Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2001BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday June 4, 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. May 21, 2001 o Public Hearings a. Afton Ridge (Lower Afton and McKnight Roads) 1. Land Use Plan Change (BC-M and LBC to R-3H) 2. Zoning Map Change (CO and LBC to R-3) 3. Preliminary Plat New Business None 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. May 29 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost b. June 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness c. June 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 9. Staff Presentations 10. 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. o Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. CommIssioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost CommIssioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commiss~oner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Mary Dierich Staff Present: Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present (Left meeting at 8:45 p.m.) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7, 2001 Commission Pearson moved approval of the minutes of May 7, 2001. Commissioner Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING VI. None. NEW BUSINESS A. The Gardens Townhouse Development - (east side of McMenemy Street, South of Roselawn Avenue). 1. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) 2. Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -2- Ken Roberts, Associate Planner presented the staff report for this request. He stated that Mr. Gordie Howe is proposing to develop 22 townhomes in a development called "The Gardens" located on the east side of McMenemy, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city has planned this site R-3M, (Medium Density Residential). The request by the applicant include a conditional use permit for a PUD. The applicant has also asked for a preliminary plat approval to create the individual lots for each townhome, each townhome unit will on its own lot and will be available for sale. The applicant has also applied for the design approval for the architectural landscaping that will be reviewed by the Design Review Board tomorrow evening at their regular meeting. Mr. Roberts stated that the Design Review Board items would not be discussed at this meeting and will be discussed at the Design Review Board meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2001. The city has planned this area as medium density residential, and this proposal, with the 22 units on the five acres is about 4.4 units per acre. Therefore, it does meet city standards for density in the Comprehensive Plan. The Conditional use permit for the PUD is being requested because the proposed development has a mix of two and three-unit buildings. This plan has proposed setbacks from the south and east properly lines (30-40 feet). The usual requirement is a 50-foot setback from a residential property line for buildings with more than two units. Mr. Roberts stated that we have some flexibility with the PUD. This proposal, with the decreased setbacks appears to be a good fit for the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that the buildings are at about 40-feet in most parts, with some 30-foot setbacks in the southeast corner of the site. Staff does not see any problems with this development. The applicant has also requested preliminary plat approval to create the lots in the development. Those appear to meet all of our standards. Mr. Roberts stated that one important point in this development is the drainage. There is no city storm sewer in this part of Maplewood. The applicant has designed the site with a ponding area to collect and accommodate the rainwater from two one-hundred year, back-to-back storms if that was ever to occur. There will also be a sedes of rainwater gardens along the south side of Summer Lane to help collect some of the rainwater and infiltrate it into the ground. Mr. Roberts stated that Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, is very favorable with the proposal and likes the idea of the rainwater gardens. The proposed ponding area meets the standards of the Watershed Distdct and the city's engineering department. Mr. Roberts stated that the Maplewood Parks Department is recommending the developer build a trail from Summer Lane, between the buildings, out to Ripley Avenue. The vacant Lot 11 is owned by the same owner as the proposed development site. Lot 11 is not included in this proposal, but will ultimately be developed with a single family home. The trail would provide pedestrian access between the two neighborhoods. Generally, staff has been trying to have more trails built in the City to provide these pedestrian alternatives. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the PUD subject to the eight conditions outlined in the staff report. He noted that on page 5, item 3c there is some specific language regarding curbing. He noted that it may change as the plans get further refined and revised. Both the developer's engineer and the city engineer want to look at it further. Mr. Roberts recommends that we leave the language as is, but to be aware that in the future that may change but would be ironed out before taking this proposal to the City Council. Staff is also recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the ten conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Rossbach recalled that originally the developer was not planning on any curb at all. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -3- Mr. Roberts stated that that was the initial request. After city engineers reviewed the plan, they felt that it was needed for the ponding area and to insure drainage for the driveways. The engineers will be looking at the curbing proposal again. Commissioner Tdppler questioned staff regarding the fencing requirement around the ponding area. He cited the letter sent by the residents at 1843 DeSoto. Mr. Roberts stated that staff is recommending fencing for the new pond. Mr. Cavett commented that fencing requirements for ponds depends on the contouring and shapes of the ponds. Ponds that typically have a fiat bench where vegetation can grow typically do not require fencing, because fencing is not aesthetic. In a situation as in this proposal, where the pond does not have an established normal water elevation because there is no outlet, you cannot establish an elevation for a bench and at a point where the water will be. So, you never know how deep the water will be at times, and the slopes are steeper, therefore, a fence would be required. Commissioner Ledvina asked about the 30 and 40-foot front setbacks and what are the typical standard for multi-units. Mr. Roberts indicated that these are proposed to be 20-feet from Summer Lane, and 30 - 40 feet from the rear line. He also pointed out that Summer Lane is proposed to be a private road, or driveway, so there is no setback standards specifically in our City Code for that. What is trying to be accomplish with the 20-feet is to have enough room to get cars off Summer Lane onto their own driveways. Commissioner Ledvina asked if anyone has evaluated the potential for wetland classification for the existing Iow area. Mr. Roberts stated that he knows that the developer has done a lot of research and have provided information to the Watershed District about that. He stated that yes, it has been evaluated and it is not a wetland. Commissioner Ledvina asked about the intention of the trail connection. Is it to enable residents of this new area to access the Gateway Trail? Mr. Roberts responded that no, it was more to provide an opportunity for the two cul-de-sacs to have pedestrian access rather than having to go out to McMenemy to Roselawn, to DeSoto. He stated there is no specific destination. Commission Ledvina asked it this was typical for back-to-back cul-de-sacs. Mr. Roberts indicated that it has not been consistently, but we are trying to do it more often. He stated it had been done in the Oak Ridge development and the New Century development. Commissioner Mueller indicated that he did not see driveways on the plans. Mr. Roberts stated that they are not cleady shown on the plan, but each townhome would have it's own two-car driveway. Commissioner Mueller asked it St. Jerome's had been notified that there would be a pond in the area. Mr. Roberts indicated that they were sent a neighborhood survey with the plans, but were not specifically contacted. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -4- Commissioner Mueller asked if the 71 trees that are going to be planted would be sufficient for screening neighbors. Mr. Roberts stated that they are not proposing a real heavy wall of screening along the south side. Looking at the slopes, the sight drops down at least 5 - 10 feet and the feeling is that with the trees on the neighbors property, that it did not seem real beneficial to get into a heavy screening/planting. Commissioner Mueller asked if the people at 387 Ripley had been notified that there might be a trail going next to their property. Mr. Roberts indicated that they were not specifically notified about the trail possibility. Commissioner Mueller suggested that as a courtesy they should be notified. Commissioner Trippler asked for clarification on the rainwater garden. He wanted to know if they were tied together through sub-terrain piping, or are they individual. Mr. Cavett stated that they are not physically tied together. They are basically micro-detention to collect a small area. If they get full enough they basically just spill down into the road. There are structures at a few of the gardens, meaning that they will take the overflow drainage and bdng it into the storm sewer and cross over to the large pond. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the developer is going to do with the rainwater gardens as far as developing them so that they don't look like some small depression in the yard and possibly be filled with dirt because the homeowners may think it's a hole. What is there to establish these as rainwater gardens? Mr. Cavett stated that they would be heavily landscaped with a variety of materials. We could also have it identified in the covenants that this is an area that needs to stay as a rainwater garden and should not be altered. Commissioner Rossbach asked about Lot 11, that it appears to be part of the plan. Mr. Roberts stated that it is all under one ownership, but the developer is not planning to develop it at this time. For the final plat it will not be included. It is zoned R-1 Single Family. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the current developer was tied with the existing apartment buildings. It appears that they are grading the apartment property. Mr. Roberts indicated that they are not. But there would have to be some agreement on the grading. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the typical design standard is for a pond such as the one being proposed. Mr. Cavett stated that typically ponds are designed for a single one-hundred year event. Most ponds also have some type of outlet piping. The developer's engineer, the city engineers and the Watershed District had a number of discussions regarding this. In a scenario like this there is guidelines that talk about two back-to-back hundred-year events and maintaining pond elevations below the lowest floor openings. The developers have achieved that without even taking into account the volumes that the rainwater gardens will accommodate. In a scenado like this with a pond with no outlet, it is designed for two back-to-back hundred-year events. He indicated that we have some very sandy soils and we know from experience with the pond on Ripley, just south of the site, that it infiltrates quite rapidly and there seems to be no present standing water. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -5- Commissioner Fischer asked if the R-1 lot is not a part of this site plan, is it correct to assume that that acreage is not included in the density allowance for this site. Mr. Roberts indicated that that was correct. Commissioner Fischer indicated that there was a reference to this being an updated proposal. Is this an update of a prior proposal in this same application process and not in an earlier process. Mr. Roberts indicated that there was an earlier plan that had 20 - 21 units and that the street wasin a different shape and there were some issues with the storm water. The developer withdrew that application and redid the plans--all this has been done within the last six months. Commissioner Pearson asked the Assistant City Engineer to elaborate on which watergardens were tied into the storm sewers. Mr. Cavett indicated that on the proposed grading plan, between Lots 6 and 7 there does indicate a storm sewer in the boulevard in the rainwater garden. The rain gardens to the west and just to the east of there are designed to overflow to that point and at that point the water would be picked up and taken to the pond. There is also another drain between Lots 13 and 14 in the boulevard and the rainwater garden there. Commissioner Pearson asked if there were not curb storm sewers. Mr. Cavett stated that in this proposal there is no curb storm sewer, the drainage is designed to go into the boulevards, the rain gardens, or directly into the pond rather than being channeled under conventional design. Commissioner Pearson stated that there was quite an elevation difference from the west end going to the east and if the rain was to override that, it looks as if it would go out onto McMenemy and could end up flooding the lower level of the apartments. Mr. Cavett indicated that this site is considerably lower than McMenemy. The Iow point is actually between Lot 6 and 7. Commissioner Pearson asked if in a heavy rain could it possibly flow that way in opposition to the plan down into the apartments where it is very Iow. He suggested that if we are looking at redesigning some of the curbs, or the type of curbs, that it might be an idea to put some type of curb cut storm sewer channeling into the pond between Lot 6 and 7. Mr. Roberts stated that one of the major issues of the redesign of this proposal was looking at the elevation of the apartments lowest floor and making sure that whatever plans were built would prevent flooding of that building and was taken into account with this design. Commissioner Mueller asked if snow removal and maintenance is taken care of by the townhome association because Summer Lane is a private street. He also asked if all the snow would be pushed into the proposed ponding area. Mr. Roberts indicated that that would probably be the case. Commissioner Mueller stated that the pond looks to be about 14-feet deep and asked if the two hundred-year rains would fill that up. Mr. Roberts stated that the assumption is that the pond is deep enough that even two one hundred- year storms would not fill it up. It would take more than that to fill it up. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -6- Commissioner Muller asked if it would drain rather quickly. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, that is our hope that the water would drain rather quickly. Commissioner Tdppler questioned that the apartment building was not tied into this development, yet when reviewing the parking lots surrounding the apartment building that there were two entrances to the apartment building and that the entrance on the north edge of the building has appeared to have disappeared. Mr. Roberts stated that while the parking lot on the north side is not showing up on the plans, it is intended to remain as is. The area south of the apartment building does change and the parking lot will come out onto Summer Lane. As Mr. Roberts understands it, the developer is buying the whole area, including the apartment building, and then will sell the apartment building to a new buyer, a third group. Currently there is one owner for the whole site. The townhomes will be developed, and the owner will then be selling the apartment with the reconfigured parking. Commissioner Trippler asked if they are closing both entrances to the apartment building off of McMenemy. Mr. Roberts stated that McMenemy would still have the entrance to the north end, but it may have been dropped off the plans. The new connection on the south side would be onto Summer Lane. Commissioner Mueller asked what the normal setback from a property line for the north parking lot would be. Mr. Roberts indicated that the normal setback to a single family would be 20 feet, if it were a commercial or institution then it would be five feet. He indicated that the developer is not proposing any change to the north parking lot. Commissioner Mueller stated that he felt there were changes being made to the apartment building and said that he had noted parallel parking adjacent to the doorways on the northside, which look to be extremely inadequate. He feels that they don't have enough parking per code there. He indicated that there were no garages and he feels there is not enough information put forth regarding that building and feels that we should make sure that the building is meeting the restrictions that it should. Mr. Roberts indicated that there were garages on the lower level of the apartment building. The developer, Mr. Gordie Howe addressed the Commission. He stated concern regarding the proposed trail for the development. He stated that they were building the development for empty nesters. All units will be sold at a price range of $200,000 to $250,000. He noted that Ripley is a public street and Summer Lane is a private street. He feels that the trail is not necessary between the two cul-de-sacs. He stated concern regarding who would be responsible for the maintenance, liability and snow removal. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he believed the trail would be a city trail and they would provide liability, maintenance and snow removal. He stated that the trail would work well there. Discussion continued regarding Lot 11 where the trail will come through. Lot 11 will not be on the final plat but will stay R-1 single family. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if when the notices were sent out to the adjoining property owners if the proposed trail was laid out in the notice. Mr. Roberts stated that no; the trail was not included in any of the notices. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -7- Commissioner Pearson questioned if the neighborhood would have any sensitivity to a trail themselves. Mr. Roberts stated that they may. Commissioner Mueller questioned what jurisdiction the city would have over the pdvate property and pdvate drive. Do we as a city have the right or ability to require the trail be built connecting the private drive to city property. Mr. Roberts said that he would check with the city attorney on this issue. Commissioner Rossbach commented that Summer Lane is only a pdvate drive because the city is allowing it to be. He stated that if the city required them to put in a development that had a public street, it would not work as well for them because it would be much wider and would not fit the buildings, etc. Mr. Roberts stated that there is an advantage to the city allowing Summer Lane to be a private ddve. The city does not have the responsibility to maintain or plow the street. Commissioner Dierich asked about the apartment building parking lot emptying out onto a private drive and how it would be maintained. Mr. Roberts stated that there would be access agreements between the properties to maintain that access. Commissioner Tdppler stated that he was struggling with the issue that the trail goes no where, and comes from nowhere. He wanted clarification of the purpose of the proposed trail. Mr. Roberts stated that it was simply a matter of providing an opportunity to have access between the two neighborhoods without having to cut through somebody's yard or having to go around four blocks to get there. It provides a pedestrian way to move between the two cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he felt that the proposed trail would provide a good access to the gateway trail, east on Ripley and south on DeSoto right to the Gateway trail. Commissioner Rossbach felt that there was a lack of information regarding the existing apartment building. Mr. Howe stated that his development is not buying the apartment building. The whole parcel was owned by Richard Gilbert of Gilbert Investment Company, including the apartment building. He sold the apartment complex to Mr. Doug Happkee, with the condition that Mr. Howe's proposal is completed. He wanted to cladfy that the buyer of the apartment complex has seen the plans for The Gardens and is aware of the changes to the apartment building site. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the city would require some kind of review of the overall-parking situation at the apartment building. Mr. Roberts stated that typically, yes. However, in this situation there were only some minor changes to the south side where the entrance currently came in and staff felt that the proposed plan would be a better plan. Commissioner Mueller asked if there were some rule or regulation regarding changes to a property. At some point, when so many changes have been made, would it be required to bring things up to code. He wanted to know if the apartment building might fall under that rule or regulation. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -8- Mr. Roberts stated if a building were damaged to more than 50% of the value, and if rebuilt within a year that they can build with current setbacks without any problems. However, if the owner waits more than a year, the non-conforming codes require them to meet the current standards of the time. The amount of work proposed here on the south side of the parking lot is minor compared to the whole value of the apartment building and they would not be require to meet the current standards. Commissioner Mueller voiced his opinion that he was not "sold" on the proposed trail. His concern is that the neighbors had not been contact and that should be done before going forward. There are also many other questions surround the issue such as snow removal, maintenance, etc. Mr. Roberts stated that if the commission is not comfortable with the proposed trail, they could make the recommendation not to include the trail in the plan. Commissioner Fischer pointed out that in past projects in the city of Maplewood that were targeted for seniors, that many residents liked the idea of being able to take a trail to other neighborhoods, or just having the ability to take a walk. Commissioner Mueller suggested that possibly the developer could put in a walking trail around the proposed pond. Commissioner Trippler asked why the location for the trail was between Unit 11 and 12. He felt that placing it between units 13 and 14 and put the trail between Lot 11 and the outlot pond on Ripley would be less disruptive to Lot 11. Mr. Roberts stated that in the proposed development as well as in the existing conditions, that there is an existing sanitary sewer line in the proposed trail area. It is preferable for the City of Maplewood maintenance staff to have a path over the sanitary sewer line to allow easier access. He stated that Mr. Cavett had drawn in an alternative trail path, however there is concerns about the grades in that area. Commissioner Diedch stated that we have set precedence in New Century by doing private to public access and felt that something should be put down on paper or deciding it in code or an ordinance to make it clear what the Commission's expectations are in this type of situation. Commissioner Ledvina stated concern regarding the proposed pond and it's shape. He suggested that it have some shape variation instead of a rectangular shape. Mr. Roberts stated that the Design Review Board would be reviewing the landscaping for the pond area at May 22"d meeting. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the Commission is making a recommendation on the grading plan, that are we essentially agreeing to the developers plan for a rectangular pond with sharp corners. Discussion continued regarding the landscaping, shape and the fencing around the pond. Steve Peters addressed the commission. He stated that the rainwater gardens will be part of the homeowners association, and cannot be filled in. There is an architectural control committee for the association as well as a maintenance committee that is managed by a professional managing company. The association takes care of the snow plowing, the mowing of the lawns and the maintenance of the driveways, and the whole outside of the building. Commissioner Mueller asked if there would be water in the proposed pond continuously. Mr. Cavett stated that looking at the pond north of Ripley he has never seen sifting water and Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -9- anticipates the proposed pond would function in the same way. During large events there will be standing water until it evaporates or infiltrates. There are too many variables to determine how long water would be stand when faced with a 100-year rain. He felt that the pond should be fenced. Commissioner Ahlness asked the City Engineer about the equalization pipe mentioned in Item 3, B1. Mr. Cavett stated that theoretically the pipe would never be used. But the reason for the pipe is that if one of the ponds got to a 902 elevation, above the 100-year event, that yes, it would overflow into other areas. It is just another safety factor. Commissioner Diedch asked if the pond could go deeper, be shelved and just fence the area in the middle thereby having more design leeway as far as shape. Mr. Cavett stated that the fencing does not have to be at the top of the pond. It should be situated between the first hundred-year event elevation and the second hundred-year event elevation. The principle for fencing is that you never know where the water level will be. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Commission recommend the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit Resolution for the Planned Unit Development for the Gardens Development on the east side of McMenemy Street south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on findings required by code and approval is subject to the conditions put forth in the Staff Report with the following changes: Strike all references to the Proposed Trail Item A1 a.(1) has been removed Staff report number 2, 3, and 4 become 1, 2, and 3. Item A3 c - these items may have some revisions when the various engineers complete work on them. Item A5 d - is eliminated Item B1 g - Add (1) Investigate the City's position on connecting a trail from a public street to a private street and also review the trails route to align the trail to the east side of Lot 11 on Ripley and passing then between Unit 11 and 12 on Summer Lane. Staff report numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 become 2, 3, 4, and 5. Item B2 - add item (13) Planning commission recommends to City Council to allow the engineering staff to be more creative with the pond configuration other than the rectangular shape. The motion to approve ends at Item B10. Item C is to be review by the Community Design Review Board at the May 22, 2001 meeting. A. Conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Gardens development. (Item A3c - these items may have some revisions when the various engineers complete work on them.) All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 3, 2001 except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -10- watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond ordinance standards. ~i~ The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation and large trees. These plans shall make every attempt possible to save the double oak clump between Lots 2 and 3, the 8-inch oak tree south of Lot 6 and the basswood clump in front of building 22. ~ Summer Lane must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on its north side. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: There shall be an equalizer pipe between the proposed north pond and the existing pond south of the site. This equalizer pipe shall be placed at or below 902.0, such that the elevations of both ponds would begin to equalize after either pond was to reach an elevation of 902.0 This equalizer pipe would likely run between Lots 15 and 16. The grades and elevations of the storm sewer shall be designed and installed to prevent any storm sewer flow to the existing pond south of the site until the north pond reaches an elevation of 902.0. (2) The developer shall enclose the new pond with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. (,The fence shall not be six-feet-high as shown on the plans.) The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city engineer. Co The following for the streets and driveways: 1) Use D412 concrete curb and gutter along the building side (south and east sides) of Summer Lane. (2) (3) Use B618 concrete curb and gutter along the north and west side of Summer Lane between McMenemy Street and Lot 22. Standard gutter-style catch basins to pick up street drainage. Drainage structures that extend into garden areas may be 27-inch or 48-inch catch basins with R-4342 castings. d. A revised storm water management plan for the proposal. e. Using, where at all feasible, the existing 6-inch water service stub when connecting to the water main (rather than open cutting McMenemy Street). f. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Street and the end of Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -11- the cul-de-sac, so there are at least two hydrants along Summer Lane. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. The pa~s and recreation director shall approve the location and design. d.Restore all disturbed areas within the pond with a native seed mix approved by the watershed district and by the city engineer. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Gardens PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 25 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 35 feet c. Rear-yard setback: minimum - 30 feet, m~imum - none d. Side yard setback: minimum - 10 feet to a prope~ line and 20 feet minimum be~een buildings 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Pa~ Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this pe~it in one year. The Gardens townhomes prelimina~ plat (received by the city on May 3, 2001). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place tempora~ orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessa~ easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -12- d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least two locations. One shall be at the intersection of McMenemy Street and the proposed private driveway (Summer Lane) and the other near the intersection of the trail and Summer Lane. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. For the trail, complete the following: (2) The developer shall install a two-rail split-rail fence on both sides of each trail and posts at the end of the trail to prevent motorized vehicles from using the trail. (3) The developer shall build the trail and fencing with the driveways and streets and before the city approves a final plat. (4) The city engineer must approve these plans. h. Install a sign where Summer Lane intersects McMenemy Street indicating that it is a private driveway. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, driveway and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street, driveway and trail grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -13- (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) Restoration of the pond area being done with native seed mix or vegetation as approved by the city engineer and by the watershed district. This requirement is an addition to the required planting shown on the landscape plan. (12) Drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from site. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) (2) (3) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. Specifically, the developer shall make every effort to save the double oak clump between Lots 2 and 3, the 8-inch oak tree south of Lot 6 and the basswood clump in front of building 22. Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -14- (b) along the trail (d) along the south side of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the south (7) Show the planting of at least 71 trees after the site grading is done. The street, driveway, trail, and utility plans shall show: (1) An eight-foot-wide bituminous trail between Ripley Avenue and Summer Lane. This trail shall be over the sanitary sewer line within the development site (between buildings 11 and 12) and along the west property line of Lot 11 on the north side of Ripley Avenue. The parks and recreation director shall approve the location and design. (2) The pdvate ddveway (Summer Lane) shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (3) Water service to each lot and unit. (4) Repair of McMenemy Street (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. (5) The developer enclosing the new pond with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain- link fence. (The fence shall not be six-feet-high as shown on the plans.) The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city engineer. (6) Size and location of the sanitary sewer service for the existing apartment building (7) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (8) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (9) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (10) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (11) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer=s engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer vedfy the drainage design calculations. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 Pay the costs related to the engineering department=s review of the construction plans. Change the plat as follows: Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the common areas as outlots. c. Show the trails in publicly-owned property or easements. d. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. e. Label the private street as Summer Lane on all plans. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off- site drainage and utility easements. Sign a developers agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners association documents. b. Deeds dedicating the necessary stream and wetland buffer easements surrounding the stream and the wetlands. Co A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the Director of Community Development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structures. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -16- If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the Director of Community Development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Pearson added that the residents of Ripley should be surveyed regarding the proposed trail. If they do not want it, and the developer does not want to build it, it serves no purpose. Also he added that the city attorney should review the matter of the trail linking a private and a public street. Ayes - All Motion cardes. This proposal goes before the city council on June 11, 2001. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS May 14 Council Meeting: Commissioner Pearson reported on this meeting. The Beaver Lake Townhome Development was discussed. There were objections to using open space money for the purchase of the additional land to get the greenway and the width that was necessary. Some felt that these funds were being used to buy the profitability of the development rather than looking at it as buying down the density of the entire development. The development is on hold right now and an environmental assessment worksheet (EAVV) will be done by an independent third party. There were objections to the number of rental units, they preferred to see it all owner occupied. There were more discussions about the width of the corridor, which for most of it is well within the requirements. There is a section at the northeast end of it that is not quite as wide as the watershed people were looking at. However, the Watershed was satisfied with how it had worked out. The vote was taken by the council on the environmental assessment worksheet study, that did pass and so this item will be on hold until that comes back. Mr. Roberts added that also at this meeting they did the second reading on the residential parking ordinance that goes into affect on August 1, 2001. The council also enacted a moratorium on pawnshops and currency exchange businesses, that was requested by our City Clerk to look at rewriting that code. They also received a letter from Bob Fletcher the sheriff of Ramsey County stating that he wanted to enact the 120-day notice that he no longer wanted dispatching into county. The council voted to bring back this issue to the city, probably by October or November. May 29: Commissioner Frost will attend this meeting. The items on that agenda will be the street dght of way vacation for Clark Street and the Montessori school conditional use permit, and the capital improvement plan. C. June 11' Commissioner Rossbach will attend this meeting. Commissioner Mueller commented on the used car lot just north of Amusement City. He also indicated that it seems that Amusement City has carnival workers are parking their equipment there and there are eight to ten RV's and trailers set up. Mr. Roberts commented that the good news is that this is their last summer in business. Commissioner Rossbach commented on a lot on County Road B near the 900 - 1000 block that has a sign stating "clean fill". He wondered if the city has checked to see what they were doing. Mr. Roberts indicated that they are getting ready to build a house on that property and they are required to submit a Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -17- grading plan. Commission Ledvina stated that he had noted some serious erosion into the wetland at the DeSoto and Roselawn senior housing project. This area needs repair to the cell fence and cleaning of the wetland out. Commission Fischer asked staff if there was anything on the Thone proposal that they should be looking at in particular. Mr. Roberts stated that there was not. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts asked the Planning Commission to think about any particular sites that they would like to see during the City Tour. It will be the last Monday in July- the 30th. Commissioner Mueller suggested Sandy Lake. Commissioner Tdppler suggested the new fire station and the curbing that was established there for the storm water runoff. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Alton Ridge Thone Builders and Developers, Inc. (Tim Thone) Southeast Corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads May 30, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Tim Thone, Thone Builders and Developers, Inc., is proposing to construct a 40-unit townhouse development. This development would be on a 4.22-acre parcel of land located on the southeast corner of Lower Alton and McKnight Roads, behind the Holiday Station Store (see the maps on pp. 12-22). The four proposed buildings would have earth-tone vinyl siding, vinyl shake accents under the windows and brick exterior on the garage level (see elevations on pp. 23-30). Each building will have three levels: first level to include a one or two-car tuck-under style garage and mechanical and storage rooms; second level to include the living room, kitchen, dining room, and bathroom; and third level to include the bedrooms and bathroom. This design will be marketed to empty nest professionals and will be priced from $180,000 to $190,000. Requests To build this development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: An amendment to the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to residential high density (R-3H). A rezoning from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) districts to multiple-family residential (R-3). Preliminary and final plat approval. Design approval. DISCUSSION Land Use Amendment and Rezoning The property is currently planned as CO and LBC in the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoned CO and LBC (see the Zoning and Land Use maps on pp. 13-16). Uses permitted within the CO and LBC districts include offices and other low-intensity commercial uses. Surrounding properties include the Holiday Station Store to the west and north of the property (planned and zoned business commercial (BC)); to the west across McKnight Road in St. Paul are rental apartments and a strip shopping center; to the south are single-family homes; to the east is a wetland that the city has planned as open space; and to the north across Lower Afton Road is Battle Creek Park. Mr. Thone states in his letter dated February 22, 2001 (pp. 31-32) that the main reason for proposing the land use amendment and rezoning of the property from commercial to residential is that the times and conditions have changed such that the planned land use is no longer appropriate for the property. He points out that the property is ideal for multi-family housing because of access to an existing major bus route on McKnight and Lower Afton Roads; the location of the regional park directly to the north of the property with walking paths and other recreational opportunities; the location of a bike trail on Lower Afton Road; residential use of the land will generate significantly less traffic and congestion, versus traditional style retail or commercial developments, causing less of an impact on the adjacent single family housing; and the strong need and demand for moderate housing compared to the need for more commercial development on the property. The city's Comprehensive Plan sets goals and policies for residential developments. Four specific goals apply to this proposal: 1) provide for orderly development; 2) minimize conflicts between land uses; 3) provide a wide variety of housing types; and 4) plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. In addition, two specific policies apply to this proposal: 1) disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines; and 2) protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, the city's Zoning Code specifies criteria to be considered when a rezoning is proposed. In general the code states that the proposed change not injure or detract from the use of neighboring property, serve the best interests and conveniences of the community and cause no negative impacts on the city's public services or facilities. This proposal meets the above-mentioned goals, policies and criteria. The proposed 40 units on the 4.22-acre site will create a density of 9.5 units per acre. The maximum density allowed for townhouses in the R-3H land use district is 10.4 units per acre. For comparison, the two other multi-family districts, R-3L and R-3M, allow for 5.4 and 6.0 units per acre, respectively. On this site, the R-3L land use designation would allow for up to 22 units and the R-3M land use designation would allow for 25 units. Neighborhood Comment Neighborhood comment received was generally for the land use and zoning change. Neighbors that attended a neighborhood meeting held by the developer in November 2000 stated that they believed their property values would remain strongest with a multi-family proposal such as Afton Ridge, compared to other uses. Written concerns received by neighbors about the development include possible increase in traffic, ensure screening between multi-family and single-family uses, ensure the preservation of existing trees and wetland, and ensure headlights from cars and on- site lighting do not produce glare into single-family lots. Preliminary/Final Plat and Public Utilities Mr. Thone is requesting a preliminary and final plat for the project. This development will be designed as a common interest community (CIC) with the four proposed buildings platted as one lot each. The buildings will then be divided into separate units, with the prospective buyers owning from wall to wall, as opposed to owning the land that the townhouse sits on and a small portion of the land surrounding it. The developer will be forming a homeowner's association with documents (declarations) specifying the legal responsibility of the association and homeowners for maintenance of the units and common grounds. The main difference in platting a townhouse development as a CIC as opposed to platting each townhouse unit with its own lot is that there is only one sewer and water hookup to each building rather than one per unit. City Code allows this type of utility connection as long as the declarations specify the responsible parties for maintenance. In this case, the homeowner's Afion Ridge Staff Report 2 May 30, 2001 association will be responsible for the on-site sewer and water systems, rather than one property owner. The development will get water from a water main in McKnight Road. Sanitary sewer will be accessed through a city sewer line, which runs along the west property line of this development, behind the Holiday Station Store. The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the proposed development for storm water issues. According to the Watershed District, the proposed storm sewer will tie into the existing city storm sewer system. Design Buildings: There are two styles of buildings proposed. The Bradford and Camelot designs are proposed for the eastern portion of the development (adjacent Lower Af~on Road). There are 14 units in each of these two buildings, with 7 units on each side, back to back. The garages are recessed under the front decks, which are held up by decorative columns. The Oxford design is proposed for the western portion of the development (adjacent McKnight Road). There are six units in each building, with front entry and rear walkouts. All four buildings will meet or exceed the required setbacks. Drives: There are two proposed entrance drives into the development. One on Lower Alton Road that will provide access for 28 of the units and one on McKnight Road that will provide access for 12 of the units. The plan included in this report show four turn-around drives. These were requested by the city's fire marshal for emergency vehicle turn-around access. After further review of the project and the fact that the turn-arounds increase the impervious surface on the property, it was determined that the turn-around issue could be better addressed on the eastern portion of the development. Staff is recommending that the developer install a 12-foot wide fire lane from the ends of the two exterior drives, around the buildings. This fire lane will be of bituminous material and will only be used by emergency vehicles and as a walking path for residents of the development. Because of the grade of the western portion of the development, a similar fire lane is impossible. However, the fire marshal stated that the proposed 120-foot long turn-arounds on the western portion of the development could be reduced in length to 80 feet. Parking: The city's Parking Code requires two spaces per unit. All units are proposed to have two-car garages, interior units in the Bradford and Camelot design will have garages which are one-car wide and two cars deep, with exterior units and units in the Oxford design having two-car wide garages. The Code requirements are met with the garages. However, guest parking is always a concern in such a development. Because the private drives are only 24 feet wide, no parking is allowed on either side. The driveways proposed for each unit will be at least 25 feet long with a variation in width depending on a one or two-car wide garage. One-car wide garages will have a 9-foot wide driveway, leaving space for one guest to park, and the two-car wide garages will have a 16-foot wide driveway, leaving space for two guests to park. In addition, the developer is proposing a total of 17 additional guest parking spaces throughout the development. Trails and Sidewalk: When the adjacent single-family developmem (Al Addition) was platted in 1996 a trail easement was placed on the plat. There is a bituminous trail with a split rail fence that runs through the easement and extends from Parkview Lane in between two of the single- family lots, down the middle of this development, onto Lower Af~on Road. During the neighborhood meeting the two single-family property owners that have the trail easement running alongside their properties expressed a desire to remove this trail. However, other neighborhood comment received expressed a desire to retain this trail. The trail was part of the approved Al Alton Ridge Staff Report 3 May 30, 2001 Plat and serves as an important pedestrian/bicycle route from the AJ Addition single-family neighborhood to bus service, park access across Lower Afton Road, and to the convenience store. For this reason, staff recommends that the trail remain. As stated above, the intersection of McKnight and Lower Afton Roads is the location of a bus stop. To ensure off-street access to this intersection and the convenience store for individuals living on the west portion of this development, staff is proposing that the developer construct a 5- foot wide, concrete sidewalk within the McKnight Road right-of-way. This sidewalk would run along the western side of the development from the most southerly property line to the existing sidewalk in front of the Holiday Station Store. There are no existing sidewalks on Lower Afton Road, only a bike path on the north side of the road. In order to ensure access to the intersection and the convenience store for residents of the east portion of the development, staff proposes an 8-foot wide, bituminous trail to extend from the western driveway of this portion of the development up to the existing pedestrian/bicycle trail. Landscaping, Screening, and Tree Preservation: Existing conditions on the site include a number of mature cottonwood trees interspersed with other deciduous trees and one large red pine located in the middle of the property. Within the property, only 28 of the trees are defined as "large trees" according to the city's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Only "larger trees" are required to be replaced on a one-to-one basis if removed. Mr. Thone has agreed to save as many trees on the development as possible. According to the proposed grading plan, it appears that a number of trees on the southern end of the development, adjacent the single-family lots, can be saved. Unfortunately, the large red pine sits in the middle of the development and must be removed. Because of its maturity, it also cannot be relocated on the site. The landscape plan submitted does not depict the trees that will be preserved. For this reason, landscape screening adjacent the single-family properties is hard to determine at this time. One of the main concerns expressed by the single-family property owners was the vehicle headlights shining into their properties. With the finalized landscape plan, care must be given to ensure an opaque evergreen screening at the ends of all of the driveways. Also, the grade of the development is such that the single homes are higher up in most places than the townhouses, which will help shield the headlights. A main concern of Mr. Thone is supplying screening for the townhouse development from the Holiday Station Store. The city's Police Department recommends a 6-foot high privacy fence be installed along all common property lines with Holiday Station Store to help alleviate noise, trespass, and light complaints. Mr. Thone, however, feels that the installation of a row of deciduous trees would serve the development better. The city's Landscape Code requires screening of a business when adjacent to residential property. The Holiday Station Store was not required to install a fence or additional landscape screening as the Afton Ridge site was zoned commercial when Holiday Station Store was constructed. Therefore, there is no required screening for Mr. Thone's development from Holiday Station Store. For this reason, if the developer feels that a screening fence would not serve the development, staff agrees but recommends that a row of 6-foot high or larger evergreens be installed along the common property lines, in addition to some deciduous trees. The Holiday Station Store's conditional use permit requires that the store close between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., alleviating noise and some lighting concerns during these hours. Afton Ridge Staff Report 4 May 30, 2001 In order to add to the design of the buildings and development as a whole, staff recommends landscaped planting beds be located in between the driveways, in front of the doors. These landscaped beds should include low maintenance shrubs and perennials. Site Lighting: One of the neighbors' strongest concerns expressed was site lighting. They wanted to ensure that the multi-family development would not produce glare and light trespass onto their properties. Mr. Thone proposes exterior lights above each garage unit, with no additional site lighting. Staff feels that this proposal will be adequate to offer enough light for security, without over lighting the site. Final lighting details should be submitted to staff for approval before issuance of a building permit. Wetland There is a wetland on the east side of this property that the city has designated as open space on the Land Use Plan. The city's Wetland Ordinance requires a 50-foot wide buffer from a Class III type wetland such as this, with an additional 10-foot setback from the buffer for buildings. This development meets the setback requirements on the buffer; however, four of the guest parking spaces will be constructed right up to the buffer line. With the removal of the mrn-arounds, these four spaces should be relocated toward the south, away from the buffer area, to ensure protection of the wetland. Another means of protecting the wetland is the installation of native plantings within this buffer zone. Native plantings will help filter any overflow storm water runoff from the project and help restore the wetland to a more native habitat for wildlife. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the Land Use Plan change resolution on page 33. This resolution changes the Land Use Plan from Commercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Residential High Density (R-3H) for the proposed Afton Ridge Housing development on the southeast corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads. The City is making this change because the proposal will: 1. Provide for orderly development of land uses. 2. Help minimize conflicts between land uses. 3. Provide additional moderately priced housing stock. 4. Add to in-fill development with a density of 9.5 units per acre. Adopt the rezoning resolution on pp. 34-35. This resolution changes the zoning map from Conunercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) for the proposed Afton Ridge housing development on the southeast corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads. The City is making this change because it will: 1. Not detract from the use of neighboring property. 2. Serve the best interests and conveniences of the community. 3. Cause no negative impacts on the city's public services or facilities. Alton Ridge Staff Report 5 May 30, 2001 Approve the preliminary and final plat date stamped May 11, 2001. the applicant meeting the following conditions: Approval is subject to Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, driveways and parking plans with the following changes: Co Reduction in the length of the fire lane turn-around located on the west side of the development from 120 feet in length to 80 feet in length. Relocation of the four parking stalls on the west side of the development to ensure a 15-foot setback from the McKnight Road right-of-way. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk within the Mci(night Road right-of-way along the west side of the development. This sidewalk shall run from the most southerly end of the development's property line to the existing sidewalk in front of the Holiday Station Store. Removal of all three fire lane turn-arounds on the east side of the development to be replaced with a 12~foot wide bituminous fire lane which will extend from the ends of the driveways around the buildings. The entrance to the fire lane shall be equipped with a fall-down boIlard to ensure access by emergency vehicles only. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail from the most westerly drive on the eastern portion of the development to the existing bituminous trail which is in the center of the development. Revising the parking space dimensions revised from 15 foot deep x 8 foot wide to 18 foot deep x 9.5 foot wide. Driveways for all units maintaining at least a 25-foot length. Showing concrete curb and gutter around all driveways and parking areas within the development. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Signing a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: bo Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits, including around all trees to be preserved (construction fence to the drip line of the trees) and around the wetland buffer. c. Install wetland buffer signs at wetland buffer line. Alton Ridge Staff Report 6 May 30, 2001 do Install a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within the McKnight Road right-of- way on the west side of the development from the most southerly property line to the existing sidewalk in front of Holiday Station Store. eo Install an 8-foot wide bituminous trail on the east side of the development from the most westerly driveway to the existing trail. Submit all required easement documents (wetland buffer and trail easements) for staff approval before recording them with Ramsey County. Submit homeowner's association documents for staff approval before recording it with Ramsey County. 6. Record final plat with Ramsey County. Approve the plans date stamped May 11, 2001, for Alton Ridge Townhomes. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. The developer, Tim Thone, shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) Location of all existing trees on the site to be preserved. (2) All replacement deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2-1/2) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped. (3) A continuous row of 8-foot high evergreens to be installed along or near the shared property line of the Holiday Station Store. (4) Four groupings of 6-foot high or larger evergreen trees to be installed at the ends of the driveways. (5) Planting beds to be installed in between the driveways, in front of the entrance doors, to include low maintenance shrubs and perennials that are mulched and edged. (6) An underground lawn irrigation system. (7) Design of wetland buffer signs that are required to be installed at wetland buffer line to state: Wetland Buffer - no mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping. (8) Plantings within the wetland buffer to include native plants. (9) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds and wetland buffer). Afton Ridge Staff Report 7 May 30, 2001 o b. Present a color scheme to staff for approval of each building. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Complete all landscaping for the development, including tree replacement, mulched and edged planting beds, wetland buffer plantings and sod. c. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. d. Install address signs at both driveway entrances and above each unit. e. Remove all unneeded silt fence from the site. f. There shall be no parking on the 24-foot wide private drives. The developer shall post the drives with no parking signs. g There shall be no parking on the fire lane turn-around. The developer shall post the lane with no parking/fire lane signs. h. There shall be no driving or parking on the 12-foot wide fire lane. The developer shall post the lane with fire lane signs and install a fall-down bollard at the entrance of each side of the lane. i. Install stop signs at both driveway exits. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Afton Ridge Staff Report 8 May 30, 2001 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 41 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 12 replies, 10 were in general favor of the land use change and rezoning proposal with minor concerns regarding the development itself, 1 objected, and 1 had no comment: In Favor Consensus believed that their property values would remain strongest with a multi-family proposal such as Afton Ridge, compared to other uses. Sampling of concerns regarding the development itself include: Gregory Dietl and Lee Solyntjes of 341 Parkview Lane: We want to see the preservation of the surrounding wetlands and buffer zone and as many of the existing trees and other growth preserved. We would like to see planting of large trees and shrubs on the perimeter of the new development. William and Jennifer Jahner of 355 Parkview Lane: Want upscale development. Would like tree boarder on sides and backs of lots to separate them from our lots. There are some mature trees on those 2 lots. I would like to see them saved. The pine on the south lot is a beauty. Steven Weckman and Deanna Linden of 345 Parkview Lane: I am concerned about lighting on the property. All exterior lighting should be shielded to prevent reflection off site. Also, the driveways should be cut below original grade, but still retain proper drainage to prevent headlights shining into adjacent residences. Overall, I am in favor of this proposal as long as they don't ask for any variances or special exemptions. Opposed Don Palmer of 338 McKnight Road: Traffic concerns. Alton Ridge Staff Report 9 May 30, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 4.22 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES Northwest: West: South: East: North: Holiday Station Store (planned and zoned business commercial (BC)) Rental apartments and a strip shopping center located in St. Paul Single-family homes A wetland that the city has planned as open space Battle Creek Park across Lower Afton Road PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Commercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) Commercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Ao Land Use Plan Amendment: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Four specific goals apply to this proposal: 2. 3. 4. Provide for orderly development; Minimize conflicts between land uses; Provide a wide variety of housing types; and Plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. In addition, two specific policies apply to this proposal: Disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines; and Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded; The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare; The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Afton Ridge Staff Report 10 May 30, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION (Continued) Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this development on April 6, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. In order to allow the developer additional time in which to make changes to the originally submitted plans, on April 27, 2001, the developer submitted written authorization to the city to extend the required 60-day limit for an additional 60 days. As such, city action is required on this proposal by August 3,2001. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Existing Zoning Map 3. Proposed Zoning Map 4. Existing Land Use Map 5. Proposed Land Use Map 6. Preliminary/Final Plat 7. Existing Conditions 8. Site Plan 9. Grading Plan 10. Utility Plan 11. Landscape Plan 12. Elevations 13. Tim Thone Letter Dated 2/22/01 14. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (CO, LBC to R-3H) 15. Rezoning Resolution (CO, LBC to P,-3) Alton Ridge Staff Report 11 May 30, 2001 UPPE Ac'TON RD. NEW( NEW ( NEW ( )- 0 0 LOCATION MAP I ,Nj 12 Attachment 1 BATTLE CREEK PARK -F-OTA L ~ 8.8~c~_. I I I FO~~ o~ , ! HOLIDAY STATION ,, ~ UT. LOT t · C4(~ ) , '~""'" UTL( ,, , _?.~_ 13 Attachmen~ BATTLE CREEK PARK -¥'OTA [. 18.87..,c,..,,c... I FOR ' I HOLIDAY ' ' STATION "'"'",i ~4~) x.O 17 4ho) 4 L..3~ ) B $ ,PAR'I 14 Attachmen] BC-M Lower Alton BC major arterial R.3(M) CO. Londin Lane 5--' R-1 Mailand --' Linwood minor collector R-- / collector '-:~- WI8 OS Attachment 4 15 Lower Alton BC Londin Lane major arterial l .1 R-$(M) R-1 Co. Mailand ~; Linwood minor collector OS P t I,. ~_.~ ,~ ..... ._~ ": ~' W ~ PROPOSED LAND USE MAP 16 Attachznent i i He)LiD A',,' STATION C A?,DLNAL HEi~3HTS AFTON ROAD Attachmen 17 / / \ \ / \ / II [ / / / / / .,..l ~ ..~ ....~". - ' / // / /'~1~/ // / I~x~'//*~ X X X_ POND EXISTING CONDITIONS 18 Attachment 7 LOW'ER AFTOtl ROAD I HOLF3AY ~-;TATK)N J-~-~ I / J CARD,HAL HEi(.~HT S POND SITE PLAN 19 Attachment LOafER FF~ .g30.O 4 POND GRADING PLAN 20 Attachment £O ~fER [ J \ \ \ \ \ \ xx \ \ x \ \ I~GEND UTILITY PLAN 21 Attachment 10 --iIFTON RIOGE LOgER ~ ...-.~" / / / / / / ! I / I I LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 22 Attachment 23 <~ Attachme: o, o o, - Z Zz I I 0o~ 0 ~ wo, d ~0 February 22, 2001 Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN. 55109 !,,' E C E !v E b APR t~ ~ 2001 Dear Mayor & City Council Members, Thone Builders & Developers has submitted application for comprehensive plan amendment, PUD and site plan to be known as Alton Ridge. In addition the request includes re-zoning the 4.22 acres from BC-M- LBC to R - C3 town homes. The proposed development is located near the Southeast intersection of McKnight and Alton Road, surrounding the Holiday gas station. A.) C.) The most important reason for making these amendments are because times and conditions have changed such that the existing land use is no longer appropriate for the property. B.) This will provide a unique opportunity to provide moderately priced homes for "Empty Nest" professionals that want to live and work in Maplewood. This location is ideal because of the existing major bus route. Afton Ridge homeowners will have easy access to public transportation. D.) Residential land use will generate significantly less traffic and congestion versus traditional style retail or commercial building. There is a strong need and demand for moderate housing compared to the need for more commercial development on this site. E.) Those attending the neighborhood meeting, held in November, unanimously believed their property values would remain strongest with Afton Ridge proposal compared to other uses. Attachment l. F.) City sewer and water are adjacent to project site, so there will be no impact on the city's utility system. G.) I feel existing public facilities, such as schools and parks are adequate for this proposal. The regional park, directly to the north, provides open space, walking paths, ECT. There will be virtually no impact on schools. During my 10 years of building comparable housing, the buyers have tended to be "Empty Nest" professionals mixed with first time homebuyers. H.) No deviation from city code regarding PUD. AEon Ridge is more compatible with surrounding uses as compared to more commercial development. Town homes will serve as a buffer between commercial use and the busy roads of Lower AEon and McKnight roads. Time and conditions have changed; the existing land use is more appropriate for town- homes. This proposal will enhance the site and surroundings, and fill the need for quality housing that is moderately priced. Thank you, Tim Thone Thone Builders & Developers, Inc. President LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tim Thone, representing Thone Builders and Developers, Inc., made application to the City of Maplewood for a change to the city's land use plan from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to residential high density (R-3H) for a project called Alton Ridge. WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the southeast corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads, behind the Holiday Station Store, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 4, 2001, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On ,2001, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described land use plan change for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: Creating a transitional land use between the existing low density residential and commercial land uses. b. Increasing the moderately priced housing stock within the city. c. Create in-fill development with a density of 9.5 units per acre. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: The townhouses exceed the required 50-foot setback from adjacent residential property lines. bo Many of the existing mature trees will be preserved along the shared property lines with the single-family residential property lines. c. The architecture of the buildings will create a quality development. d. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 33 Attachment ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tim Thone of Thone Builders and Developers, Inc., has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to multiple dwelling residential (R-3). WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the southeast corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads, behind the Holiday Station Store, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: That part of the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of Sec 12, Twn 28, Rng 22, Ramsey County, MN described as follows: Commencing at a cast iron monument found for the NW corner of said Sec 12; thence S 00 deg 17 min 21 sec E, assumed bearing, along the W line of said Sec 12 a distance of 362.00 feet thence N 88 deg 15 min 34 sec E along the S line of N 362.00 ft of said NW Quarter of the NW Quarter a distance of 245.08 ft to an iron pipe which is the point of beginning; thence continuing N 88 deg 15 min 34 sec E a distance of 418.66 ft; thence S 00 deg 18 min 10 sec E a distance of 265.04 ft; thence S 88 deg 15 min 34 sec W a distance of 415.46 ft; thence N 00 deg 17 min 24 sec W a distance of 53.74 ft; thence S 88 deg 15 min 34 sec W a distance of 5.07 ft; thence N 00 deg 17 min 21 sec W a distance of 211.21 ft; thence to the point of beginning. That part of the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of Sec 12, Twn 28, Rng 22, Ramsey County, MN described as follows: Commencing at a cast iron monument found for the NW corner of said Sec 12; thence S 00 deg 17 min 21 sec E, assumed bearing, along the W line of said Sec 12 a distance of 362.00 ft thence N 88 deg 15 min 34 sec E along the S line of the N 362.00 ft of said NW Quarter of the NW Quarter a distance of 40.01 ft to the E line of the W 40 ft of said NW Quarter of the NW Quarter thence S 00 deg 17 min 21 sec E along said E line a distance of 205.00 ft to an iron pipe which is the point of beginning; thence N 89 deg 42 min 39 sec E a distance of 250.07 ft; thence S 00 deg 17 min 24 sec E a distance of 288.76 ft; thence S 88 deg 18 min 50 sec W a distance of 250.07 ft to said east line of the W 40 ft; thence N 00 deg 17 min 26 sec W along said E line a distance of 294.85 ft to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for the property is as follows: 12-28-22-22-0050. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 4, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The 34 Attachment ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION (Continued) change 1. 2. council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described in the zoning map for the following reasons: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. The owner plans to develop this property as multiple-family dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 35