MAP 32 Attachment 6 ~OSEWOOD ESTATES PROJECT SITE , ~G~RANt~M ~ " Limit on Liabili~: This document is not a legally Current ~yem; STRT~; ROADS96; reco~ed map or su~ey and is not intended to be STRUCTURES96; WATER96; HALFSECL; used as one. This map is a compilation of LIMfTSA; PARREG; LIMITSP ~cords and inflation from V~OUS sts~e, count, and ci~ o~ces, and o~er sources. AREA MAP 33 r-- [ i~ F- ..... --'-T- ................. T ....... T Attachment 7 H89'O$'aB'E PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PUBLIC EASEMEN1 MARYLAND , ROSEWOOD ESTATES *.: ?, ,,.. r: "' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EAST ROSE A VENUE GERANIUM A VENUE Attachment 8 I / ROSEWOOD ESTATES (un~,pened) MAR YL 4 ND A VENUE EAST ROS A VENUE "" GERANIUM A VENUE <. ' ':.': 1115 SITE PLAN .......................... T ......... -T .... 1' ~m T ............... t ----1-- ...... T'-- ROSEWOOD ESTATES Attachment 9 PROPOSED 1115 UTILITY 36 PLAN INFILTRATION DETAIl. Attachment 10 FOR AJE COMPANIES, INC. Zn T~e Cit.~ Of Mapler~ood ROSEWOOD ESTATES GERANIUM A VENUE // 1115 PROPOSED GRADING 37 PLAN VICINITY PI. AN PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BEAVER ' LAKE TO WNHOME$ FOR AJE COMPANIES, INC. In The City 0£ Maple~,ood ROSEWOOD ESTATES TIER TIER I MARYLAND Attachment 11 EAST ROSE A VENUE "" GERANIUM A VENU ">II .! 38 Attachment 12 VICINITY PI. AN PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN OF BEAVER LAKE TO WNHOMES FOR AJE COMPANIES, INC. In The City Of Maplewood ROSEWOOD ESTATES TiER EAST A VENUE ',"GERANIUM A VENUE '11'15 ! .................. t .............. .............. 'T ....... -1- -T ...... [ .......... i Yllfl, i _~ SITE PLAN CITY-APPROVED 1980 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - BEAVER LAKE HILLS 4.O Attachment 14 ~C Seconded by Councilmemb ardinal, Councilmembers ~ ..... ~li~ixspacl~_Collins, Koppen .~7..~Councll~'""- " - :'mem~uk 3. 7:30 P.M. (9:50 P.M.) Street) A. B. C. D. Beaver Lake Townhomes (Maryland Avenue, Lakewood Drive to Sterling Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Street Right-of-Way Vacations Easement Vacations Preliminary Plat a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. c. Associate Planner Roberts presented the specifics of the report. d Commissioner Matt Ledvina presented the Planning Commission report. eo Roger Larson, Midwest Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc. from Anoka, Minnesota, was present for the applicant, who was asking for an extension of 60 days. Mr. Larson further agreed to two extra days, a 62 day extension, to allow review at the May 14, 2001 city council meeting. Councilmember Collins moved to continue the meeting through the end of the Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Thor Nordwall, 1142 Sterling Street North, Maplewood Roberta Beutel, 1057 Mary Street, Maplewood Rhonda Wenz, 2517 Geranium Avenue, Maplewood Steve Benjamin, 1060 Lakewood Drive North, Maplewood Agnes Benjamin, 1060 Lakewood Drive North, Maplewood Terri Sablak, 11~72 Sterling Street North, Maplewood Tim Kennedy, 1134 Glendon Street, Maplewood Richard Gilbert, 1140 Glendon Street, Maplewood Kathleen Peterson, 1085 Mary Street North, Maplewood Margaret Lutfey, 1076 Mary Street North, Maplewood Jan Moddrell, 2514 Geranium Avenue, Maplewood Cheryl Johnsen, 1150 Sterling Street North, Maplewood Joan Doehling, 1115 Sterling Street North, Maplewood Lisa Earle, 1146 Glendon Street, Maplewood Thor Nordwall, second appearance Agnes Benjamin, second appearance Tim Kennedy, second appearance 3-12-01 41 11 Kathleen Peterson, second appearance Margaret Lutfey, second appearance f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins moved to request that the developer and representatives of the neighborhood meet with staffto see if they can come up with something equitable for the developer, the City_ of Maplewood, and the residents of the area and bring it back to the council on May 14, 2001 at 7:00 P.M.. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all I. . AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINES,S None K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Service Engineering Parking Redtl.c,t~on Authorization 20 Maplewood Drive) a. City Manager Fursman introdL~ced the staff~'eport. b. Assistant Community Developm~hl)~irector Ekstrand presented the specifics of the report. // ~,x · c. Boardmember Matt Ledvina ~rr~s/ented ~e'~XC'o..,mmunity Design Review BoarS report. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve %parking waiver for ~S~ {~e Engineering, 2720 Maplewood. Drive, based on the following reasons {1-4),arid subject to conditions (5~i~,~.): 1. The applicant hz~4hown that there are enough parkmg~spaces for the building's current parkT~needs. 2. The appl.i/o:Int is not planning to add personnel with this add~tm~,x 3. ero~ng more paved parking on the site would further violate the iml~rvmu.s, surf.ac.e re~.irements of the shoreland ordinance. The site is currently exceeding tins /~quirement. 4.// The applicant has verbally agreed to a restrictive covenant being recorded against his property to regulate the types of businesses in this building based on their degree of traffic generation. o This approval is conditioned upon the property owner doing the following before obtaining a building permit for the second-story addition: 3-12-01 12 42 Attachment 15 Hm PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 P.M. (7:15) Beaver Lake Townhomes (Maryland Avenue, Lakewood Drive to Sterling Street) A: B. C. D. E. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Street Right-of-Way Vacation Easement Vacations Preliminary Plat Park and Open Space Purchase a. Mayor Cardimll convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. c. Planner Ken Roberts presented the specifics of the report. d. Assistant City Manager Melinda Coleman also presented information about the report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Bob Zick, 1880 E. Shore Drive, Maplewood Thor Nordwall, 1142 Sterling St. N., Maplewood Tony Schwartz, 1142 Evar St., Maplewood Tim Kennedy, 1134 Glendon St., Maplewood Ginny Yingling, 773 Dorland Road, Maplewood Robert Johnson, 1060 Mary Street, Maplewood Gary Cooper, 1057 Sterling Street N., Maplewood Pat Meron, 1043 Mary Street, Maplewood JeffEngelen, 2357 Case Avenue, Maplewood Wayne Haag, 2407 Stillwater Road, Maplewood Ted Ginkel, 2415 Stillwater Road, Maplewood Cindy Hofmeister, 995 Lakewood Dr. N., Maplewood Georgianna Kemper, 2513 E. Geranium, Maplewood Kevin Berglund, 1929 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood Renee Readel, 215 East Larpenteur, Maplewood Tom Hofmeister, 995 Lakewood Dr. N., Maplewood Margaret Lutfey, 1076 Mary Street, Maplewood Annie Benjamin, 1060 Lakewood Drive, Maplewood Steve Benjamin, 1060 Lakewood Drive, Maplewood William Robbins, 2277 Stillwater Avenue, Maplewood Kathleen Peterson, 1085 Mary Street, Maplewood Planning Commissioner Gary Pearson, Beaver Lake Estates, Maplewood 5-14-01 4 43 f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing at 10:22 p.m. Councilmember Kenneth Collins moved to continue the city council completed: Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - All Councilmember Collins moved to require the city to hire an independent consultant, paid for by the developer, to complete an Environmental AsseSsment Worksheet for the Beaver Lakes Estates proposed development because ~fthe potential significant issues including: traffic, effects On the creek bed, the proposed buffer is not significant enough to protect the creek from development, and that the developer did not supply enough information relating to storm ponding and run-off to the creek and adjacent and/or connecting lakes. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal. Ayes - Mayor Cardinal, Couneilmembers Allenspach, Collins, Wasiluk Nays - Councilmember Koppen 5-14-01 44 Attachment 16 John Kohler, Semper Development, LTD Robert Bell, Representing the Owner of the Building Raleigh Nelson, Owner of the Building -~[.Rossbach, 1386 E. County Road C, Emil Smr~enegger, 2455 Londin Lane Kathleen J~"ene.mann, 721 Mount ~lewood Scott Venne, White Bear Avenue Business Association, 1829 Sims Avenue, St. Ananth Shankar, ign Review Board d. Mayor closed the public hearin Council Koppen moved to approve the revised site' according to plan and modifications. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Counc~--'lli~aber Allenspach, Wasiluk, Koppen .. Nays-Councilmember Collins Receive Comments and Responses on Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Beaver Lake Townhomes--City File No. 01-10 Councilmember Koppen moved to receive all comments and responses to the EAW document, along with the Findings of Fact, for the Beaver Lake Townhomes Planned Unit Development. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Consider Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Beaver Lake Townhomes--City File No. 01-10 Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution determining that the environmental role requirements have been met and that the potential environmental effects are not considered significant enough to warrant preparation of an EIS, and further that plans for storm water, grading, erosion control and buffer/turf management shall be submitted by the proposed prior to site plan and final plat consideration~ and further, that this negative declaration be distributed to all parties on the State Environmental Quality Board distribution list and all persons commenting in writing on the EAW: RESOLUTION 01-09-91 BEAVER LAKE TOWNHOMES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Beaver Lake Townhomes Planned Unit Development at the comer of Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue; and 'WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared and distributed to all parties on the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list, as well as local agency representatives and the petitioners' representative; and q. 45 15 WHEREAS, the EAW Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on August 6, 2001, beginning a 30-day comment period that ended on September 5, 2001; and WHEREAS, a meeting sponsored by the City of Maplewood was held at the City of Maplewood Fire Station on July 23, 2001, to receive input from interested persons; and WHEREAS, written comments on the EAW were received and considered from nine parties; responses were developed, and findings were prepared; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to make the final determination on the adequacy of an EAW and the related negative or positive declaration as to the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the EAW requires that plans pertaining to stormwater, grading, erosion control, and buffer/turf management be submitted by the project proposer for review and approval, and that the City will consider the project density, the inclusion of public trails, and protection of the buffer zones, prior to approval of the site plan and final plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council has determined, based on the findings contained in the Record of Decision, that the environmental review requirements have been met by the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Beaver Lake Townhomes Planned Unit Development, and the potential environmental effects are not considered significant enough to warrant preparation of an EIS; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council requests that the negative declaration be distributed to all parties on the State Environmental Quality Board distribution list and all persons commenting in writing on the EAW. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk NEW BUSINESS Ayes-All Approve Purchase Beaumont and Larpenteur. Property fi'om Ramsey for Storm Pond Purposes at Councilmember Koppen moved to properties for purposes of storm water the resolution to acquire the tax-forfeited TAX FORFEITED WHEREAS, The State of Minnesota has declared ce Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnes( i RESOLUTION properties held in within the City of to be Tax Forfeited; WHEREAS, The Office of Tax Forfeited Minnesota has granted the City Statutes, Section 282.01, Subdivisi, Department of Revenue and Taxation, Ramsey'~nty, ,pportunity to acquire said properties pursuant to Min~a WHEREAS, it is incumbent uj;~'n the city to provide for control of storm water runoff and drainage 46 16 Attachment 17 Co Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. Response: A government records search was conducted by VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. The search did not identify any known underground or aboveground storage tanks located on the property; ii lB i i ! ! I I ! 21. Traffic Parking spaces added: Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): Estimated total average daily traffic generated: Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence: 460 0 1,100 vpd 110 vph during the PM peak hour Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Response: A Traffic Impact Study was completed for the Project and is attached as Appendix B. The following is a summary of the findings of that study. Background and Assumptions The Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection was the only intersection analyzed as part of this study. This intersection is currently controlled by an ALL-WAY Stop condition. Intersection analyses were conducted for both the AM and PM peak hours for the existing conditions (Year 2001), Year 2005 No-Build and Post-Development conditions, and Year 2020 No-Build and Post-Development Conditions. Level of Service A capacity analysis is a process that estimates the quality of traffic flow along segments of a roadway and through intersections. The key factors affecting capacity include roadway geometrics, traffic volumes, incidents and the types of intersection control. ,The results of a capacity analysis are typically presented in the form of a letter grade (A - F) that provides a qualitative indication of the operational efficiency or effectiveness of a specified intersection or roadway. The letter grade assigned to the analysis is referred to as level-of-service (LOS). By definition, LOS A conditions represent high-quality operations (i.e., motorists experience very little delay or interference) while LOS F conditions represent failing operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe congestion). LOS D is considered to be an acceptable level by the local transportation officials for traffic operations in urbanized areas during peak traffic hours. In addition to each intersection having an overall LOS, each movement (left turn, through, and right turn) at an individual intersection also has a LOS. In some cases, the overall level of service at a particular intersection may be at LOS D or better; however, an individual movement at that same intersection may have a LOS E or F. The overall intersection LOS is calculated by using a weighted average of the volumes and delay associated with each movement. See Exhibit 1. Beaver Lake Townhomes August 6, 2001 Environmental Assessment Worksheet 47 Page 20 Existing Conditions The existing conditions analysis showed that the intersection operates at acceptable levels during both the AM and PM peak hours. Year 2005 No-Build Conditions The Year 2005 No-Build conditions showed that the south approach is expected to operate at a LOS E during the PM peak hour. A possible roadway improvement to decrease the delay on this approach during the PM peak hour would be to install a traffic signal. The installation of a traffic signal would be expected to improve all movements at the intersection to LOS D or better and improve the overall operations of the intersection to LOS A. However, before a signal can be installed, a Signal Justification Report must be created to determine if the intersection warrants a signal (See Appendix C). Year 2005 Post-Development Conditions Similar to the Year 2005 No-Build conditions, the Year 2005 Post-Development conditions showed that the south approach is expected to operate at a LOS E during the PM peak hour. As stated in the Year 2005 No-Build condition, the installation of a traffic signal would be expected to improve all movements at the intersection to LOS D or better and improve the overall operations of the intersection to LOS A. Exhibit 1: Level of Service Criteria LOS F >, o (3 0 LOS B LOS A LOS F LOS A Signalized Intersection ' Highway Capacity Manual, Third Edition, 1997. Unsignalized Intersection Beaver Lake Townhomes Environmental Assessment Worksheet 48 August 6, 2001 Page 21 Year 2020 No-Build Condition During the AM peak hour, the north approach to the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS E. During the PM peak hour, the overall intersection is expected to operate at a LOS F with the north approach expected to operate at a LOS E and the south approach expected to operate at a LOS F. As stated in the Year 2005 No-Build condition, the installation of a traffic signal would be expected to improve all movements at the intersection to LOS D or better and improve the overall operations of the intersection to LOS B. Year 2020 Post-Development Similar to the Year 2020 No-Build conditions, the north approach is still expected to operate at a LOS E during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS F with the north approach expected to operate at a LOS E and the south approach expected to operate at a LOS F. As stated in the Year 2020 No-Build condition, the installation of a traffic signal would be expected to improve all movements at the intersection to LOS D or better and improve the Overall operations of the intersection to LOS B. Sight Distance on Lakewood Drive The Mn/DOT Road Design Manual recommends a minimum decision time of 5.7 - 9.5 seconds, which translates into approximately 335 to 560 feet, for a 40 mph roadway. The existing driveway located approximately 600 feet south of Maryland Avenue provides approximately 535 feet of sight distance looking south towards the crest vertical curve, which translates into approximately 9 seconds of decision time. This value falls into the upper range of the values taken from the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual. The proposed driveway located approximately 1,300 feet south of Maryland Avenue provides approximately 385 feet of sight distance looking north towards the crest vertical curve, which translates into approximately 6.5 seconds of decision time. This value also falls into the range of values provided in the manual; however, this distance is at the low end of the range and may not provide sufficient sight distance for this location. A possible mitigation to improve the sight distance would be to move the proposed driveway approximately 190 feet to the north. This may achieve two goals: By moving this proposed driveway to the mitigated location, the driveway would be located approximately at the highest point of the crest vertical curve, which would provide adequate sight distance for both directions on Lakewood Drive; and, The Site plan for the proposed development could be modified by placing the driveway between the southern most multiple-dwelling unit and the multiple-dwelling units to the north. The southern most unit would need to be moved to the south to accommodate this new driveway location. Beaver Lake Townhomes Environmental Assessment Worksheet 49 August 6, 2001 Page 22 ? I' ~m r m '1-- ......... T ........... Sight Distance on Maryland Avenue The Mn/DOT Road Design Manual recommends a minimum decision time of 5.7 - 9.5 seconds, which translates into approximately 250 to 420 feet, for a 30 mph roadway. A vehicle exiting Sterling Street onto Maryland Avenue currently has approximately 360 feet of sight distance, which translates into approximately 8.2 seconds of decision time. The proposed development would be expected to improve this sight distance by making the land immediately south of Maryland Avenue flatter and removing the tall grasses, both of which decrease the existing sight distance. Site Access from Maryland Avenue Staff from the Ramsey County Transportation Department has previously commented on the Project indicating a preference for minimizing the number of access points along Maryland Avenue. If a common driveway or an alternative with fewer driveways onto Maryland can be implemented without increasing the impact to the 'creek buffer, the Project' shOUld consider revising the Plan to include' fewer access points onto Maryland. This would provide a safer log- term condition for this roadway. Traffic Mitigation Summary A number of potential mitigation measures were identified as a result of the Traffic Impact Study completed for the Project, including: · Installation of a signal at Maryland and Lakewood. This would provide a long-term improvement to the Level of Service of this intersection. This measure however, requires a Signal Justification Report to be completed to determine if a signal is warranted per County standards. Sight distances for the southern Site access point on Lakewood suggest that the south access should be moved approximately 190 feet to the north to improve the safety for drivers entering and exiting the Site at this location. The sight distance at all other access points are adequate, requiring no modifications. · The number of direct Site access points from Maryland Avenue should be consolidated to the extent possible to minimize potential vehicle conflicts. 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EA W Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. Response: Typical of most developments, the proposed Project will generate air pollution as a result of increased motor vehicle activity. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO. CO is a byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concentrations are highest where idling vehicles are located for extended periods of time. For this reason, CO concentrations are generally highest in the vicinity of intersections where vehicles are delayed and emitting CO. Generally concentrations approaching state air quality standards are within about 100 feet of a roadway source. Further from the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind siach that concentrations fall off rapidly. Beaver Lake Townhomes Environmental Assessment Worksheet 50 August 6, 2001 Page 23 Attachment 18 il 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7. item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or attticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described itt this EA W in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). Response: There are no other planned projects in the general area of this Project that are expected to have an additive adverse impact with this Project. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items I to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. ReSponse: No other potential environmental impacts were identified. 31. Summary of issues. address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EA W. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Response: Do not complete this section if the EA W is being done for ElS scoping; instead, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resoumes Development of the Site will result in a conversion and loss of wildlife habitat, which will result in a population reduction of some species and relocation of others from the Site. However, given the commonness of the urban wildlife species that occur on the Site and the availability of similar habitat in the general area, the impact to wildlife will not be substantial. Blanding's turtles, a state threatened species, is known to occur within an half mile of the Site, however, based on habitat requirements, this Project is not expected to have an impact on populations of this species. Preservation of the creek corridor will lessen the impact to wildlife. Water Resources The Project will maintain or reduce the rate of discharge and maintain the quality of runoff from the Site by providing controls for that purpose. A storm wat6r management plan needs to be developed and submitted to the City and RWMWD for review and approval. Wetland fill exemptions also need to be verified and coordinated with the Army Corps of Engineers and the RWMWD. Grading and Erosion Control Plan showing how the Project avoids grading for housing within the Buffer Zone, and a Buffer Management Plan that outlines the long-term protection and maintenance of the buffer zone will also be required. Water-related Management Districts The Project is outside of the 100-year floodplain and therefore has no floodplain impacts. The Project is located within the Maplewood Shoreland Overlay District, which is overseen by the Beaver Lake Townhomes Environmental Assessment Worksheet 51 August 6, 2001 Page 31 City Zoning Code. The Project must comply with this code through obtaining an approved Planned Unit Development conditional use permit. Utilities The current water, sanitary and storm sewer utilities are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Project. Hazardous Waste Hazardous materials were not identified on the Site. Two off-site spill or leak sites may result in contaminants being carried through the Site via groundwater. Additional testing may be required to determine if Site soils near those spills are contaminated. Traffic A Traffic Analysis has been completed for the Project, which identified a number of potential traffic improvements that could improve the level of service and safety in the area. Three potential mitigation measures include: 1) installing a signal at the intersection of Maryland and Lakewood, 2) changing the number of access points for Site access from Maryland Avenue, and 3) moving the proposed Site access point on Lakewood Drive north about 190 feet to maximize sight distance. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions Predicted CO concentrations at the intersections modeled will be in compliance with state and federal, air quality standards for the traffic conditions evaluated. For all conditions modeled, the highest one-hour and eight-hour predicted concentrations will be 1.2 and 0.1 parts per million (ppm) respectively. These values are below the Minnesota State standards of 30 ppm for one- hour and 9 ppm for eight-hours. Noise No traffic related noise impacts are anticipated as a part of the Project. There are potential noise ' sensitive receivers near the Project Site, however, the traffic-generated noise will not change by a perceptible amount. Therefore no impacts are expected and no mitigation will be required as part of the Project. Historic Resources No archaeological or architectural resources are known to occur within the Site. Due to severe historic impacts from numerous grading and filling activities, there is little potential for intact archaeological materials to be present within the Project area. views The Project complies with the building height requirements and impervious surface restriction of the Shoreland Zone for the Site. Detailed landscape, grading, erosion control and storm water plans are required for review to determine compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance. Based on the analysis completed for this EAW, there were a number of additional submittals and documentation that will be required by the City from the developer for this Project before a PUD and other approvals can be made. Those include: · Storm Water Management Plan that demonstrates compliance with the City and RWMWD requirements for water quality treatment, Beaver Lake Townhomes Environmental Assessment Worksheet 57 August 6, 2001 Page 32 Landscape/screening plan to illustrate'how the Project will be screened from the view of the Lake, Grading and Erosion Control Plan showing how the Project avoids grading for housing within the Buffer Zone, and A Buffer Management Plan that outlines the long-term protection and maintenance of the buffer zone. Beaver Lake Townhomes Environmental Assessment Worksheet S3 August 6, 2001 Page 33 REPLY TO A3'rENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1638 March 27, 2002 Construction-Operations Regulatory (02-00363-TJF) Mr. Tony Emmerich AJE Companies, Inc. 1875 Commercial Boulevard Andover, Minnesota 55304 Attachment 19 Dear Mr. Emmerich: We have been advised that the plans for the Beaver Lake Townhomes project in Maplewood have changed. The project is located in the NW 1/4 of section 25, T29N, R22W, Ramsey County, Minnesota. In October 2001 our office prepared a letter that indicated a Corps of Engineers permit would not be required because the wetland areas being filled were not considered to be waters of the United States (see attached letter). It appears the revised project would not involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into any other wetlands on the site. Therefore, we have determined that the revised project also will not require a Corps permit. If you have any questions, contact Timothy J. Fell in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5360. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above. Sincerely, of Maplewood . Whiting FChief, Regulatory Branch Pdnted on ~ Rec. ycle~ Paper 54 REPLY TO A3'I'ENTtON OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL. MN 55101-1638 October 23, 2001 Construction-Operations Regulatory (02-00363-TJF) Ms. Beth Kunkel URS ThreSher Square 700 South Third Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Dear Ms. Kunkel: We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Negative Declaration regarding a project of AJE Companies, Inc. to construct the Beaver Lake Townhomes project in Maplewood. The project site is in the NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec. 25, T. 29N., R. 22W., Ramsey County, Minnesota. We have determined that the 2 small wetland basins proposed to be impacted by the development are not "waters of the United States" because they are: (1) not "navigable waters" as defined by Federal law, (2) not interstate waters, (3) not part of a tributary system to (1) or (2), (4) not wetlands adjacent to any of the foregoing, and (5) not impoundments of any of the above. In addition, the interstate commerce nexus to these particular waterbodies is insufficient to establish Clean Water Act jurisdiction. These waterbodies are therefore not subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Please note that a water t. hat is not navigable under Federal law may still be "naviGable"as defined by state law (and may therefore be subject to requlation by the state). This jurisdictional determination takes into consideration the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste AGency of Northern Cook County v. Corps of EnGineers (the SWANCC decision). According to the EAW, these 2 areas are about 0.2 acre in size. This jurisdictional determination is valid only for the project and waterbodies referenced above. If the project is changed such that discharges of dredged or fill material would occur in the other 3 wetland basins identified on the site, our office should be contacted. Further review would be required to determine if the Corps of Engineers has regulatory jurisdiction in these areas. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (SUCH AS THOSE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OR COUNTY). Printed o~ ~ Recycled Paper 55 7 - I - 2 - If you have any questions, contact Timothy J. Fell in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5360. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above. Sincerely, ~rt J¥ Whiting /-Chief, Regulatory Branch Copy furnished to: Ramsey County SWCD 56 Attachment 20 MEMO Mr. Ken Roberts Lieutenant John Banick PROJECT REVIEW (revised plan) - Beaver Lake Townhomes March 23, 2002 I have reviewed the attached project proposal and continue to have the following concerns: 1. I am concemed about the safety of the motorists who exit from the south exit onto Lakewood Drive. As noted in the attached memorandum, I recommend that all traffic exiting the south exit be required to turn right. 2. Again, will this development generate a substantial increase in the number of police and medical calls for service? Other then the above noted concerns, I do not see any other public safety issues related to this prOject. To: From: Subject: Date: cc: Chief Winger 57 MEMO ces¥ To: From: Subject: Date: Ken Roberts Lieutenant John Banick 3'~ PROJECT REVIEW - Beaver Lake Townhomes, Lakewood & Maryland January 24, 2001 I have reviewed the attached project proposal and have the following concerns: Will the increase in population and vehicular traffic in the area generate a substantial number of police/paramedic calls for service? According to a Ramsey County Traffi~ Engineer, the imersection of Lakewood and Maryland is not currently scheduled for traffic signals. Over the past several years, traffic congestion has increased significantly at this intersection. How much additional vehicular traffc will this development create7 Will the increase in traffic congestion hinder our ability to provide - adequate emergency police/paramedic response to the south end of our city? I recommend that motorists who exit the "West Area" fi.om the south exit be restricted to a right rum only onto Lakewood Drive. Considering the current speed limit, amount of traffic (including heavy truck traffic), and terrain of the area, a lef~ turn fi.om this particular exit could not be done safely. I recommend that some type of speed control (speed bumps or stop signs) be utilized on the private drives of both the "East" and "West" areas. Should children move into the townhomes, these private drives will become popular play areas thus creating a safety issue for them. Additionally, the length of the driveways could entice unsafe and excessive speed in the complex. Lastly, I would suggest that appropriate lighting be required along the length of the "East" and "West" private drives. This would increase resident safety and deter late night crime in this complex. Should you have questions please contact me at extension 4502. cc: Chief Winger 58 Ramsey-Washini~ton Metro =,District PA~E 02 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 · fax: (651)704-2092 email: office@rwmwd.org Date: 3fl 8/02 Applicant: Anthony Emmerich Re: Beaver Lake Towrihorars Dear Applicant: Permit No. 0'2-15 WAR 2 5 2002 RECEIVED Thank you for submitting your grading aud erosion control plan to the District for review. The Watershed District staff has reviewed the plans for consistency with the policies and goals of the Watershed District. The following are changes to your plans whleh the staff feels are necessary for your project. The staff will be recommending these changes to the Watershed Board in the form of special l: :ovisions to your permit. If approved by the Board, these changes will be required. Please see attached sheets. 59 83/25/2882 11:5~ 6517842892 RWWWD PAGE 83 02 15 Beaver Lake Townhomes St: ~ial Provision 1 E~ ::dence shall be provided that shows 'Wetlands 3 and 4 were incidentally created or sequencing arguments and a mitigation plan shall be submitted for the replacement of th~ ~e wetlands, Special Provision 2 All Ponds shall contained outlet struct~res and piped outlets. Details shall be provided for the outlet structures from Ponds #1, #2, #3 and #4. The outlet structures, in conjunction with the ponds, shall be designed to remove a minimum of 90% of the Total Suspended Solids and 60% of the Total Phosphorous. A conceptual detail of thc outlet preferred by the District is attached for your use. Special Provision 3 Alt piped outlets shall extend to the no:mai water elevation of the creek. All piped outlets shall discharge into the creek by deflecting the angle of the pipe 45 degrees or greater, along the flow of the creek. Special Provision ,$ A detail shall be provided for the overliow swales. The swales shall all be a minimum 10 feet wide, 1 foot deep and completely lined with permanent erosion control material. Special Provision 5 All silt fence along the stream shall be monofilament. Special Provision 6 All building low floor elevations shall be a minimum of 2 feet above thc 100-year flood elevation of the storm water detention ponds. The normal water level of the ponds shall be considered at the elevation of the outlet pipe. No storage shall be considered below the normal water elevation of the pond. Special Provision 7 All storm sewer outlets not discharging into the creek shall discharge at or belov¢ the normal water level of thc receiving waC. er body. Thc normal water level shall be considered as the outlet elevation of the, outlet structure. Special Provision 8 The location of the rock construction entrance shall be shown on a revised set of plans. Special Provision 9 All disturbances within the stream buffer shall be restored with a native seed mix. A copy of this seed mix shall be submitted to the District forreview. 6O 03/25/2002 11:5~ 6517042092 RWMWD PAGE 04 Special Provision 10 No curb cuts shall be used. the pond south of Pond 04. the street to the ponds, Storm sewer inlets and pipes shall be added to Pond ~, and The proposed spillways shall remain as overflow swales from 'Special Provision 11 An overflow swale shall be installed from the .~torm sewer inlet directly north of Pond #1 to the NWL of Pond #1. The normal water level of Pond #1 shall be considered the same as the elevation of the outlet structure elevation of the pond. Special Provision 12 An overflow swale shall be constructed between lots 40 and 41. The swale shall extend from the overflow point to the NWL of Pond #1. Special Provision 13 An overflow swale shall be constructed between lots 21 and 22. The swale shall extend from the overflow point to the NWL of Pond #3. Special Provision 14 The overflow swale from Pond #I and Pond #3 shall be extended to the NWL of the stream. Special Provision 15 The overflow swale between Lots 8 and 9 shall be extended to the NWL of the stream. Special Provision 16 Documentation shall be provided showing that the applicant shall retain responsibility for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the entire site is permanently stabilized. ~J~,Speeial Provision 17 Hydrologic calculations shall be revised. The normal water elevation of the ponds shall be considered the same as the outlet elevation from the respective ponds. For the flood level calculations, storm water storage shall not be considered below the normal water level of the pond. All homes near the ponds shall have low floor elevations a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation of the nearby pond. 61 T 1 11 T- ........... · 1'- ........ 1- ......... Attachment 22 Beaver Lake Townhomes- Engineering Plan Review Chris Cavett, original review: March 07, 2002, (Revised 4/1/02) Drainage/Storm Water Treatment / Rainwater Gardens: Based on the submitted drainage calculations the areas labeled ponds appear to be bioretention basins/rainwater gardens. If the areas labeled "ponds" are actually ponds they must meet NURP design standards (2.5" runoff). If they are intended to be bioretention basins they must meet those requirements (1.25" runoff). The following segments explain the requirements for bioretention basins. BIORETENTION BASIN REQUIREMENTS: Rock Infiltration Sumps must be installed below the rainwater gardens to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Rock infiltration sump should be a minimum of 4' Dia. X 3' tall. 1 ½" clean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sump should be placed approximately 12-inches below finished bottom of the rainwater garden. Provide details and a description on the plan of how the rainwater garden area will be prepared. The garden area should be sub-cut to provide 12-inches of bedding material. The bedding material should consist of a mixture of 50% salvaged on-site topsoil and dean 50% organic compost. The subsoils in the rainwater garden should be scarified to a depth of 12- inches before the bedding material is placed. The rainwater garden should be protected with silt fence after grading to prevent silting into the area, as well as compaction of the soil by construction equipment. The rainwater garden area should be topped before or after planting with "shredded" wood mulch. 'W~/oodchips" are NOT acceptable mulching material. A landscape plan for the bioretention basins/rainwater gardens shall be required as part of final plan approval. More information on bioretention basins can be found on the metrocouncil web site and view their BMP Manual: http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual.htm or contact Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, 651-770-4554. 2. Submit permit application to Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for review. 3. Permanent soil stabilization blanket (Eukamat, Meramat, NAG C350) needed at Pond #4 at lft curb cut on Private Drive A and at end of driveway between buildings 51 and 52. 4. Include catch basin and storm sewer or regrade swale between drive and retaining wall at northeast comer of building 50 to drain runoffto Pond #4. 5. Add catch basins and storm sewer to the end of the extended driveway between buildings 52 and 51 to drain runoff into Pond #4. 6. Ponds #1,3 and 4 require either an overflow structure or swale. Swales would require a permanent soil stabilization blanket. 7. Pond #4 requires 2ft of freeboard to adjacent buildings. 62 Grading and Erosion Control: 1. Additional silt fence shall be required on the north property line east of Lakewood Drive and to the north of the creek, east of building #35. 2. Spot elevations don't coincide with percent of grade on Private Drive A by lots 2,3 and 4. Additional Comments, (4/1/02): Grading / Drainage: The engineering department review concurs with the Watershed special provisions, dated 3/18/02. A clarification may be necessary for Provision No. 6, as to how NWL and storage are defined for Bioretention basins, (Rainwater gardens) vs. Ponds. Provide sump manhole/catch basins for all ponding areas. The sump will be on the last structure in the street, prior to discharging into the ponding areas. The townhouse association will be responsible for removing sediment from the sump structures during street sweeping operations. Provide language in the association bCaws that defines the responsibility for this maintenance operation. Eliminate the "curb-cut" adjacent to "Pond #4" and provide a curb catch basin w/sump. Design such that the primary discharge is into pond #4 before it overflows into the storm sewer and creek. 4. Remove and replace curb for all existing curb cuts on Maryland Avenue that will not be used for this development. Utilities: 1. Coordinate any necessary sanitary and utility revisions with the city's proposed realignment of the existing on-site sanitary sewer. 2. Obtain and provide any off-site grading and utility permits. Water main construction comes very close to the S.E. comer of the Rosewood Estates property. 3. Submit plans for review and comments to St. Paul Regional Water Services, (SPRWS). 4. Provide clean-outs for any sanitary sewer services longer than 100-feet. 63 ~%~innO..s()l:~ ]-')c])tirf. lllClll oJ' NaLLI)'~:ll Attachment 23 ,'.~, pril 2.2(.)( ~2 APR 0 3 2OO2 RECEIVED I h;Lnk ?m l'ol' provid, irl~. l:h~: ruviscd dcveh")l'm~rm plan.~ dmcd 3-12-.(.L~ Ibr tl~' I..;lkc l(~wnh(ml~.,~ i.'rl ],i~Ow(~o¢l I)rive arm k, larvland Avcnuc', Wc have ,'c;. icwcd the plans and are very plcasud with the ~iLm~lk:~.u~t t:hm~gcs tl/a.I ,~nCr arm (k'vu. lul~r have m)w proposed, Thc widcr corridt)r will be in floc public and ova'rail there is mor'c ()pm~ sp;,~ce I)cspile thc lime and I'cS()LU'CCs f,J'l;~l these cha.ngcs C~II'C1TICJ~ ~,IJtTi,ICIJx.'C LIIllGFIJIy J~)l' J)l'i)sl)CCli~'C~ hlJ~l'~ ~1,11d lh~ll JILL: (lcvk~J()j')fl'l~fil will qLlil~ J~rot'il'JbJ0. W~ roco~lliZc' Tllflt I11~t11~ fl~i~JlJ~ol's would I'lavq liked Io ~ue the Ilg~V i)r(lpos~,il ~,tdE%Jtl~Jt~J)' ~l(Idrusscs II1;..Llly (If' Iht COllCCl'll,~ shared by thc will bca win-win lbr all of'Iht involved parlics. "l'h~:re m'c ;~ few ilcrns tll;'tt' could use m'h:liti(',:tal cJariJiCaliou ;t-m,:l."or SimlH.V Bca. ddrc~c'd J'~): 1i'lL' approf~ri:LIc pill'l},. [iro~mn ('..'ontr~fl: ]t is dil:'licull~ (o (li-~:crn thc tm,ms of thc gl"~lJJ~g ph,m on tho auachcd dr;.twin?;, t..'iiven the soils, sl()pc.s and proximity o't'IIIc COIISIrUcI'i(.~n lill'lJls, il; will (JLll';,ll,i()ll (J J' L'III1NII'LICI,J()I1. ..%tt:)rrll ~,'al'~q.': VV(t wil] flsski111~.' Thai; t']'~(.' ]~;in~s~ty-.Wasl~iltpl(m W;itcrshc(J l)J,~ll'JUl will t'cvk:w and addt'css :.m)' JSSl.lCS I)t~rJ~.l.llling Ii) thc' size, (J~sJ~ll. ~tntJ I'calurcs ()J' lJ'lu prt)l~Onctl sh)l'mw~tter (IctenliOn l~a. sins. Are the h:.lsil'ls and (tcpfl'l ~d" thc~sc l~lsrns, will they bt~ 64 Tr*:!~.Ll'_~.!'.~2_L~;.s~.l..i0r~.~ It' there m'c desh'able mah.,-c Jrt;es which do no1' have to be r'omoved 'lO I'U(JTICO daffiLl~U ~llld ~OJ.J ~.!.1..~.~ Rcs.~9_~i~._Lt.j~jr_~;. ,z',s a condition of Iht DNR's Metro (h'c~ways will be rm'juircd.. J'~et~rabJy ~1 Dt?ii'i h', Ibc III~IIi[I~L~I'I'IL~IlJ pJali. ]'hJs woul(l il~cJJi(lo Il'lc Lm~ Of I.)al'jVO SpCCl~ fbr I'Oi)Ji,'llJrl~. 'l"l~crc may idso h.e ad¥ ~.n,l.i:lgt::s lo mlik ing tm'lely and cct')~m~ical Jy cl'l~:cl.i ye si te iml)rOvemcn~s, including a potontial Lrail alignment, during lhe grading phase ~'l',le heavy c'(.lUtpmcnt is mobfl~cd However, an approvcd conaprehensive management J)l[m should be cm~l)leted prior to these potential improx,'cmcnts. Met 'o (.,it'ecnways will bo ,~ubmiu.ing a %eparat'¢ 11101110 dutailin.:.g the process am'J ¥'v'¢ look I'i)rward IO our c(')nlinucd pm'tnership on this ami other pl?Oji:glS, Sin '.r tJy ............... 5 ~</o c, ,d ir, atc r Metro GreY.ay> K~.,hlccn Wallace, F)NR Mere) Rt:gional Dircc,l~r Ross StsbJcll~ Mc,.Iro F)N R Real t"~t, ate (k)m'dinator Bill Poming, Mclro ('}rct:rlways Pro. jggt Coordinate:,' 6S RAMSEY COUN'P Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Hairier, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 · (651) 266-2600 ° Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us Attachment 24 ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 ° Fax 482-5232 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood Dan Soler ~d~ Ramsey Cohnty Public Works RECE, ,,,,¢ SUBJECT: Beaver Lake Townhomes - 2"a Review ,~PR 0 8 2002 DATE: April 4, 2002 , R l: C E [ V E D The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed PUD and preliminary plat for Beaver Lake Townhomes off of Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue. The County previously reviewed this development last year and made comments to the City. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding the new proposed development plan. The proposed development will create 148 new residential units in the southeast quadrant of McKnight Road and Maryland Avenue. This is a reduction from the original proposal of 162 new residential units. o The intersection of McKnight Road/Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue is currently controlled by an all way stop. The addition of traffic from this development will move this intersection closer toward the need for traffic signals. Ramsey County will continue to monitor this intersection to determine if warrants are met for the installation of a traffic signal. The County will program a project for signal construction when justified. o The west side of the development will access Lakewood Drive via a new entrance and the existing Rosewood Estates entrance. The new entrance point has been relocated from the original proposal to a location with better site distance to Lakewood Drive. The spacing between the two entrance points is adequate. The original proposal added eight direct access points onto Maryland Avenue. Ramsey County requested that a private roadway be constructed in this area with direct access to the homes. This private roadway would have one or maybe two access points onto Maryland Avenue. This modification has been made to the new plan and the eight access points have been reduced to three. This configuration is much more acceptable to the County. Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% po~t-consumer content 66~ o The new access points will require permits from Ramsey County for construction onto County fight of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility work within County right-of-way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. 67 Attachment 25 Sue Dwight 1158 Sterling Street North Maplewood, MN 55119 651-731-0228 March 29, 2002 Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner Community Development Department Maplewood MN 55109 RE: Comments on Beaver Lake Townhouse Development I felt the environmental analysis for development on this area did not include enough data on the impact this development would have on the surrounding watershed. Beaver Lake is a small, fragile lake that could easily be damaged by losing its filtering protection provided by the wetlands on the proposed development property. This wetland is the last remaining protective filter that can absorb the run off to help keep Beaver Lake a viable water resource. One prime example of smaller lakes dying due to the loss of surrounding wetlands is Como Lake. Como Lake, one part of a heavily used park, reeks throughout the summer due to years of run off that is filling the lake. It used to have a nice wetland where the g°lf course is now that had provided centuries of protection until we decided to destroy the wetland for a golf course. It seems ironic that we continue to maintain a park and walkways around Beaver Lake and then allow development that will eventually damage the lake. If we can predict the outcome, why let it happen? The park dedication area on the proposed development is currently a creek that runs to Beaver Lake. Doesn't seem to fit the definition of a 'park' to me! If it is dedicated green space, what plan is in place to ensure that this will continue to provide filtering protection to Beaver Lake and not increase the run off instead? I would prefer to see this green space widened considerably in order to provide more protection to the lake. I have not seen any wetland mitigation compliance plans for replacing the wetlands that are being disturbed by this development. What are the plans and is there assurance that this company is developing a minimum of double the wetlands they are disturbing? I don't believe that leaving the green space around the creek bed is an adequate amount of mitigated land. It seems stopping this development is not an option. Something will be built on this wildlife area. If such will happen, I am Very hopeful that the building site will be scaled back significantly;' that there will be enforcement with the compliance to wetland mitigation and.that there is a mitigation plan in place to monitor the health of Beaver Lake that will correct the issues before they become a costly problem. It's time we take action to Prevent environmental damage than have to react to repairing a damaged environment. ~ ,'~ ....... "~0 ~ Attachment 26 March 30, 2002 Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood Mlq 55 t09-2797 RE: Beaver Lake Townhomes Dear Mr. Robe, s: Thank you fo~ forwarding the proposed plans for the Beaver Lake Townhome Project. As you are well aware, the surrounding neighborhood has made its feelings loud and ctcar regarding Tony Emmerich and Beaver Lake Townhomes. This developer and this project is not wanted, needed or required for this land and I am not alone ia my thoughts. The fact that the existing neighborhoods expressed their Wishes and concerns numerous times and the City and its staffkeep insisting on this development -does not make sense~ We are the taxpayers, and the City Council are elected to re'present the wishes of the city tax payers - this makes me wonder whose wishes the Council is representing. I am distxustful, disbelieving and disgusted with the way this project has been handled by the Council and thc City Staff. How many tbnes do pcopte have to voice their concerns and bc unheard. Wc will not go quietly into the night - you are messing with something that we hold dear, Thisis our neighborhood and youwant to change om'neighborhood - and we have asked you countless times - what's in it for you? We are tired of being talked down to and having our voice heard, but not listened to. Thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns. I am sure they will be addressed, like all the concerns before - in other words, you will represent your own wishes and agenda and not the wishes of thc neighborhood. ng St. N. ~' Maplewood Ivl2q 55119 651/735-3445 69 Together We Can Attachment 27 NORMAN L CARLSON LINDA F CARLSON 1198 STERLING ST N MAPLEWOOD MN 55119-3654 March 20., 2002 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY BEAVER LAKE TOWNHOUSES - LAKEWOOD DRIVE AND MARYLAND AVENUE What is Being Requested? Mr. Tony Emmerich, representing AJE Companies, is requesting that the city council approve revised plans for the development of the Beaver Lake Townhomes. The plans now show the development with 40 owner-occupied detached townhouses, 108 rental housing units in 16 buildings and 8.9 acres of publicly-owned park and open space area in the center of the site. (See the enclosed maps.) Why this Notice? The city staff wishes that you be informed about this proposal and seeks your input in any of the following ways: 1. You may mail your comments to me. Please write any comments you have below or on the back of this letter. I have enclosed a stamped, addressed return envelope foJ' your use to.mail in your comments. 2. Telephone me at (651) 770-4566. 3. Attend the city council meeting'and give your comments. You will be notified of this meeting by mail once the city has scheduled this item. Whether you mail in or telephone any comments, please do so by March 30, 2002. '"' ,:' , . · KENNETH ROBERTS- ASSOCIATE PLANNER Enclosures c:ltr~beaver2.1et OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 70 MAR 262002 [ t351-770-4560 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD E~ MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 71 Attachment 29 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Tony Emmedch, representing the AJE Companies, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Beaver Lake Townhomes residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to undeveloped property for the Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD south of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PINS 25-29-22-21-0010 and 25-29-22-21-0011 .) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 15, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. On May ,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 written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. The council tabled action on the development request until May 14, 2001. 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. 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 excess!ve noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use 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. -77 The trail must have a surface that is not impervious when the trail is in a wetland or stream buffer area. The developer's engineer shall design the trails to follow the existing property contours and proposed utility corridors to save as many trees as possible and to minimize the amount of grading necessary to install the trails. h. Restore all disturbed areas within the stream corridor and park dedication area with a native seed mix approved by the watershed district and by the .city engineer. The developer shall give the city wetland easements over the wetlands and the stream. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland. The easements also shall cover the stream and any land within 50 feet of the top of the stream bank. These easements shall prohibit any building, mowing, cuffing, filling or dumping within fifty feet of the wetland and the stream or within the wetland itself. The purpose of this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands and the stream from fertilizer and to protect the wetland and stream habitat from encroachment. 7. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Beaver Lake Townhome PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a pdvate driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 25 feet, maximum - 40 feet c. Rear-yard setback: none d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 5 feet to a property line and 10 feet minimum between buildings e. Side yard setbacks (apartments): 20 feet minimum between buildings 8. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes or for the apartments. The project design plans, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. The buildings in the shoreland district shall have a maximum height of 25 feet (unless the city council approves taller structures). c. The developer shall design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake. This shall include using vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color or other means to accomplish the screening. The city may require additional vegetation to help screen these facilities. d. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width- 20 feet. 80 10. (2) (3) Maximum width - 28 feet. All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for no parking on one side. e. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 9. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots for any outlot in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. The developer paying the city $94,000 in Park Availability Charges (PAC fees) for this development. 11. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002. 81 Attachment 30 STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Tony Emmerich, representing the AJE Companies, applied for the vacation of the following described street right-of-ways: That part of the Sterling Street right-of-way as a roadway easement according to document number lying within the West 25 feet of the East 58 feet of Lot 5, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition. That part of Magnolia Avenue (formerly known as Cherry Avenue) as platted in Beaver Lake Addition lying between the east right-of-way line of Lakewood Drive (the west line of Lot 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition extended south) and the east property line of Lot 7, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition extended south. All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County. WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows: 1. On April 15, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these street vacations. On May ,2002, the city council held a public headng. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting property owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The council tabled action on the development request until May 14, 2001. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 1. Lot 5, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition (PIN 25-29-22-21-0010) 2. Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition (PIN 25-29-22-21-0011) 3. The North 161.83 feet of the West 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 (subject to roads) of Section 25, Township 29, Range 22 (1070 Lakewood Ddve North) (PIN 25-29-22-24-0072) Except the North 290.66 feet of the West 1/2; North 677.06 feet of the West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 (Subject to roads and easement) in SEC 25, TN 29, RN 22 (PIN 25-29-22-24- 0073) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation since it is in the public interest based on the following reasons: 1. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. 2. These right-of-ways are not needed for the public purpose of street construction. 3. The developer will be building private streets and driveways in the project. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution, on ,2002. 82 Attachment 31 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Tony Emmedch, representing the AJE Companies, applied for the vacation of the following-described easements: That part of the following sanitary sewer easement according to document number 1504484 lying within Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition, described as follows: Beginning on the West line of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, a distance of 603 feet South of the Northwest comer of said Northeast quarter of Northwest quarter; thence East 153 feet; thence South 185 feet; thence South 85 degrees, 03 minutes East 172.9 feet; thence South 1 degree 38 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 80 feet; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of 170.25 feet more or less to a point on the West line of the 50 foot sewer easement hereinafter described, all of the foregoing being over Lot 8, Block 1 and Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition. All lying south of Maryland Avenue and between Lakewood Drive and Sterling Street in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On Apdl 15, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these vacations. On May ,2002, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The council tabled action on the development request until May 14, 2001. WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: Lot 8, Block 1, Beaver Lake Addition and Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition (PIN 25- 29-22-21-0011) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described vacations for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street or utilities in these locations. 3. The adjacent properties have access to public streets and utilities. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. Attachment 32 NO PARKING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood has approved a residential PUD and preliminary plat known as Beaver Lake Townhomes. 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 Beaver Lake Townhome PUD south of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive in Section 25-29-22. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2002. 84 MEMORANDUM TO: .FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Resignation Apdl 8, 2002 INTRODUCTION Edc Ahlness has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution of appreciation. kr/p:miscell/pcresig.mem Attachments: 1. April 1,2002 letter 2. Resolution Attachment 1 1 April 2002 2062 English Maplewood, MN 55109 Mayor Robert Cardinal 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mayor: I hereby tender my'resignation from the Planning Commission' of Maplewood effective 1 May 2002. 'It has been a difficult decision to post my resignation as I intended my service to the community to be long-term and consistent. When I applied to the council to become a member of the planning commission, I expressed that my military service would not be a significant distractor and would not prevent me from serving on a regular standing committee. At that time that was a true statement. All that changed on September, 11t", when the role and mission of the Guard increased a hundred- fold. I currently serve as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel, 34th Infantry Division. In this capacity, I am responsible for personnel readiness for and mobilizing soldiers for active service in support of our War on Terrorism and other contingency operations. The 34th Infantry Division has been alerted for several missions in the next 18 months, and I have been notified of a pending deployment for myself as well. The uncertain future and likelihood of additional missions for the Guard in general and for me personally, precludes me from requesting a leave of absence from the Planning Commission. Rather, I hope that in the future I could reapply to this or another commission when an opening should become available. Thank you for your and the Council's support and open ear over the past fifteen months. I also thank/he staff, particularly Melinda Coleman and Ken Roberts, for their guidance and advice. I thank Maplewood for this opportunity to learn and serve. Sinferelyfr-%~'~ CF: City Manager Asst. City Manager Chair, Planning Commission Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Eric Ahlness has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since December 11, 2000 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewoo& and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens that Eric Ahlness is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on April 15, 2002 Attest: Robert Cardinal, Mayor Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Karen Guifoile, City Clerk