HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2001BOOK
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesdav, February 20, 2001, 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes
a. February 5, 2001
Unfinished Business
None
o
New Business
a. Beaver Lake Townhomes (Maryland Avenue, Lakewood Drive to Sterling Street)
1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
2. Street Right-of-Way Vacations
3. Easement Vacations
4. Preliminary Plat
b. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment
7. Visitor Presentations
Commission Presentations
a. February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler
b. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller
c. March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina
Staff Presentations
Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and
ask for the staff report on the subject.
Staff presents their report on the matter.
The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to
comment on the proposal.
This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal.
Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and
then your comments.
After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are
allowed.
The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision.
All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council makes the final decision.
jw/pc~pcagd
Revised: 01195
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 5, 2001
II.
III.
IV.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m..
ROLL CALL
Commlss~oner Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Jack Frost
Commissioner Matt Ledvina
Commissioner Paul Mueller
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner William Rossbach
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Eric Ahlness
Commissioner Mary Dierich
Staff Present:
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Recording Secretary:
Lori Hansen
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff suggested new business and unfinished business be switched in order on the agenda.
Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the agenda, as amended.
Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes-All
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 17, 2001:
Commissioner Trippler noted: page 9, (2a) should read "five-foot", and page eleven (item H)
should read "Mr. Frost", instead of Mr. Trippler.
Commissioner Trippler approval of the minutes dated January 17, 2001, as amended.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. ~
Ayes-5 (Fischer, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler,
Ahlness)
Abstention-1 (Dierich)
Motion carries.
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 02-05-2001
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI.
A. Highway 61 Frontage Road Right-Of-Way Vacation (3007 Maplewood Drive).
Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. This item is a request by Frank Frattalone of
Frattalone Excavating to vacate part of an unused highway right-of-way. The right-of-way in
question is a 50-foot-wide strip along the west of the Highway 61 frontage road which is just north
of Gulden's Restaurant. It is adjacent to Mr. Frattalone's development site which the city reviewed
and approved last year. As best as the staff can tell from their research, the highway department
acquired this right-of-way in 1936 as part of the Highway 61 project at that time. It turns out,
however, they did not use the additional 50 feet of right-of-way. The jurisdiction of the frontage
road was turned back to the city in 1988 and the city has not done anything with the right-of-way.
The city engineer does not see any reason to keep it, nor does any other city staff see any reason
to keep it, or to use it. The right-of-way is essentially an extra wide strip of land that is in public
ownership.
Staff is recommending the city vacate the property 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.
Mr. Rossbach confirmed with staff that the zoning of the adjacent property is M-1 (light
manufacturing).
Mr. Barry Morgan, the engineer for the project, 2021 Hennepin Avenue East, was present for the
applicant. With the zoning for the adjacent property being light manufacturing, Mr. Frattalone is
still looking for several options that fall within the light manufacturing classification.
Mr. Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the
resolution that vacates the unused part of the Highway 61 frontage road right-of-way that is south
of County Road D, next to the property at 3007 Maplewood Drive. 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.
Mr. Trippler seconded.
Motion carries.
Ayes-All
This proposal will go before the city council on February 26, 2001.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Residential Parking Ordinance,
Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Staff is bringing back to the commission a revised
ordinance that was originally looked at by the planning commission on December 6, 2000. The
city attorney has looked at the draft ordinance and has added suggestions. The implementation
of the grandfathering clause for those parking situations that do not meet the proposed ordinance
was confirmed by the city attorney. The city cannot enforce the new ordinance and regulations on
someone who has an existing parking situation that does not meet code. With that being said, if
the city finds an individual parking in the grass and making mud, which creates a nuisance, it can
be treated as a nuisance.
Planning Commission -:3-
M inures of 02-05-2001
The statement that the ordinance excludes those properties larger than one acre in size has been
removed.
The ordinance will apply to all single and two-family residential properties in the RE-40, RE-30,
RE-20, F, R-I(S) and R-2 zoning districts.
Ms. Fischer requested "residential" be added to item a. (The area between the front of the
residential structure and the street right-of-way line).
The total area in the front yard setback area of a single-dwelling lot improved for parking and
driveway purposes shall not exceed forty percent of the front-yard setback area.
Screening language was added to the ordinance for the city to have the option to require
screening to help hide the parking area and vehicles from the view of adjacent residential
properties, or from the view from the public street.
Mr. Ahlness asked staff what the most pertinent issue was from other cities regarding parking
issues. Mr. Roberts responded in saying "there is no magic wand. You can read the ordinances
from ten different cities and get ten different sets of rules." Staff has attempted to create a set of
rules for Maplewood that works best for the situation in Maplewood.
The other cities' ordinances that staff reviewed included: Mahtomedi, Woodbury, Oakdale, and
North St. Paul.
Mr. Ahlness clarified with Mr. Roberts that the "yardstick" used to handle an existing situation
would be the city staff and the adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Roberts also clarified with Mr. Rossbach that inoperable and unlicensed parked vehicles are
not currently allowed.
As far as screening is concerned, Ms. Dierich asked if city staff had the only say in the type of
screening used. Staff noted Section 25-65 of the city code requires notification of the neighbors
and gives them the opportunity to comment.
Mr. Mueller asked if a homeowner parked directly adjacent to the curb would be grandfathered in
with the new ordinance. Staff responded in saying they are already breaking the law, because
prior to this ordinance, you could not park in a right-of-way. Therefore, that party would be in
violation of the ordinance.
The standards for commercial parking are as high as the residential parking requirements, as
clarified by staff for Commissioner Ahlness.
Ms. Dierich asked where the 40% maximum for parking and driving surface of the front yard set-
back area was derived from. Staff noted it was based on surveys and site plans done on recent
homes that were built.
Mr. Trippler asked if driveways should be stricken from 4C. Staff suggested that "parking areas"
be added, now to read: "Driveways and parking areas shall be at least five feet from a side
property line and parking shall not be in the street right-of-way or on other public property".
Ms. Dierich was concerned with the 40% rule. Mr. Rossbach responded in saying he felt that
regulation would be self regulating. He didn't feel people were going to want to put a bunch of
paving and concrete in their front yard.
Ms. Fischer asked what the vehicle was for a property owner to appeal if they disagreed with the
ordinance or staff interpretation. Staff felt Section 25-65 did cover an appeal situation.
-4-
Mr. Trippler moved that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the code
change about off-street parking in a residential area with the following amendments:
Paragraph 4a, insert the word residential at the end of the first line. The sentence will now
read: "Vehicle parking in the front yard setback area (the area between the front of the
residential structure and the street right-of-way line)."
Paragraph 4c, insert the words parking areas. The sentence will now read: "Driveways and
parking areas shall be at least five feet from a side property line and parking areas shall not be
in the street right-of-way or on other public property."
Paragraph 4f, insert setback area after yard. The sentence will now read: "The total area in
the front yard setback area of a single dwelling lot improved for parking and driveway
purposes shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the front yard setback area. The total
area in the front yard setback area of a duplex or double dwelling lot improved for parking
and driveway purposes shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the front yard setback area."
Mr. Rossbach seconded.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
VII.
This proposal may go before the city council on February 26, 2001, for the first reading.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
January 22nd city council meeting: Mr. Ahlness attended and gave the commission report.
The city council considered two proposals at this meeting. The Jehovah's Witness Kingdom
Hall expansion was approved. The Comfort Bus proposal was also approved. The council
was concerned with the use of Roselawn Avenue as a main feeder road to the interstates.
The applicant did confirm that the only busses that will be using Roselawn Avenue are those
that are already using Roselawn. Therefore, the traffic flow on that road will not be increasing.
The council also included a requirement for a recycling disposal area and a garbage area.
Mr. Trippler will be attending the February 12 city council meeting. The lot division for
Mr. Callahan and the Rose-Rice proposal will be on the agenda for this meeting.
Mr. Mueller will be attending the February 26 city council meeting. On this agenda will be the
Highway 61 Frontage Road Right-of-Way Vacation, and possibly the residential parking
ordinance.
IX.
D. Mr. Ledvina is scheduled for the March 12 city council meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
The February 19 planning commission meeting will be rescheduled for Tuesday, February 20,
2001. The 162-unit Beaver Lake Townhome Plat will be on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:55.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Antenna and Tower Ordinance
February 13, 2001
INTRODUCTION
The planning commission asked staff to review and possibly revise the antenna and tower
ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the current antenna and tower ordinance.
DISCUSSION
I am proposing many revisions to the ordinance. These changes are based on comments from
the planning commission and city council and are intended to strengthen and clarify the
ordinance, especially about the co-location of antennas. I also have deleted the word "monopole"
throughout the ordinance and used "tower" instead.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance starting on page 2. This ordinance revises and updates the regulations
about commercial use antennas and towers in Maplewood.
Attachment: Proposed ordinance
p:\ord\tower.5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
THE CITY CODE ABOUT ANTENNAS AND TOWERS.
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This section changes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code: (Additions
have been underlined and deletions are crossed out.)
CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE Xl
COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS
Section 36-600. Purpose.
To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public
health, safety and general welfare of the community, the Maplewood City Council finds that these
regulations are necessary to:
1. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and
businesses of the city.
2. Require tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located on properties
contiguous to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner to complement existing
structures and to minimize the visibilit and the adverse visual effects of antennas and
towers through careful design and siting standards_.
3. Ensure the operators and owners of antennas and towers design, locate and construct
antennas and towers that meet all applicable code requirements to avoid A¥~id potential
damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback
requirements.
4. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings for new wireless
telecommunication antennas to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the
community.
5. The following preferences shall be followed when selecting sites:
a. Primary structural location preference for wireless communication equipment as
permitted uses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Water towers or tanks.
Co-location on existing towers.
Church steeples or the church structure, when camouflaged as steeples, bell
towers, or other architectural features.
2
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Sides and roofs of buildings or structures over two (2) stories.
Existing power or telephone pole corridors.
Light poles or towers at outdoor recreational facilities.
Parking lots may be used to locate towers ~ where the structure
replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards
and fixtures of the parking lot.
b. Primary land use areas for towers requiring conditional use permits.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Industrial and commercial.
City-owned property (except water towers), other government-owned property,
schools, churches GovernmeF, t, sc,hoc,',, church or places of worship, utility, and
institutional sites.
Public parks/golf courses, when compatible with the nature of the park or
course.
Open space areas when compatible with the nature of the area and site.
Section 36-601. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section or ordinance shall have the following
meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Accessory structure. A use or structure subordinate to the principal use of the land or building
with a tower or antenna.
Antenna. Any structure, equipment or device used for t{"~d~:~pos~ collecting or radiating
electromagnetic waves, telecommunication, microwave, television or radio signals including but
not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes, and
omni-directional antennas, such as whips.
Personal Wireless Communication Services. Licensed commercial wireless communication
services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized
mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services.
Public Utility. Persons, corporation, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation,
water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the public. For this ordinance, commercial wireless
telecommunication sources shall not be considered public utility uses.
Tower. Any pole, monopole, spire, or structure, or combination thereof, including supporting
lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna,
meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade.
UBC. Uniform Building Code. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials
and adopted by the State of Minnesota to provide jurisdictions with building-related standards and
regulations.
Section 36-602. Existing antennas and towers.
Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of January 13, 1997, that do not meet
or comply with this section are subject to the following provisions:
3
1. Towers may continue in use for the existing purpose now used and as now existing but may
not be replaced or structurally altered without meeting all standards in this section.
If such towers are damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause at all, (unless the user
or owner voluntarily removes the tower), the owner or operator may repair and restore the
tower to its former size, height and use within one (1) year after first getting a building permit
from the city. The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were before the
damage or destruction.
Section 36-603. Interpretation and Applicability.
ao
It is not the intention of this ordinance to interfere with, abrogate or annul any covenant or
other agreement between parties. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions
upon the use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or required by other
ordinances, rules, regulations or permits, or by covenants or agreements, the provisions of
this ordinance shall govern.
b. This ordinance does not apply to the use or location of private, residential citizen band radio
towers, amateur radio towers or television antennas.
Section 36-604. Inspections and Violations.
All towers, antennas and supporting structures must obtain a building permit and are subject
to inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with UBC construction
standards. Deviations from the original construction that a permit is obtained, other than
antenna adjustments, is a misdemeanor.
Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirty
(30) days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the
building official that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible after that, the
building official will make another inspection and the owner notified of the results.
c. Adjustments or modifications to existing antennas do not require a conditional use permit or a
building permit.
Section 36-605. Conditional Use Permit.
a. In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial
antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the:
(1) Standards in the city code.
(2) Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board.
(3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of
residents of surrounding areas.
(4) Effect on property values.
(5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
bo
The applicant shall provide at the time of application, sufficient information to show that
construction and installation of the antenna or tower will meet or exceed the standards and
requirements of the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
4
Conditional use permits will not be required for:
(1)
(2)
Repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a
tower or antenna, if the repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor.
Antennas mounted on water towers, sides or roof of existing structures and on existing
towers, power, light, or telephone poles.
d. The fee to be paid for the conditional use permit shall be set by city council resolution.
Section 36-606. Communication Towers Proposed in Residential Zoning Districts.
No person, firm or corporation shall erect a tower ~ in a residential zoning district zor~e
without obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a facility shall be and subject
to the following conditions:
1. The city will only consider such a tower in the following residentially-zoned locations or
properties:
.__=.,
Churches or places of worship.
b_. Parks, when the city determines the facility would be compatible with the nature of thc;
park.
c_. City-owned property1 government, school, utility and institutional sites or facilities.
There shall be no more than one freestanding tower at one time on a property that the city
has planned for a residential use or that the city has zoned residentially, unless additional
towers or antennas are incorporated into existing structures such as a church steeple, lighl
pole. power line support device or similar structure.
The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity
analysis, that location of the tower as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and
spacing needs of the cellular system, and to provide adequate portable cellular telephone
coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas
in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure.
The antennas shall be located on an existing structure if possible, and shall not extend more
than twenty-five (25) feet above the height of the structure to which they are attached.
If no existing structure that meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for
mounting the antennas, such antennas may be mounted on a tower ~ not to exceed
seventy-five (75) feet in height provided that the tower pole is located at least the height of the
tower plus twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure., "-'
structura~ ---: ....."-" ~p~clfy: ..... ::-- '" ' any cc,',',ap$~ pc, ls
,,! VVEILEII~J LIIC3L ~ff! LI,~ WIll
Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure
whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and
switching, it shall be located ten (10) feet from the side or rear lot line and shall be
landscaped or screened where appropriate. The owners and operators of all new equipment
5
or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall design and construct such
structures to blend in with the surrounding environment,
7_=. Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city
determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen
the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby properties~
8__, The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow the
integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such a church steeole, light polo,
power line support device or similar structure. The term integration may include the
replacement of an existing structure to include a personal wireless service provide~, but does
not include the replication of a structure.
Towers shall be setback at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines, unless the site
is next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a
residential use. If the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a p,'ooerty
that the city is planning for a residential use, then the tower must be located at least the
height of the tower plus twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure.
10. The owner or operator of any tower shall screen ground-mounted equipment from view by
suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and
compliments the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
11. Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off-site views
of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower..
12. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
13, The community design review board (CDRB) shall review the plans for towers, utility.
equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening and landscapi~g.
Section 36-607. Construction Requirements, Setback and Height Restrictions in Zonin~
Districts or Locations Other Than Residential.
No person, firm or corporation shall erect a tower in a location other than residential without first
obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a facility shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a. No part of any tower or antenna shall be constructed, located or maintained at any time,
permanently or temporarily, in or upon any required setback area for the district in which
the antenna or tower is to be located.
b. All antennas, towers and accessory structures shall meet all applicable provisions of this
code and this section.
c. Antennas and towers shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The antennas may be mounted on a single pole or tower mo~opote not to exceed
one hundred seventy-five (175) feet in height. The pole shall be setback at least
the height of the tower po}e plus twenty-five (25) feet from any residential lot line.
6
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material·
The use of guyed towers is prohibited.
Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for
off-site views of the facility.
Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
The installation shall be designed to be compatible with the underlying site plan.
The owner or operator shall landscape the base of the tower and any accessory
structures· Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be
architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site. All new
equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall be
designed and constructed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The
community design review board shall review the design plans for towers, utility,
equipment or of any accessory structures, site plans and proposed screening and
Towers shall be a light blue or gray or other color shown to reduce visibility. No
advertising or identification visible off-site shall be placed on the tower or
buildings.
Antennas placed upon the tower shall comply with all state and federal
regulations about nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such
facilities.
Wireless telephone or personal wireless communication service antennas, where
located on an existing structure shall not extend more than twenty-five (25) feet
above the structure to which they are attached. Such antennas are a permitted
use in all zoning districts of the city. The city council, after a recommendation
from the community design review board, must approve the plans for all sets of
antennas on a building after the second personal wireless communication service
provider has installed their antennas on the building.
Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand a uniform wind loading as
prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
Telecommunications equipment located on the side of an existing structure or on
a roof of a structure shall not be screened.
Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street1
unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the
tower or would lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby
properties.
The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street
to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such a
church steeple, light pole, power line support device or similar structure. The term
integration may include the replacement of an existing structure to include a
personal wireless service provider, but does not include the replication of a
structure.
(14)
Towers shall be setback at least five (5) feet from side and rear property lines1
unless the site is next to a residential lot line. If the tower would be next to a
residential property line or next to a property that the city is planning for a
residential use, then the tower must be located at least the height of the tower
plus twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure. Ground
equipment and accessory structures shall be setback at least five (5) feet from
side and rear property lines.
(15)
The owner or operator of a tower shall screen ground-mounted equipment from
view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvecjetative screening
better reflects and compliments the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Section 36-608. Lights, Sicjns and Other Attachments.
No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors,
flashers, daytime strobes or steady nighttime light or other illuminating devices except:
1. Those needed during time of repair or installation,
2. Those required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications
Commission or the city.
3. For towers in parking lots, lights associated with the parking lot lighting.
In addition, no tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform,
catwalk, crows nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
No antenna or tower shall have signage, advertising or identification of any kind visible from
the ground or from other structures, except necessary warning and equipment information signago
required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State or local authorities.
Section 36-609. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers.
Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and
may be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for
dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 through
463.26.
Section 36-610. Co-location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment.
The city shall not approve a request A-pmpos~ for a new personal wireless service tower
o, ,o,, ,,,.,, ,,~ ~.pprov~d unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the
city council that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one-half mile
radius, transcending municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one or more of the
following:
1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved
tower or commercial building.
2. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned
equipment at the tower or building.
Existing or approved structures and commercial buildings within one-half mile radius
cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary
to function.
-- ~ ' '" ' ' -: -- thc The applicant must demonstrate, by providing a city-wide
coverage/interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as
proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the
communication service system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas
that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or
on existing structure.
Additional Submittal Requirements. Beside the information required elsewhere in this code, all
conditional use permit applications for towers also shall include the following information:
A letter of intent committing the tower owner and their successors to allow the shared
use of the tower if an additional user agrees to meet reasonable terms and conditions for
shared use.
The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed facility is necessary to fill a significant
existing gap in users coverage. This documentation shall include coveraqe maps of all
the existing antenna sites within one (1) mile of the proposed facility.
3. That the proposal is the least intrusive method of achieving coverage in the area and that
other alternatives will not work.
That the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated at any
existing tower or antenna facility. The city may find that a co-location site cannot
accommodate the planned equipment for the following reasons:
The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the preferred co-
location site, and the preferred co-location site cannot be reinforced, modified or
replaced to accommodate the planned equipment or its equivalent at ~
reasonable cost. as certified by a aualified radio frequency engineer;
The planned equipment would significantly interfere with the usability of existing
or approved equipment at the preferred co-location site and the interference
cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio
frequency engineer;
A preferred co-location site cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a
height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a qualified radio
frequency engineer: or
The applicant, after a good-faith effort, is unable to lease, purchase or otherwise
secure space for the planned equipment at an existing antenna location.
The city may require the applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by a
qualified radio frequency engineer to determine the need for the proposed tower.
Materials or documentation demonstrating to the city that the applicant has made a good
faith effort to co-locate on existing towers but they could not reach an agreement to co-
locate on an existing tower.
o
Design information and documentation showing how the applicant, owner or operator of
the tower has designed structurally, electrically and in all respects the tower to
accommodate both the applicant's antennas and the antennas for at least two (2)
additional users if the tower is over one hundred (100) feet in height in all locations
except residential or for at least one (1) additional user if the tower is over seventy-five
(75) feet in height. The applicant must design and install a new tower to allow for future
rearrangement of antennas on the tower and to accept antennas mounted at vary. ina
heights.
Section 36-611. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications.
All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with
public safety telecommunications.
Section 36-612. Additional Submittal Requirements.
Additional Submittal Requirements. Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code,
building permit applications for towers shall include the following supplemental information:
1. A report and plans from a qualified and registered engineer or others that:
a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation.
Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located
antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas.
Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can
hold.
d. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number, if applicable.
e. Includes all other information necessary for the city to evaluate the request.
Section 36-613. Variances.
The City Council may grant variances to the requirements of this section. All variances must
follow the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. For variances regarding antennas and
towers, the applicant must show the city the following:
10
1_. There are unique circumstances or characteristics peculiar to the property and that the
provisions of this code would inflict undue hardship.
2_. The property cannot be developed or put to a reasonable use by strictly conforming with
the city code.
3_. The applicant or property owner did not create or cause the hardship.
4_. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area or the zoning
district.
The proposed variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief from the city code
standards.
6_. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
The applicant for a variance for an antenna or tower related matter shall submit with their
variance application a statement showing how the proposal would meet these findinqs.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official
newspaper publishes it.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on
2001.
P:ord\tower. 5
11
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Beaver Lake Townhomes
Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street
February 14, 2001
Project Description
Mr. Tony Emmerich, representing the AJE Companies, is proposing to develop a 162-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 Drive. (Please
see the maps starting on page 15.)
Requests
To build this project, Mr. Emmerich is requesting several city approvals including:
A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 162-unit housing
development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36-566(a) of the city
code (the shoreland district regulations) require a PUD for developments with buildings with
more than four units 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 42 single-family
detached town homes and 120 rental units in 15 8-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.
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 21 .)
3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed project plans.)
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 PUD approval and
design approval (including architectural and landscape plans). Please also refer to the developer's
application booklet and 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 4-unit buildings (184
units). See the plan on page 23. 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 Sterling Street. This change was from F (farm
residence) to R-3 (multiple dwellings).
DISCUSSION
Open Space
The Maplewood Open Space Committee called this property Site 156. They ranked this site fifth
out of the 66 they rated 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 being 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 Drive). 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. 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 spaces.
I had Al Singer, the Metro Greenways Coordinator from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), review the proposed project plan. His comments are in the letter on pages 28
and 29. He has several concerns about the 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. Mr. Singer ends his comments by stating that the "proposed site
plan, with the apparently stated intention by the landowner of not wanting to provide public access,
would no longer meet our program criteria and objectives. If the plan as submitted is not
substantially altered, Metro Greenways funding would no longer be available for this project." In
other words, 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 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. This 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 bank) to help protect it from the impacts of nearby development. As such, the
city code does not allow any ground disturbance, including grading, within the buffer area. The
proposed grading plan, however, shows grading in several parts of the 50-foot-wide buffer. These
areas are near the rear of buildings 4-8, 22-25, 29-33, 37 and 44. Since the code does not allow
the proposed grading in these areas, the applicant will need to revise the grading plan (and
probably the site plan) to meet this ordinance requirement. The Maplewood Nature Center staff
also had several concerns about the impacts the proposed plans would have on the buffer areas.
(See their memo starting on page 24.)
As I noted above, existing city ordinances will protect the immediate area along the stream and
around the wetlands from development. There is much interest from city staff, the neighbors and
the RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District in increasing the size of the protected area
along the stream and wetlands. Using the Greenways grant from the DNR, while matching the
states dollars with city open space money, (as is required) to buy additional protected easement
area along the stream is an option the city should consider toward this goal.
Park Issues
An area of natural significance that is in and near the south side of the stream corridor is the grove
of coniferous trees (pines) that proposed buildings 26-36 would encroach into. (See the site plan
on page 22.) I had Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, review the
proposed development plans. His comments are in the memo starting on page 26. It is
Mr. Anderson's opinion that the proposed development does not take into consideration the
ecological sensitivity of the creek and the abutting vegetation. He also noted that the pine grove on
the property is a significant amenity to the landscape as they are critical for water quality but also
for their visual/aesthetic value. Mr. Anderson also stated concerns about the sensitivity of the
pines to any disturbance and that any tree removal would ultimately lead to the deterioration of the
remaining tree stand and potentially their ultimate death.
We also received a letter from Jean Moulle, the Urban Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Coordinator of the Metro Forestry Division of the DNR, about the proposed development. (See his
letter on pages 32 and 33.) Mr. Moulle also expressed several concerns about the proposed
development. He noted that the stand of pines near the stream "provides significant ecological
benefits to the watershed district including the wildlife habitat corridor and water quality as well as
social benefits including recreational opportunities such as trail and open space benefits to future
residents. Preserving the pine stand as open space will add significant real estate values to the
subdivision."
An option for the city to consider in protecting additional land along the stream corridor would be to
require the developer to dedicate up to 2.7 acres of land (10 percent of the project site) to the city
for park and open space purposes. Section 30-6(f) of the city code allows the city to "require that a
reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public
use as parks, playgrounds, trails or open space; .... "This land dedication would be in lieu of the
city collecting park charges with the building permits in the development. For reference, 2.7 acres
is 117,612 square feet in area. An example of this size property is a 50-foot-wide strip of land
2,352 feet long or two 50-foot-wide strips of land each 1,176 feet long.
However, to help protect the most-sensitive natural features on the site, the city council could
require the developer to dedicate a permanent public conservation easement along either side of
the stream and covering the wetlands. This easement area would protect this part of the site from
building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground disturbances. This would help
ensure the natural linear or corridor aspect of the site (primarily around the stream) would remain
as it is now.
Trails and Sidewalks
The second issue that Mr. Anderson noted in his memo is about the planned north/south trail
corridor through this part of Maplewood that goes 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 require
the developer to install a trail along the creek corridor and an internal trail system that would
connect the west and east sides of the proposed development (including a bridge 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.
To be consistent with the adopted Parks Plan, the city should require the developer to build the
part of this trail that will be within his project site. 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. The responsibility of the developer would be to install an 8-foot-wide trail from
the centerline of the vacated Magnolia right-of-way on the south end of the site, continue the trail
north and east through the site to the corner of Sterling Street and Maryland Avenue. This trail
could have some areas of bituminous (especially on the two ends) while the part of the trial within
a required buffer would have to be of an impervious surface. The developer's engineer would need
to design this trail to follow the existing contours of the property while saving as many trees as
possible.
Staff also believes that it is important that any development and trails on this site connect the land
on the east and west sides of the creek to each other and to the new trail in the center of the site.
To accomplish these connections, the city could 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 9 and 10 and between buildings 24 and 25. Secondly, the city could 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.
In addition to the above-noted trails, the city should require the developer of this property to install
a sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the east driveway
of Rosewood Estates. 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.
4
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 16.) 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.
Specifically, the 162 units on the 27-acre site means there would be 6.0 units per gross acre. This
proposal would meet the density standards outlined 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 arterial street (Lakewood Drive) and is near open space.
However, while the proposal meets the city's density standard for medium density residential
development, there are problems and issues with the proposed project plans as I note elsewhere
in this report. These include areas of grading that go into the required buffer areas, the standards
for developing in the shoreland district of Beaver Lake, the number of driveways proposed for
Maryland Avenue and the negative impacts of the development on the creek and on the stream
corridor. With a proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and rights of the property
owner to develop his property with the city's ordinances, development standards, neighborhood
interests and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development
(PUD) for the 162-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because
Section 36-566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) require a PUD for
developments with buildings with more than four units. In this case, the site is in the shoreland
zone of Beaver Lake and would have a mix of housing with 42 single-family detached town homes
and 120 rental units in 15 8-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. The developer intends to sell each of the detached town
homes.
Page 13 of the PUD application booklet lists much of the data for the proposed development
including the proposed densities and overall project data and density. As proposed, the 162
dwelling units would be on about 27 acres for an overall project density of 6 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, this site is in the shoreland district 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:
(1)
(2)
(3)
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 minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation;
there be no intensive vegetation clearing on steep slopes. The shoreland code has the
following definitions for "intensive vegetation clearing" and for "steep slopes." Intensive
vegetation clearing is "the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a specific patch, strip,
row or block." A steep slope is "land having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as
measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more... ";
the applicant prepare a storm water management plan for the proposal; and
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
screen these facilities." The proposed project plans say that the development will have 67 percent
open space as proposed.
When I reviewed the existing topography and preliminary plat for the proposal, I found several
existing areas on the site that have steep slopes as defined by the shoreland code. They include
the slope along the existing driveway from Lakewood Drive into Rosewood Estates and several
areas on either side of the creek. Specifically, these are next to or in the areas where the
developer has proposed buildings 4-9, 11-14, 23-24, 28-36, 37-42 and 44. These are all areas on
the site that the shoreland code prohibits intensive vegetation clearing. As such, the applicant
would need to revise the project plans to ensure that they will not be doing any intensive
vegetation clearing on the steep slopes. This also means that grading cannot occur in these areas
as that would remove the vegetation. Mr. Moulle of the DNR also expressed concerns about the
impact of the proposal on the steep slopes. (See his letter on pages 32 and 33).
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. Meeting all city and other agency standards would need to be a
requirement of the city's approval of the conditional use permit and the design plans.
Site Plan Concerns
Stream Corridor and Wetland Buffers
As I also 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. As such, the city code does not allow any ground disturbance,
including grading, within the buffer area. The proposed grading plan, however, shows grading in
several parts of the 50-foot-wide buffer. These areas are near the rear of buildings 4-8, 22-25, 29-
33, 37 and 44. Since the code does not allow the proposed grading in these areas, the applicant
would need to revise the grading plan (and probably the site plan) to meet this ordinance
requirement.
Section 9-196(h)(5) of the city wetland protection ordinance says "the city may require a variable
buffer width to protect adjacent habitats that the city determines is valuable to the wetland, stream,
wildlife or vegetation." In addition, Section 36-571(b) of the shoreland ordinance has special
conditions about conditional use permits in shorelands. Specifically, Section 36-571(b)(2) states
the city may include a condition about the "limitation on removing the natural vegetation or
requiring the planting of additional vegetation."
The city could use both of these code sections as a basis to deny the proposed plans and require
the developer to revise the proposal to protect more of the stream buffer and vegetation on the
site.
North Side (along Maryland Avenue)
Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue adjacent to this site are county roads. As such, I had Dan
Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, review this proposal. His comments are in the memo
on page 34. The most important of Mr. Soler's comments is Number 3 about the proposed
driveways on Maryland Avenue. He states that the county would like to see a private roadway
constructed in this area to provide access to the proposed homes. This private roadway would
have one or two access points onto Maryland Avenue.
Such a private road would probably be parallel to Maryland Avenue with an entrance near the
pipelines on the west end and another entrance to the east closer to Sterling Street. The purpose
of this driveway design is to lessen the number of driveways going onto Maryland Avenue.
Mr. Soler told me that the county prefers to have only one or two driveways connecting onto their
road in this situation instead of the eight that the developer has proposed. He also told me that it is
the county's practice to encourage the use of common entrances onto the county roads wherever
possible. This is to minimize the number of potential conflict points with the traffic on the county
road.
Tot Lot
The applicant has not proposed any play or recreational facilities with the development. The city
should consider requiring the developer to furnish and install playground or other outside
recreational equipment for the west side of the development. The area near Sterling Street may
use the city facilities at Geranium Park for their neighborhood recreational needs. As such, there is
no need for additional play equipment for the eastern part of the development.
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, the 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 would
regularly review the development. In fact, this applies to any development that the city approves
with a conditional use permit.
Front and Rear Yard Setbacks
As proposed, with the lot sizes, layouts and site topography, the developer has shown a variety of
building locations on the proposed grading plan. The proposed front yard setbacks listed on page
13 of the application booklet do not meet the standard setbacks the city usually requires in the R-3
zoning district. (Typically, 30 to 35 feet from the front property line.) Having a variety of setbacks
in this development will allow for less mass grading and more individual house styles.
Off-Street Parking Standards
The city code requires the developer to provide at least 324 off-street parking spaces (two for each
unit) in this development. The developer noted on page 13 of their project application book that
they would be providing 460 parking spaces (including garages) within the site. This number
exceeds the city requirement and would be enough parking for the residents and their guests.
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 21). However, for the city to vacate a right-of-way
or easement, the council must find that there is no public interest in keeping the right-of-way or
easement.
Preliminary Plat
The proposed development and preliminary plat with 162 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.
Wetlands and Stream
The developer had the wetlands on the site delineated by a trained wetland professional. The
watershed district has classified these wetlands as Type 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.
In addition, the city code does not allow any ground disturbance, including grading, within the
buffer area. The proposed grading plan, however, shows grading in several parts of the 50-foot-
wide buffer. These areas are near the rear of buildings 4-8, 22-25, 29-33, 37 and 44. Since the
code does not allow the proposed grading in these areas, the applicant would need to revise the
grading plan (and probably the site plan) to meet this ordinance requirement. The contractor
should place the silt fence and temporary construction fencing so they protect this buffer during all
construction.
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 Drive 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.
That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels.
The RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District has done a preliminary review of the proposed
project plans. Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district put his comments and concerns in the memo
on pages 30 and 31. As Mr. Aichinger notes, "the District has several major concerns with the
proposal as currently submitted." He notes the following concerns:
The proposed grading plan shows grading infringing on the buffer area to the creek.
Specifically, these are near proposed buildings 44 and 37 and the proposed pond just east
of Rosewood Estates (south of building 44).
Mr. Aichinger recommends that the buildings 44 and 37 be eliminated from the plans to
lessen the amount of grading and potential impact on the creek buffer.
The proposed grading plan has areas of potential significant erosion that would affect the
creek.
Buildings 28-34 and 5-9 are on the edge of or very near the required creek buffer. Grading
and construction with these units will cause ground disturbance in the required buffer
areas. All these buildings should be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the buffer edge.
Buildings 26-36 are located in the pine grove on the south side of Beaver Creek. This plan
will probably result in the loss of all of the pine grove. Mr. Aichinger recommends that the
developer preserve all these trees as a screen to the development.
Mr. Aichinger also notes that the watershed district allows water quality treatment ponds within the
buffer area if aesthetically designed and restored. As such, he notes that some of the proposed
storm water ponds could be shifted on the site to allow for the shifting of buildings away from the
stream corridor and buffer.
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
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 Ed Nadeu, the city sewer foreman, review the proposed utility 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.
Trees
As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade much of the site to create the street right-of-
ways, driveways, the proposed ponding areas and the building pads. This grading would disturb
about 20 acres of 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. 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.
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 Marshall 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 would have to 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. The developer must post any driveway that would be less than 28-feet wide for
no parking on both sides.
Driveway Design
Steve Lukin, the Maplewood Fire Chief, reviewed the proposed site plan. He had several concerns
about the driveway designs and connections for the west one-half of the proposed site. Mr. Lukin
is recommending that the city require the developer to make more driveway connections between
the driveway for the detached townhouses and those for the apartment buildings. Mr. Lukin wants
these additional driveway connections to ensure the fire and other emergency vehicles can have
adequate access to all parts of this site.
]0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Deny the proposed conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Beaver
Lake Townhome development. This development would be on the south side of Maryland
Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. The city is denying this request
because:
The proposed use would not be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated
to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. This is
because:
(a)
The proposed development plan is not consistent with the adopted Maplewood
Parks Plan since the developer is not proposing to build the part of a city-planned
trail that would be within his project site.
(b)
The proposed grading plan shows grading in several parts of the required 50-foot-
wide no disturb buffer areas. These areas are near the rear of proposed buildings
4-8, 22-25, 29-33, 37 and 44. The city does not allow grading or ground
disturbance in the required buffer areas.
(c)
Several existing areas on the site with steep slopes. These are next to or in the
areas where the developer has proposed buildings 4-9, 11-14, 23-24, 28-36, 37-42
and 44. These are all areas on the site that the shoreland code prohibits intensive
vegetation clearing. As such, the applicant would need to revise the project plans to
ensure that they will not be doing any intensive vegetation clearing on the steep
slopes. This also means that grading cannot occur in these areas as that would
remove the vegetation.
(d) The proposed plans do not meet all the Maplewood Shoreland Ordinance
requirements, especially about the removal of vegetation from the site.
2. The proposed use would change the existing character of the surrounding area.
The proposed use would involve activities, processes, materials, equipment or methods
of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
The proposed use could create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing streets.
The proposed driveway design would have eight driveways going onto Maryland Avenue.
Ramsey County prefers to have only one or two driveways onto their road instead of the
eight that the developer has proposed. This design change would be to minimize the
number of potential conflict points with the traffic on the county road.
The proposed use would not maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's
natural and scenic features into the development design. The proposed development
does not take into consideration the ecological sensitivity of the creek and the abutting
vegetation. The pine grove on the property (near the south side of the stream corridor that
proposed buildings 26-36 would encroach into) is a significant amenity to the landscape
as they are critical for water quality but also for their visual/aesthetic value. The pine
stand near the stream provides significant ecological benefits to the watershed district
including the wildlife habitat corridor and water quality as well as social benefits including
recreational opportunities such as trail and open space benefits to future residents.
Preserving the pine stand as open space would add significant real estate values to the
subdivision. The proposed development would require the removal of the existing conifers
(pine trees) and other plant material on the site. This, along with the damage due to
construction equipment, soil compaction and slope alteration, would further degrade the
aesthetic and ecological value of the corridor.
The proposed use would cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed grading
plan has areas of potential significant erosion that would affect the creek and wetlands.
Deny the request to vacate parts of the unused Magnolia Avenue and Sterling Street lying
west of Lakewood Drive and south of Maryland Avenue in the proposed Beaver Lake
Townhomes PUD. The city is denying this request because:
1. The city is denying the proposed PUD and proposed project plans.
2. It is not in the public interest to vacate these right-of-ways since the city is not
approving a project for this site.
Deny the request to vacate unused drainage and utility easements lying east of Lakewood
Drive, west of Sterling Street and south of Maryland Avenue in the proposed Beaver Lake
Townhomes PUD. The city is denying this request because:
1. The city is denying the proposed PUD and proposed project plans.
It is not in the public interest to vacate these easements since the city is not
approving a project for this site.
Deny the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes preliminary plat (received by the city on January
18, 2001). The city is denying this proposed preliminary plat because the city is denying the
proposed planned unit development and the proposed street and easement vacations.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 65 properties within 350 feet of this site and received 15 written
replies. Those who wrote had several concerns about the proposal. I have summarized their
issues as follows:
1. Possible effects of storm water run off- drainage (potential for flooding).
2. The effects on the wildlife.
3. The proposed plans have too many homes. Perhaps half as many units would be more
acceptable.
4. Adding a driveway onto Lakewood Drive is dangerous.
5. Can the existing lift station on Lakewood Drive handle the additional sewage flow?
6. There would be too much traffic and noise.
7. Keep it as park or open space. It is our hope that this or any other development will not take
place.
8. It will ruin the nature area and destroy the quiet.
9. The plan needs a wider corridor along the stream.
10. It will alter the character and economic value of adjacent properties,
11. Townhouses are OK but completely against apartments.
12. Some town homes and/or some single dwellings, but not this number (of units).
Also see the three letters on pages 35 through 39 for samples of the written comments that I
received.
I also received several telephone calls from nearby residents. They expressed concerns about the
loss of open space, the potential effects on the stream, corridor and wildlife, storm water drainage,
the proposed housing mix (including rental units and town houses) and increased traffic.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
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
Townhouses 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) of the city code states that the city council may approve or deny a CUP, based on
nine standards.
Application Date
We received the complete application materials for this 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 must take action on this proposal by March 18, 2001, unless the applicant
agrees to a time extension.
kdp : lsec2 5/beavrplt. den
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Property Line/Zoning Map
4. Area Map
5. Area Map
6. Area Map
7. Proposed Public Vacations
8. Proposed Site Plan dated 01-18-01
9. City-Approved 1980 Development Plan - Beaver Lake Hills
10. Memo from Ann Hutchinson and Ginny Gaynor dated 2-01-01
11. Memo from Bruce Anderson dated 02-02-01
12. Letter dated 02-01-01 from Alan Singer (DNR)
13. Memo from Cliff Aichinger (Watershed District) dated 02-07-01
14. Letter dated 02-07-01 from Jean Moulle (DNR)
15. Memo from Dan Soler (Ramsey County) dated 1-23-01
16. 01-25-01 letter from Rhonda Peterson-Wenz
17. 01-31-01 letter from Thor Nordwall
18. 01-29-01 memo from F. B. Klinkerfues
14
AV~.
Attach].~_'.~ t 1
LOCATION MAP
15
ACE.
Attachr,~ent 2
R-1
OS--
R-3(M)
-1
lector
~lvy
Ave.
R-2
~-lS
R-3(H)
R-3(M)
Maryland
Ave.
Stillwater Rd.
BC
~ BC(M)
LBC
Harvester Ave,
R-3(H)
BC~
BC
M-1
OS
-1
CEM
LB~::)
innehaha Ave.
~-~(~)
)S
LAND USE MAP
PROJECT SITE
16
Attachment 3
,
BEAVER LAKE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
RANIUM AVE.
so,:, ~ I .;...
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
O
~5,3 -
"'1085 ¢?) '
~° ROSE AVE. E.
GERANIUM
1083
1084
PARK
,Ze:
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
17
Attachment 4
county, and ci~ offices, and c4her sources.
AREA MAP
18
Attachment 5
pROJECT SITE
I~mit on I. Jab~l/ty This documeni'is not a legatlv
Cu~ent
STR'UCTURE$96
recorded map or survey and ~s not mh~,ded to "~e
WATEI:~J~. HALFSECL, LIMITSA, PARREG.
used as one. Thls map ~s a comp~latton ol i I LIMITSP
records and in~n'nation from various state.
county, and c,ty offices, and other sources
AREA MAP
19
Attachment 6
i
ROSEWOOO ESTATES
***- l..t~ .
PROJECT SITE
1085
1083
LJmr~ or~ L2abll/~y.r T'~ts d~ument ~s not a ,egatly ~
record~ and is not intend~ ~ be ~
i
used ~s one ~is map is a c~iahon ot
r~o~ and F~for~a~on ~om vario~ sta~
county, and ctty offices and o~er sources
1084
Curre¢~ l.~/ers. STRT'XT ROADS96:
STRUCTURESg~ WATER96: HALFSECL:
LIMITSA, PARREG: LJMITSP
AREA MAP
2O
Attachment 7
PRELIMINARY
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
MARYLAND
? ~
ROSEWOOD ESTATES :.'
· ;~: '-.
· ..-., ...
PUBLIC EASEMENT
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
\ /
i PRJOSED PUBLIC VACATIONS
21
EAST ROSE
AVENUE
GERA NI UM
A VENUE
Attachment 8
~ SITE PLAN ~;'_~. .'~,=_
,.Y.2_J~ .... I OF
~ .~__~,: .___. BEAVER LAKE TO IfNHOME$
," I FOR
'~. / .... ATE C03£PAIVIES, I~¥C.
_/~ ,..~ l~l The City Of Molgle~'ood '"'~
BEAVER LAKE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
M~G,%'OLIA ~ ('urzop~ned)
Ir-- '
I
I
I
I
!ELL4 .~ l L 'q
A i'E.'; L'E
1115
SITE
PLAN
22
N
.f
Attachment 9
O~ATIOI(
SITE PLAN
CITY-APPROVED 1980 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - BEAVER LAKE HILLS
23
Attachment l0
Memo
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Ken Roberts
Ann Hutchinson and Ginny Gaynor
2/1/01
Beaver Creek Corridor
\Ve believe the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes project will negatively impact the wetlands on the
site and lead to degradation of water quality in Beaver Creek and Beaver Lake. In addition, we are
dismayed at the prospect of losing of a potential trail and natural area that could connect several
Maplewood neighborhoods. Many excellent points were made at the 1/25 meeting and we will focus
our statements primarily on impacts to the buffer.
· :, \Ve believe there should be absolutely no disturbance or alteration of the wetland butt'er zones
during or qfier construction. Can the City or Watershed District require and enforce this? No
impact would mean the following:
1. Each building site should include enough land to allow for construction actMties and vehicles.
to allow lbr proper grading into the buflbr area. and to allow for some yard space. The
proposal has several homes on or near the buffer line. which should not be pem~itted.
There should be absolutely no construction actix4ty in the buflbr area, including no access for
-' vehicles, no parking, and no piling soil. lumber, or other materials.
3. To protect the buflizr during construction, the developer should be required to erect temporal3'
but secure fencing along the whole wetland border to keep vehicles out. This is in a~ktitkm to
silt fences installed to catch eroding soil.
4. No soil should be removed from or added to the wetland buffer.
5. Regrading the site should not result in steeper slopes adjacent to the buffer.
6. The wetland buflbr should retain its current vegetation or be restored to native vegetation.
Any alteration of vegetation in the buffer must be approved by the City or the Watershed
District. No turf should be planted in the buffer areas. Turf is nmnaged intensively vdth
llzrtilizers and herbicides, vd'rich can be harmful to wetlands.
7. If stom~ water ponds are located near the buffer areas, they should fit ecologically with the
natural qualities of the buflbr, i.e. be planted with native plants.
8. The proposed removal of pine trees should not be pem~itted because it creates serious
potential for erosion of the slope and degradation of the creek.
We are also concerned about the visual impact of lighting from this project. Can the City require
that all security lights be directed dov,'nv,'ard?
24
How is the buffer measured'?. From the edge of the creek, from the centerline, or from the high
water mark?. This should be clarified for the developer as it appears they have been measuring
from the centerline of the creek.
The pines come to the buffer line. not as drawn on the plans; the plans show them grovdng right
next to the creek. This means the developer could remove all the pines on the slope.
Beaver Lake becomes loaded with thick suspended algae during June, July, and August. It covers
a reduction of total Phosphorous (see
~/.~ of the lake. The Watershed District plan recommends
attached). How can this happen when additional impervious surfaces are added to the drainage
area.°
We are astonished that our ordinance allows for including wetland acreage in calculating
ma.xirnum allowable density on a site. As we understand it, a 1 O-acre site can have maximum of
60 homes (R-3 zoning) regardless of how much of the site is wetlands. If the site has 6 acres of
upland and 4 acres of wetland, 60 homes can be clustered on the 6 upland acres. If the site has 2
acres of upland and 8 acres of wetland, does that mean 60 homes can be clustered on 2 acres'?. We
haven't read the ordinance. Does it really allow for tNs'?. Isn't there some way we can require that
the wetland acreage not be included when calculating total allowable units.° This would
significantly decrease the number of units allowed on the site.
Attachment ll
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Bruce K. Anderson, DirectOr of;15arks and Recreation
Beaver Lake Town Homes/AJE Company Proposed Development
I have reviewed the proposed Beaver Lake town home/AJE Company proposed development
located southeast of Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue. The project raises a number of
serious planning concerns regarding park related issues.
The city has received a $200,000 ($100,000 match from city) grant from the State of
Minnesota to acquire property adjacent to the Beaver Lake creek corridor which runs through
the center of the proposed development. The initial grant was written with the intent to
preserve a wildlife, natural vegetation buffer strip between future development and the
ecologically sensitive creek.
The proposed development does not take into consideration the ecological sensitivity of the
creek and abutting vegetation. I have met with state forester Jean LeMay at the site to review
the potential impact the development might have on the stream bed relating to water quality
and tree removal. The pine grove on the southeast corner of the property is a significant
amenity to the landscape. The trees are approximately 30-35 years old and are critical not
only to the water quality, but also the visual/aesthetic value of the property. Mr. LeMay will be
providing a report under separate cover addressing forestry issues and comments from the
fish and wildlife division. His initial comments were that the pine grove is an extremely
sensitive area and any disturbance of the soils and/or removal of the trees would ultimately
lead to the deterioration of the remaining tree stand and potentially their ultimate "death" due
to root disturbance, erosion and soil compaction. He further expressed his concerns regarding
the increased impervious surface as it relates to water runoff into the creek bed.
The specific parks and recreation issue is that this is a critical north/south trail corridor which
connects the trail corridor from the Maplewood nature center on the southern boundary to the
Priory open space property. I have included a copy of the comprehensive park master plan
which was adopted by the city council which delineates the proposed trail corridor. It is an
extremely high priority for the city's trail system to develop a north/south trail corridor and this
is a critical link. With the recent reconstruction of Harvester Avenue and Bartelmy Lane, the
city has established the trail corridor from the south and the connection is in place heading
north from Maryland Avenue to the Pondview apartments. This trail corridor then connects to
Jim's Prairie and Sterling Oaks Park, and ultimately the north to the Priory open space
property. The corridor then ties in west of Hill Murray High School, and ultimately to the
Gateway Trail.
26
In addition to the high priority for a trail corridor through the proposed development, a trail
corridor to the east to Geranium Park is critical. Geranium Park is the neighborhood park that
will serve this development. The proposed development does not have an internal trail system
which permits access to the east. I recommend that an internal trail system be included in the
project and the city require the developer to install a pedestrian bridge over Beaver Creek to
connect the two sides of the development.
The city has a number of financial means available to accomplish some of these goals to
reduce density and/or redesign the plat to preserve the forested area. Specifically, the
greenway grant in the amount of $200,000 should be used to either reduce the density,
preserve the pine trees and or expand the 50-foot buffer to 100 feet. In addition, it is my
recommendation that park dedication in the amount of 2.7 acres or 10% of property be
considered to widen the corridor to ensure the site is ecologically preserved. It should be
noted that adding an additional 50 feet on either side of the creek buffer would be 2.5 acres in
size. The cash dedication for the proposed development would be approximately $150,000 or
a cost of S60,O00/acre.
Lastly, the developer should be required to include an internal trail system to the east and
between the east and west sides of the development and provide a trail along the creek
corridor throughout the length of the property to make the north/south trail connection
between Pondview apartments and the Maplewood nature center.
I will forward a copy of the state wildlife and forester's report which I anticipate to be available
no later than February 8. Should you have any questions regarding my recommendation on
this issue, please contact me at 4573.
kd\beavercr.mem
27
Attac,qment 12
Febl'um;'y 1, 2001
Minnesota Depamnent of Natural
Metro Region
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55106
ReSOl. lrces
Ken Roberts
Connnunity Development Director
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood. MN 55109
Dent' Ken:
Thank you for inviting us to attend the Beaver Lake Townhomes'AJE Companies project
meeting at City of *'Iaplewood offices on January 25, 2001. After reviewing the proposed
development plan and upon fm-ther discussions, we offer the following comments about the
submitted plan:
The remaining non-developed stream corridor provides x'e~5' limited opportunities for
providing significant wildlife habitat and important open space to the site. Given the
proposed narrow boundaries, a paved recreation trail developed within this corridor
would further reduce the ecological significance of the corridor.
The actual removal of existing conifers and other plant material on the northeastern
portion of the site and probable destruction of more trees within this stand as a result of
damage due to construction equipment, soil compaction, and slope alteration would
further degrade the aesthetic and ecological value of the corridor.
Proposed grading will impact existing slopes and vegetation within the legal buffer area.
The density and proximity of the proposed tov,'nhomes further reduces the visual
and ecological benefits of the corridor. Stormwater runoff fi'om adjacent sloped lawns
and other impervious surfaces 11Ot treated by on-site stormwater detention basins may
have a negative cumulative impacts on the stream.
It may be possible to locate proposed stormwater detention basins adjacent to effectively
and visually enlarge the protected conidor as opposed to locating these ponds between
the detached townhomes and the multi-family units.
Park dedication requirements should take the form of donated property adjacent to the
corridor.
Page
The purpose of Metro Greenways is to protect, connect, restore and manage a network of
si,znificant natural m'eas, parks and other open spaces interconnected by habitat con'idors in the
m~tropolitan region. We fully recognize that in developed areas such as Maplewood, it will
require creative approaches to balance landowner rights, economic development, environmental
protection and multiple benefits to the community. Clearly this is a challenge for all pm-ties.
\Ve continue to be interested in supporting the city's elfin'ts in protecting and enhance this
important natural area and con'idor. However, when Metro Greenways approved $100,000 in
lundin,z, for this project, it was our hope and intention that the natm'al features found on this site
would~e protected and enhanced. This proposed site plan, with the appm'ently stated intention by
the landowner of not wanting to provide public access, would no longer meet our program
criteria and objectives. If the plan as submitted is not substm~tially altered, Metro Greenways
funding would no longer be available for this project.
Please keep us infonned about the plan review process, any design modifications or other pro.iect
considerations. Feel fi'ee to call me at (651) 772-7952 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Alan Sin~er. inator
Meu'o Greenways
cc. Ross Sublett, DNR
29
Attachment 13
Ra msey-Wash i ngton
Metro
District
MEMO
TO: Ken Roberts
FROM' Cliff Aichingcr, Achninistrator ~'"
SUBJECT: Beaver Lake Townhomes.
DATE: February 7.2001
This memo includes tile I>,.amsey'-\Vashington Nletro \Vatershed District comments on the
preliminary plans tbr the Beaver Lake Townhomes project. In summary, the District has
several mqjor concerns with the proposal as currently submitted. These concerns involve
specific District regulatory standards, but also include concerns regarding tl~e integrity of
the proposed Beaver Creek corridor through the site.
The specific District COllCCl'llS involve storlnwatcr treatment pond locations and design, as
well as erosion control.
l. The District was not proxided any information o1' calculations on tile sizing o£tIle
proposed poncts to determine il'they meet the Districts ponding standards.
Tile pond located south of Maryland Ave. just east of Rosewood Estates is located
on the hillside and would involve considerable alteration and grading of the
hillside. This grading also appears to infl'inge on the buffer area to the creek.
There is a potential lbr signilicam erosion Ii'om this grading. We would require
3. A similar concern for erosion control exist with townhouse units I-9 off
Lakewood Drive.
Other concerns o£the District relate to the potential greelw,'ay through tile site and tile
consistency of this proposal with previous concepts lbr tile greer~way corridor.
The basic intention of tile greenway corridor through this site was to secure tile
creek valley fi'om the top of the slope on each side of the creek. This proposal
significantly inli'inges oil this concept. Recognizing the owner's unwillingness to
offer the city a reasonable price Ibr preserving additional open space, this may not
be possible, but should be pursued. Some progress toward this concept may be
possible with design changes mentioned in tile following comn'mnts.
30
Ken Roberts ME,MO
February 7.2001
Page 2
Unit 44 significantly' infl'inges on the buffer due to grading needs. This unit
should be eliminated fi'om the plans ad should not be considered a loss of units by
the developer. The multiple housing units next to Maryland Ave. could be
retained or replaced with several townhouse units. Townhouse unit number 37
also infl'inges on tile buffer and should be eliminated.
Units 28-34 are located at tile edge o£the buffer and would result in disturbance
within the buffer. These units should be setback at least 20 feet from the buffer
edge.
G..~,4:,,, from units 5-9 will infringe on tile buffer due to the steep slopes in this
area and the need to work around these units during construction. These units
should be setback a minimum of 20 feet fi'om the buffer edge.
Units 26-36 are located in tile pine tree grove on tile south side of Beaver Creek.
It xx'as the unanimous opinion o£District and City staff that these trees should be
preserved as a screen to the development. The plan shows the units intruding
about half way into these trees. \Vith disturbance around these units during
construction, the entire grove would most liken be lost. These units should be
moved to the south to preserve the grove.
I believe tile adjusmlents proposed above could be accomplished by some changes to the
project plans that shift the location of the on-site treatment ponds. The District rules
allow lhe location of water quality treatment ponds within tile buffer area it' aesthetically
design and restored.
The ponds in tile prt~iect are off Sterling street could be shifted to tile southxvest behind
units 19-22. This would allow all the townhouse units to be shifted to the east and south
axvav |'l'om the corridor.
The intenlal ponds in tile area off Lakewood could be relocated to the southeast corner of
this site allowing the toxvnhouse units to be shifted to tile west away from the buffer edge.
,.5.11 ~hese unit shifts would be easier with less site density. I would encourage tile City to
pursue buying down tile density. If the developer were reasonable, tile City would only
be paying tile "potential profit margin" on each unit, which may allow tile elimination of
all apartment building or two.
31
Attachment 14
7. £001
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Forestry. 1200 \Varner Road. St. Paul. MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651 ) 772-7567 Fax: (651 ) 772-7925
*lt. Bruce Anderson
Park and Recreation Director
1830 E County Rd B.
Xlaplexvood. MN 55109
RE:
Beax er Lake Toxx nhomes Prelim inarv Plat. Beaver Lake (62-16P) Shoreland District. Citx of
.",laplexx ood. Ramsev County
Dear Mr. Bruce Anderson:
Thank xou for d~e opportunity to rex'lex\ and provide comments on the potential social and ecological
impacts'benefits of removing the pine stand fi'om ibc proposed Beaver Creek Toxx nhomes developlneln
silo in Nlaplexxood. The pine stand is located on a relatix'eh steep slopes and tl~e tree canopy extencls to
Beaver Creek.
The pine stancl does not offer greater timber production values. Ho\\ex'er. it provides significant
ecological benefits to the xxatershed district including xx'ildlil~ habitat corridor and water quality as well
as socinl benefits including recreational opportunities such as trail and open space benefits to lknure
residents. Preserving tl~e pine stand as open space xx ill add significant real-estate values to the
subdivision. Due to dine constraint, comments are limited to water quailU' issues ti'om the DNR Division
of Waters.
There are standard comments that DNR. \Vaters often gives to Cities regarding proposed developments
that are near to DNR Protected Waters. These comments generally cover DNR Water's Programs:
Protected Waters Permits. Water Appropriation Permits. Shoreland Management Advisory Capacit5. and
Floodplain Adx'isorv Capacity.
t'nfortunateh'. Beaver Creek is not a DNR/State Protected \Vater and does not have a shoreland
classilication, theretbre, a DNR Permit is not required tbr work xx ithin tile Creek. l lox\ex er. Beaver Lake
is a DNR/State Prolecled \Vater (DNR ~ 62-16P) and has a shoreland classification of T.vpe 5 (City of
Maplexxood Shoreland Management Ordinance). Ho\\ever. since the proposed Beaver Creek toxxnhomes
de\ elopment is xx'ithin the 1000' shoreland District of Beaver Lake. the developmenl is required to
comply xx ith regulations that are tkmnd ill tile Maplexx'ood Shoreland Managelnent Ordinance.
\Ve contend that the proposed development does not qualify for the reduction of development standards
dmt is mentioned in Section 36.565 of the CiU' of Maple\rood Shoreland Management Ordinance due to
tl]e tkqct that the buildings of the proposed development will be visible fi'om the surthce of Beaver lake
and lhat tho impact of the proposed structures will be large.
It appears that single thmih' toxx nhomes xxith xx'alkout are proposed to be placed xx ithin tile valley of
Creek. 'File location of the toxxnhomes in tile \'alley is questionable due to tile possibility that tile
32
DNR hdbnnation: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
.An Equal Opponunit) Employer .4"'~, Pnnted on Recycled Paper Containing a
\Vho Values Dixcrsity "~' Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste
structures will be flooded by Beaver Creek. It is our recommendation that the 1% flood elevation of
Beaver Creek be determined and the proposed structures be placed back and well above that elevation in
accordance with tile regulations of the City of Maplewood.
It has come to our attention that a trail is proposed to be constructed within tile Beaver Creek Corridor.
Such a trail would pass within 10 - 20' of the townhomes in the present proposal. In addition, there will be
no vegetation left between tile townhomes and the trail to screen the homes from viexv on the trail. \Ve
recommend that the townhomes be constructed further out from the trail, and trees be left standing or
planted between the townhomes and the trail. These trees will preserve the privacy of the people within
the townhomes. In addition, trees will improve tile quality of the trail and also protect the water of
Beaver Lake by preventing soil erosion, acting as a filter to surface runoffto tbe creek and using nutrients
in the near surface grouudwater that would otherwise pollute and encourage algal growth in Beaver Lake.
Steep slopes and possible bluffs exist in tile proposed site that drain into Beaver Creek, which then drains
into Beaver Lake. The work that is done on the steep slopes must comply with the standards listed in
Section 36-566 of the City of Maplewood Shoreland Ordinance. This section allows the City Engineer to
attach conditions to building permits on steep slopes that will reduce the visibility of the subdivision from
Beaver Lake and protect Beaver Lake from the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. The clearing of
ve=etation within steep slopes is also regulated by Section 36-567 of the City of Maplewood Shoreland
O~inance. This section prohibits intensive vegetative clearing on steep slopes. In addition, the vegetative
clearing that is done on the property must be in compliance with a sedimentation and erosion control plan
that is approved by the City Engineer.
The proposed development may be required to comply with tile Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.)
requirements that are listed in the Shoreland Management Ordinance of the City of Maplewood (Section
36-574). It appears that the proposed development is taking advantage of the density multipliers offered
in the P.U.D. Section of the Ordinance as a trade for preserving the shoreline of the lake. Unfortunately, it
is not clear whether the owner of the Beaver Lake Townhomes property also owns the shoreline that
should be preserved, or if the developer signed an agreement with the owners of the shoreline that should
be preserved. If the shoreline that is being preser-,'ed is not owned by the developer of the Beaver Lake
Townllomes, then it would appear that tile intent of the property multipliers is not being met and we
would recommend that the density of the proposed development be reduced or building design and sites
be modified to meet the intended density and preserve the pine stand as open space for wildlife habitat
corridor and/or trail.
If you need additional assistance, please contact me at 651-772-7567 or Joe Richter from the division of
Waters at 651-772-7918. I have enclosed two copies of the Best Management Practice guidebook. I
would appreciate if you can share this material with other staff and local decision makers. A three panel
display showing tree preservation techniques is also available from our office. You can check it out for
display at special local meetings and events.
Once again, thank you for tile opportunity to work with you.
Sincerely,
Jean Mouelle
Urban BMPs Coordinator
33
RAMSEY COUNTY
Department of Public Works
Paul L. Kffkwold, P.E., Direclor and County Engineer
ADMINISTRATION/L~ND SURVEY
50 West Kellogg Bh'd., Suite 910
St. Paul. %IN 55102 · (612) 266-2600 · Fax 266-2615
ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS
3377 N. Rice Street
Shoreview, MN 55126
(612) 484-9104 · Fax 4?2-5232
5,1E M 0 R A N D U M
TO:
FRO M:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Ken Roberts
City of Maplexx ood
Dan Soler~.~
Ramsey County Public \Vorks
Beaver Lake Toxvnhornes
JarlLlarv
~ _~. 2001
The Ramsev County Public \Vorks Departrnent has reviewed tine proposed PUD and prelirninary
plat for Beaver Lake Toxvnlnornes off of Lake\rood Drive and Maryland Avenue. Ramsey
County tnas tine followino COmlnCnts re~ardin~ finis proposal.
1. The proposed development will create 162 new residential units irt the soutlneast quadrant of
McKni?.ht Road and Mai'viand Avenue. This level of development will trove a rneasurable
irnpact on traffic operations in tine area. The intcrsectioln of McKnight Road/Lakewood Drive
and Maryland Avenue is CUlTentlv. controlled by an all way stop. Tine addition of traffic fl'orn
this development will move this intersection closer to\yard the need for traffic signals.
Tine west side of the developlnet~t will access Lakewood Drive via a new elm'ance and fine
existing Rosewood Estates entrance. This should be adequate with good spacing betxveen
access points.
3. The north side of the development adds eight access points onto Maryland Avenue. Ramsey
County would like to see a private roadway constructed in this area wittn direct access to tine
tnornes. This private road\ray would have one or maybe two access points onto Maryland
Avenue.
Tine new access points will require permits from Ramsey County for construction onto
Count>' right of way. Thc developer will also need permits for any utility work xvittm'~ County
rigtmof-way.
Thanks for tine opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you tnax'e any questions or
need any' additional int'orlnation please give me a call.
34
Minnesota's First Home Rule County
2517 Geranium Ave East
Maplewood MN 55119
Attachment 16
Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood MN 55109
January 25, 2001
Dear Mr. Roberts:
RE: Neighborhood Survey
As an owner of property to the immediate east of the proposed Beaver Lake Townhome
project, I would like to take this opportunity to express my opinion and bring light to
my concerns. The information sent out to the surrounding homeowners did not include
whether or not the units are to be rentals or privately owned. Nor was any mention
made of the anticipated market value of the units. Both of these matters are major
concerns and will directly affect the property value of our nearby homes.
Some of my other concerns are as follows:
Despite the large number of multi-family buildings already in the immediate
vicinity (townhome associations, twin homes, manufactured home parks,
Rosewood Estates and other apartment buildings), we have had the pleasure of
experiencing a quiet enough environment that a variety of wildlife has felt
comfortable to take up residency. I highly doubt that with yet another influx of
additional population and the destruction of the remaining natural surroundings,
that the fragile ecosystem will remain status quo. As landscaping takes place,
the opportunity increases for chemical run-off to contaminate the adjacent and
surrounding wetlands. Which makes me wonder if the DNR is aware of this
project.
The placement of the single dwelling units propose to be the same "cleared and
open space" requirements for manufactured home parks, as stated in Minn. Stat.
Sect. 327.20 Subd. 3. Though that area may be sufficient in a park scenario, it
hardly seems adequate for permanently structured dwellings.
It is my understanding the present water and sewer systems were found to be
overtaxed when the latest new construction of homes on McKnight Road
occurred. What is the proposal so further problems do not occur or result in a
need for an immediate expansion or complete replacement of the present utility
systems?
The schematics do not clearly show the exact location of any ingress/egress
scheduled for Lakewood Drive, but it appears they will be in such close proximity
to the existing four-way stop at Maryland, and in a lower-lying road area, that
35
the potential for traffic backup and accidents will be higher. It is also unclear
regarding the access(s) planned for Sterling Street (which is already considered a
challenging corner when exiting Sterling Street and entering Maryland Avenue
due to limited visibility). Are there any plans, not relayed as of yet, regarding
the installation of traffic lights?
To date, we have had the pleasure of being able to remain blanketed in
darkened surroundings and view the stars without the hindrance of street
illumination. We have felt that it is because of this lack of lighting, there is less
traffic after dark and Geranium Park has never become a late night "hang-out"
for juveniles. With more multi-family dwellings will come the necessity of street
lighting.
Geranium Park is presently being used to near maximum with schools utilizing
the fields for various practices and games. Other community organizations even
scheduling usage during the day and the general public being able to use the
courts in the evenings. The availability of the Park's time will become
increasingly strained as more people are wing for usage.
! believe the fire station located on Geranium Avenue and Stillwater Road already
covers a large area consisting of multi-family dwellings. Does a project of this
magnitude, that would potentially increase their workload, need to gain the Fire
Marshal's approval?
! look forward to being informed of the scheduling regarding the community meeting.
After hearing of other people's concerns, I anticipate it to be an interesting and
informative collection of opinions.
Sincerely,
Rhonda R. Peterson-Wenz
RPW/rw
36
^tC~¢hment ]7
P.01
37
0-~ : ~2 PM E i ~= E,-.h c, 218~65~ 142
P.02
38
Fulton Khnkertues
651-71 4-3883
Attachment 18
Dote: 1/29/01
To: Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner
Fr: F. B. Klinkerfues
Re: Proposed Beaver Lakes Town home and Apartment Complex
We live at 1051 No. Mary St. and also own the lot behind us that fronts onto
Bartelmy Lane.
Simply stated, the area in question will be developed. The land is too
valuable to remain in its current state. That's a given.
We have no objections to the proposed,stated development as outlined by
Mr. Tony EmmerJch. The use of space seems wise and the buildings as plotted
and proposed by Mr. Emmerich will in att likelihood enhance the area visually.
I have nothing to go by in determining the human density issue once ali the
structures are completed. That will be left for the Council or planning group
to negotiate with Mr, Emmerich.
The fact that it will not be rezoned "commercial" pleases us. Also we believe
that the price scale of the proposed structures should probably be middle of
the road. There is much low income housing in the area surrounding the
proposed development e. g. Beaver Lake Estates and the mobile home park
along Century. Middle of the road pricing would make a nice socio-economJc
mix for the area and that would be healthy.
39