The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/19/1996BOOK 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. August 5, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 19, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East o New Business a. Conditional Use Permit - ABRA Auto Body Repair Shop (Rice Street) b. Hazelwood Forest Preliminary Plat (County Road C) Co Highwood Estates Number 4 Preliminary Plat (Highwood Avenue) (1) Development on Slopes (2) Preliminary Plat (3) Street Width Code Variation d. Pleasantview Park Number 3 Preliminary Plat (Crestview and Lakewood Ddves) 6. Visitor Presentations 7. Commission Presentations a. August 12 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman b. August 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost 8. Staff Presentations a. September 2, 1996 meeting rescheduling - Labor Day 9. 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: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA AUGUST 5, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. IV. Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Commissioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Present Absent Present Present Present Present Absent Absent Present Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the minutes of July 15, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Ericson seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Ericson, Fischer, Kittridge, Thompson Abstentions-Frost, Rossbach The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. Street Vacation---Curve Street, South of Frost Avenue (AT&T) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts said that neither the design nor the location had changed since this project was previously reviewed by the planning commission. Commissioner Thompson asked about the possibility of vacating all the eligible areas of Curve Street at one time. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the city may look at the implications of approving vacations in this manner at some time in the future. She said the policy now is to consider vacations at the request of a property owner and require that 50 percent of the adjacent owners be in favor. Peter Beck, an attorney for AT&T, was present at the meeting. Mr. Beck explained the reasons for the vacation request. -2- Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which vacates the Curve Street right-of-way between Summer Avenue and Frost Avenue. It would be in the public interest to vacate Curve Street because: 1. There are no abutting lots that could benefit from its construction. 2. The right-of-way width is only 30 feet wide. The minimum right-of-way width required is 60 feet. 3. The city has no intention to build Curve Street. Approval of this vacation shall be subject to the city retaining an easement for utility purposes over, under and across all that part of vacated Curve Street adjacent to Block 6, Gladstone, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies Southerly of the Westerly extension of a line drawn parallel with and 20.00 feet Northerly of the South line of Lot 1 of said Block 6, and which lies Northerly of the Westedy extension of a line drawn parallel with and 10.00 feet Southerly of the North line of Lot 2 of said Block 6, Gladstone. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. July 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson reported on this meeting. Bo August 12 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the Menards conditional use permit will be reviewed at this meeting. She mentioned that some area residents had complained of truck parking, excessive nois~, and also traffic from the nearby Citgo station to the Menards' storage area. Ms. Coleman ~uggested that the commission have a representative at this meeting for this item and the commercial property study. Ms. Coleman and Ken Roberts, associate planner, spoke about the Maplewood Night Out scheduled for Tuesday, August 6, 1996. Mr. Rossbach will attend the August 12 City Council meeting. Staff and the commissioners also discussed the annual Maplewood tour that was held on July 29, 1996. Commissioner Axdahl will be absent from the August 19 planning commission meeting. VIII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. September 2, 1996, Meeting---Labor Day A decision will be made, at the August 19 commission meeting, on an alternate date for this meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Lot Split, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - ABRA Auto Body Rice Street August 12, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Allan Stowe, of Barclay, Ltd, is proposing to build an ABRA auto body repair shop on Rice Street south of Schroeder Milk. Refer to the maps on pages 7-9. The existing ABRA on Rice Street at the Crown Plaza shopping center would relocate to this new location. The proposed building would be one story tall except a second story mezzanine in the front and would be 11,132 square feet in area. The ex~edor of the building would be two varieties of decorative concrete block. This would be identical to the existing ABRA on Highway 61 south of Beam Avenue. Request Mr. Stowe is requesting that the city council approve the following: 1. A lot split to create the site. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for automotive repair. Refer to the letter on pages 10-11. 3. Site, building and landscape plans. BACKGROUND September 29, 1993: City staff approved a lot split for the original property as shown in the enclosed letter and map on pages 12-13 for the property owners James and Georgia Dean. Mr. and Mrs. Dean did not record the new deed to formalize the. lot split within the required one year deadline. This approval, therefore, has expired. DISCUSSION Lot Split As with the 1993 lot split approval, the property owners should still dedicate a drainage easement to Maplewood for the pond area that is at an elevation of 862 or below. In addition, the new wetland protection regulations require that the property owners dedicate a wetland easement over the pond. The ordinance requires this easement dedication before the city approves the new deeds or issues a building permit for ABRA. The applicant or owner should have the wetland edge delineated around the entire pond. If the wetland delineation encompasses more area than that below the 862 contour elevation, the property owner need only dedicate a wetland and ponding easement as defined by the wetland delineation. Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this project. As proposed, the ABRA shop meets the cdteria for a CUP. Commercial development surrounds the site except the rental house to the south. Mr. and Mrs. Dean (the current owners of the ABRA site) own this house. A thick stand of trees buffers this house from the ABRA site. There also were no neighboring property owners that objected to this proposal. The city cannot record the CUP resolution (see pages 14-15) without a correct legal description for the ABRA site. Therefore, the city should condition the CUP approval upon the applicant recording the deed for the ABRA site before the city submits the CUP resolution to Ramsey County for filing. Site Plan Considerations The applicant should make the following changes to the site plan: 1. All two-way ddve aisles must be at least 24 feet wide. 2. The turning radius at the street should be widened to 10 feet. 3. The turf areas should be sod along the front up to the street edge and back along the side lines to the front of the building. The remainder should be sod or seed. 4. The trees should be salt resistant deciduous trees such as Norway Maples or White Ash. The bituminous swale to the pond should be replaced with a pervious material. In addition, the applicant should install a sedimentation pond on site to collect runoff before discharging into the holding pond. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approval of a lot split creating the proposed ABRA site, subject to the following conditions: Dedicate a drainage easement to Maplewood for the pored area that is at an elevation of 862 or below. The property owner shall also dedicate a wetland easement over the pond according to the wetland protection ordinance. The applicant or owner shall have the wetland edge delineated around the entire pond. If the wetland delineation encompasses more area than that below the 862 contour elevation, the property owner need only dedicate a wetland and ponding easement as defined by the wetland delineation. As required by ordinance, the easement(s) shall be dedicated before the city approves the new deeds or issues a building permit for ABRA. 2. Record the new deeds within one year. 3. The city will not sign off on the new deeds to subdivide this property until the easement(s) in condition one is recorded. Bo Approve the resolution on pages 14-15. This resolution is for a conditional use permit for a maintenance garage. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially staffed within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant or property owner must record the deed creating the ABRA site before the city will submit the CUP resolution to Ramsey County for filing. Approve the plans (stamped July 19, 1996) for a new ABRA auto body shop on Rice Street, south of Schroeder Milk. The developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Provide the following for the city engineer's approval: (1) Dedicate a drainage easement to Maplewood for the pond area that is at an elevation of 862 or below. The property owner shall also dedicate a wetland easement over the pond according to the wetland protection ordinance. The applicant or owner shall have the wetland edge delineated around the entire pond. If the wetland delineation encompasses more area than that below the 862 contour elevation, the property owner need only dedicate a wetland and ponding easement as defined by the wetland delineation. (2) Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall comply with ordinance requirements. The drainage plan shall include replacing the bituminous swale with a pervious material. This revised plan shall also include a sedimentation pond on site to collect runoff before discharging into the holding pond. Revise the site plan as follows: (1) All two-way drive aisles must be at least 24 feet wide. (2) The turning radius at the street should be widened to 10 feet. (3) The turf areas should be sod along the front up to the street edge and back along the side lot lines to the front of the building. The remainder should be sod or seed. (4) The trees should be substituted with a salt resistant deciduous tree such as Norway Maples or White Ash. (5) Show the location of in-ground lawn irrigation lines and sprinklers. c. Provide a lighting plan that includes lighting on the north side of the building for the garage door entries and adequate lighting for customer parking areas. d. Provide a screening plan for any roof-top mechanical equipment that is visible from the street or adjacent properties. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: ao Install signs along the edge of the wetland. These signs shall state that there shall be no mowing, draining, cutting of vegetation, filling, adding any structures or dumping beyond this point. b. Replace property irons removed because of this construction. c. Install a reflectodzed stop sign, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. d. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property, e. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. Waive the trash screening requirement from the east view. 6, The building shall match the ABRA in Maplewood along Highway 61. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Appeals Anyone may appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. An appellant must notify someone in the Community Development Department within fifteen days after the Board's meeting. 4 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 21 properties within 350 feet of the proposed ABRA site. Of the six replies, five had no comment and one had a miscellaneous comment. Comment We hope that the property will be maintained and that no junk cars will be stored on the property. Welcome to the neighborhood and we invite you to Sunday worship. (Galilee Evangelical Lutheran Church, 145 N. McCarrons Blvd.) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: gross acreage - 11.58 acres; site size - 1.49 acres Existing land use: one single dwelling south of the proposed ABRA site SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Schroeder Milk South: Single dwelling and Dean's Tavern West: Rice Street and Glidden paint store East: Holding pond PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(9)(c) requires a CUP for a maintenance garage closer than 350 feet to a residential lot line. A Uresidential lot line" is defined as the lot line of any property that the city is planning for residential use on its land use plan. Section 36-442 (a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on the standards for approval listed in the resolution on pages 14-15. 5 p:seclS~abra, mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's letter ofjus~cafion dated July 18, 1996 5. 1993 lot split approval letter 6. 1993 lot split approval map 7. Resolu~on 8. Plans date-stamped July 19, 1996 (separate attachment) /- LOCATION MAP 7 Attachment 1 N Attachment 4 Barclay, Ltd. 130 P~rk Avenue South, Suite 101 July 18, 1996 Mr. To~ Kketrand City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B ~laplewood, l~q 55109 RE: Conditional Use Application P.O. Box 1243 St. Cloud, Minnesota 56302 (6121 259-0523 (612) 259-0536 Dear Mr. Ekstrand: I am writing to address item two on the Conditional Use Application for an Abra Auto Body and Glass facility on the vacant Dean property at 2000 Rice Street. Abra is a high quality collision repair and full service auto glass replacement company with numerous locations throughout the Twin Cities area. A similar facility is located at 2806 Highway #61 in Maplewood, Minnesota. This use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to conform with the City°e code of ordinances. We would not change the existing commercial character of the surrounding area. There are numerous, similar auto related users located north and south of the subject property on Rice Street. The use would not depreciate property values. Rather, this new development on vacant land would enhance the character and value of the surrounding area. Abra is a highly recognizable operation with a high degree of standardization among their .various facilities While the use does involve the collision repair, all activities are highly monitored and regulated and Abra takes great care in the operation of their stores. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental or cause a nuisance to any person or property because of excessive noise, glare, s~oke, dust, odor, fumes, water or ai~ pollution, drainage water run-off, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. In fact, the neighbor to the north is an industrial user, to the east, a large ponding area and to the south vacant land which it is anticipated will be used for future commercial development- The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing streets. In fact, the Abra use is merely relocating from a short distance south of the subject property. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services- Developmen! * Construction * Commercial Real Estate * Property Management 10 Mr. Tom E~.strand Page: 2 3uly 15, 1996 The use would not create excessive costs ~or public ~acilities or se 1-v ~ce s. The development oi this ~aciiity would add to the tax base o~' the comity thereby enhancing public ~acilities and services. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental e~iects. Construction type and methods would be similar to those used in the surrounding area. Thank you Ior your consideration oi our request- Yours very truly, Allan V. Stows C.E.U. CITY OF Attachment 5 MAPLEWOOD 1880 E. COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55109 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 612-770-4560 September 29, 1993 Mr. James Dean 363 South McGarrons Rosev~le MN, 55113 LOT DIVISION - 2000 RICE STREET, MAPLEWOOD The City has approved the lot division shown on the enclosed maps. The lot division is not final until the City stamps your deeds and you have them recorded' at Ramsey County. You do not need to have the City stamp the deeds until you are ready to record them. This approval is subject to you completing the following conditions: Dedicate to Maplewood a drainage easement for all of your property at an elevation of 862 or below. You must have this easement located in the field and then described on the documents. Please contact Ken Haider, the City Engineer, at 770-4550 for more information about this. " ge Combining Tract B with the property to the north for identification and tax purposes. 3. Record the new deeds within one year. You may appeal any of these conditions to the City Council by writing me a letter within ten days. Your letter should state what you are appealh~..e and why. I will put the City's stamp of approval on your deeds after you have co_m_pleted Conditions One and Two. You may then have your deeds recorded at the Ramsey County Courthouse. The County will not accept your deeds without this signature. You must provide proof that the County has recorded the deed before the City will issue a building permit for Tract B. You also must submit a certificate of survey with the building permit application for Tract B. 12 Equal Oppor~,-~t7 F, mplo~er I (,) Attachment 6 13 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Allan Stowe, of Barclay, Ltd, applied for a conditional use permit to build a maintenance garage. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property south of 2080 Rice Street. The legal description is: (THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILL BE FILLED IN ONCE THE LOT SPLIT IS RECORDED WHICH WOULD CREATE THE MAINTENANCE GARAGE SITE) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 19, 1996 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on ,1996. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 14 o The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant or property owner must record the deed creating the ABRA site before the city will submit the CUP resolution to Ramsey County for filing. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1996. 15 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: DATE: City Manager James Ericson, Planning Intem Preliminary Plat Hazelwood Forest August 12, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Marlo Cocchiarella, representing Maplewood Development, is proposing to develop lots for 21 single-family homes. They call this development Hazelwood Forest. It would be on an 8.45-acre site north of County Road C, east of the Ramsey County Trail. Refer to the maps on pages 7-9. DISCUSSION Open Space 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. Ramsey County has no plans to buy the property. The Maplewood Open Space Committee did not rate this property. In the spring of 1996, the city council asked city staff to investigate buying the site for open space after the owner listed the property for sale. City staff and the city council found the asking price too high to pursue any serious buying negotiations. As such, Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans. Density and Lot Size Several neighbors thought that there were too many lots in this I~lat and that they were too small. As proposed, the lot sizes range from 10,000 square feet to 23,133 square feet with an average lot size of 12,582 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 9.) The four house lots immediately next to this site on the east range in size from 1.59 acres (proposed) to 3.52 acres. On the west side of Hazelwood Street, the lots range in size from 13,200 square feet to 47,740 square feet. The city code requires at least 10,000 square feet above a drainage easement and 75 feet of width. All the proposed lots meet or exceed city standards. Maplewood cannot reduce the number of lots or require larger lots if the developer is meeting the city's ordinances. Tries Maplewood's tree ordinance does not apply to trees under eight inches in diameter or box elder, cottonwoods or poplar trees. The applicant plans to grade most of the site and thus remove many of the trees on the site. (See the proposed grading plan on page 10 and the proposed tree plan on page 12.) Before grading the site, the city should require the developer to submit a final 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. As such, the developer proposes to plant 64 trees (30 coniferous trees along County Road C and to the rear of Lots 18-20; and 34 deciduous trees, one in every lot front and one to the rear of 14 of the lots). The trees should be of varying species. The city should require the developer to preserve the large trees at the rear of Lots 19, 20, and 21, and wherever else possible. In addition, the construction plans should specify the kinds of trees the developer will plant, using a vadety of tree species. The contractor should plant the replacement trees after the grading of the site, before the city approves the final plat. Comer Lots The proposed plat would create two comer lots fronting on Barclay Street and County Road C. Staff is recommending a condition to ensure the driveways for these two lots exit onto Barclay Street and not County Road C. Trail Staff is recommending that the developer change the plans to add a paved trail to adjoin the Ramsey County trail west of the development. The trail should run from the cul-de-sac to the county trail in the proposed utility easement between Lots 9 and 10. As such, the easement should be recorded as a pedestrian and utility easement on the final plat. In addition, the developer should change the width of the easement to 30 feet (instead of 20 feet) due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer pipe. In addition, the city should require the developer to install the trail before final plat approval to insure that lot buyers know that the trail is there. Utility Plans The city engineer is recommending that the developer add two backyard storm drains to connect to the storm sewer system. The developer should locate these drains near the rear property line between Lots 16 and 17 and near the rear property line between Lots 7 and 8. Wetlands There may be wetlands to the north and east of this site that may require changing the proposed grading plan and proposed lots. The wetland protection ordinance requires up to a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer around a wetland. Building foundations must be at least 110 feet from any delineated wetlands. In addition, the code does not allow any ground disturbance (including grading or filling) within the 100-foot buffer. The contractor should place the silt fence so it protects any wetland buffer during grading and construction. Watershed District Concerns The Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed District has received the proposed construction plans. Pat Conrad, of the watershed district, has inspected the site and has concluded that there exists sufficient evidence to warrant wetland delineation. The contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve the Hazelwood Forest preliminary plat (received by the city on July 19, 1996). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Install permanent signs around the edge of any wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. d. Install survey monuments along any wetland boundaries. e. Have NSP install street lights in two locations; these shall be near the intersection of County Road C and Barclay Street and at the end of Barclay Street that ends in a cul-de- sac. The exact location and type of lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. f. Provide all required and necessary easements. Obtain the necessary approval from the Ramsey County Railroad Authority for putting the sanitary sewer across their property. g. Remove all junk, scrap metal, debds, and the shed. h. Cap and seal all wells on site; remove septic systems or drainfields. i. Remove the existing curb cut on County Road C, repair the street and sod the boulevard. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and en. gineedng plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail 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: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. (2) Include contour information for the land that the street construction will disturb. (3) Show sedimentation basins as required by the watershed board or city. (4) Show housing styles that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. 3 o c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least 2 % (two and one half) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (4) The coniferous trees shall be at least 8 (eight) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (5) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. d** The developer or contractor shall install the trail before the city council approves the final plat. Provide all easements required by the city engineer. These shall include wetland easements over the wetlands on site. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 100 feet surrounding the wetlands. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 100 feet of the wetlands or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 100 feet of the wetlands or within the wetlands. The purpose of the easements is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer, runoff and to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. Show any wetland boundaries on the plat as delineated on the site or within 100 feet of the site. A trained and qualified person must delineate the wetlands. This person shall prepare a wetland delineation report. The developer shall submit this wetland information to the Watershed Distdct office. The Watershed District must approve this information before the city approves a final plat. If needed, the developer shall change the grading plans and plat to meet wetland regulations. Record a covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits driveways on Lots 1 and 20 from going onto County Road C. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading and any wetland filling. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 4 CITIZENS' COMMENTS We surveyed the property owners within 350 feet of this site about this proposed development. Of the 12 replies, 1 had no comment, 4 were for, 6 objected and 1 had other comments. Those for the proposed development had the following comments: 1. Progress is inevitable (Person - 1477 County Road C) 2. Good quality single family homes should be an asset to the community. Trail should be left intact. (Benjamin - 2674 Elm Street) 3. The land has been waste land until now. (Oswald - 2676 English Street) 4. We do not oppose this proposed development. (Manager- 2792 Maplewood Drive) Those objecting to the proposed development had the following comments: 1. Too many homes put into that area. The lots should be wider and homes should be farther apart. Some woods left in between some of the homes, it's starting to look like St. Paul and Minneapolis with one house next to another. (Gimple - 1410 Kohlman Avenue) 2. We would not accept any proposal for housing. We love and enjoy the beauty of the wilderness in this area with being so close to the mall, etc. The trail through was an asset. We see much wildlife as we walk. Developers try and put too many houses in areas that should be left natural for the almighty $$. We do need some natural areas in our city, to keep its beauty. We are very opposed. (Knabe - 1423 Kohlman Avenue) 3. This is an open-space area, adjacent to the Ramsey County Trail. It is also home to a lot of wildlife, fox, etc. This is already a high-density area with Maplewood Mall and White Bear Avenue businesses. We need the open space as relief for this congested area. I would like the city of Maplewood to consider this property for the open space program. (Pdgge - 1429 Kohlman Avenue) 4. I think Maplewood should have more open spaces and keep all Of those trees. If it is built on, there should be more effort to keep some of the trees, especially toward the ends of the lots. This would also help keep the beauty of the Ramsey County Trail. Also, the entrance to County Road C is very close to the bridge. Wouldn't this be dangerous? (Buckley - 2676 Elm Street) 5. Too many houses designated for area. Leave it wild-let the City purchase it for wildlands-we love the animals and space the way it is. More tax base doesn't help us on our taxes. Retirement income hardly allows us to stay here much longer, when taxes keep going up 15% to 20% a year. What about traffic problems? Hazelwood is now a shortcut speedway without adequate patrol. (Nelson - 2737 Hazelwood Street) 6. Driveway entrance - hazard to traffic from west on "C". (Stone - 2727 Hazelwood Street) Also see the letters on pages 13 and 15 for additional comments. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.45 Acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Residential Vacant land across County Road C. Rarnsey County Trail Houses on County Road C. PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designations: R-1 (single family residential) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single family residential) P:\...~sec3~hzlwdfor.pre Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line / Zoning Map 3, Proposed Preliminary Plat 4. Proposed Grading Plan 5. Proposed Utility Plan 6. Proposed Tree Plan 7. 7-15-96 letter from Kathryn Irvin 8. 7-12-96 letter from Stones 9. Preliminary Plat (Separate Attachment) 6 Attachment 1 ~¢DNAIS HEIGHTS 1 COUNTY RD. D 1. SUUU!'T CT. 2. COUNTR'Y~E'W OR. 3. DULUTH Cl'. ¢. LYDLI, ST. BEA~ COUNTY GER~A~S AVE. GE:R~/A~S AV~:. ~ BR~)OKS ,~-' GERVAIS AVE. ~ Cl. DR. ~ ~ · N Attachment 2 AVENUE 57-~ 4 SITE 1 D E:lg E 'T 2eSLI '"" FIRE STATION I-- [ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP N Attachment 3 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 9 Attachment 4 COU'NTY ROAD C -y'J-' ~ PROPOSI~D GRADING PLAN 10 COUNTY RoA~) C ..~ - PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN Attachment 5 I !1 11 Attachment 6 I~.[i ;~ I I. ~,,~]i I;! g; I [ j I iJll I, I~::l I ,,! ~a I si J i 'PROPOSED TREE PLAN 12 Attachment 7 KATHRYN IRVIN 2707 Hazelwood Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 612.777.9022 July 15, 1996 Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1850 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Attention: Kenneth Roberts-Assistant Planner RE: NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: HAZELWOOD FOREST AS SUBMITTED JULY 2, 1996, BY OWNER/DEVELOPER MAPLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OF OAKDALE, MINNESOTA Dear Mr. Roberts: As per our telephone conversation this date, I am sending this letter to you on behalf of my mother, W. H. Stack, who is the property owner of land east of and immediately adjacent to the north 200' of the east property line of the referenced proposed development. This letter outlines certain concerns pertaining to the referenced proposal that we would like addressed by the appropriate regulatories. These matters I also discussed with Tom Extrum-City Planner when I was at your office on Friday morning, July 12, 1996. WATER DRAINAGE: One major concern is that any water drainage design for the proposed development be conceived, designed and constructed so as not to in any way add to or allow water runoff and/or water accumulation to the adjoining lands. We would like assurance that any regulatory approved water diversion and/or water drainage system implemented for this proposed development not in any way interfer with or hinder the future development of any adjoining lands. We believe it to be essential that provisions be made for adequate secure fencing to enclose any existing or proposed water ponding area{s) on the proposed development and/or adjoining lands. THROUGHWAY ROAD: At one time allowance was made for development of a east/west road connecting Kohlman Avenue to the west of the proposed development to Hazelwood Avenue located to the east. We would like to know the status of any future provisions regarding this matter. 13 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat PROJECT: Highwood Estates No. 4 DATE: August 13, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Roar Development is proposing to develop lots for 27 single-family homes. They call this development Highwood Estates No. 4. It would be between Lakewood Drive and McKnight Road, south of Highwood Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 9-12. Requests To build this project, Roar Development and Raymond and Mary Lee Maida, the property owners, are requesting that the city approve: 1. Development on existing slopes greater than 25 percent. (See the letter on pages 17 and 18.) 2. A preliminary plat for 27 house lots and an outlot next to the property at 2292 Highwood Avenue. The proposed outlot is for a garage encroachment from 2292 Highwood Avenue. (See the maps on pages 12-16.) 3. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street width. The developer is asking to reduce the streets from 32 feet to 28 feet from gutter to gutter. (Refer to the letter on pages 19-21 .) BACKGROUND on September 28, 1987, the city council approved Gonyea's Oak Heights Third Addition preliminary plat. This preliminary plat was for 19 single-dwelling lots along Lakewood Drive and Mamie Avenue, south of Highwood Avenue. On February 13, 1989, the council approved Gonyea's Oak Heights Third Addition final plat. This final plat created 19 lots for houses along Lakewood Drive and Mamie Avenue. The plat also created Southcrest Court street right-of-way, west of Lakewood Drive. With this final plat, the city provided street access to the Roar Development site. This access is from the temporary cul-de- sac on the west end of Mamie Avenue and with the Southcrest Court street right-of-way west of Lakewood Drive. DISCUSSION Open Space and Parks The Maplewood Open Space Committee called this property Site 164. They ranked this site 26th out of the 66 they rated and seventh out of the 19 they rated in this neighborhood. 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. Ramsey County has no plans to buy the property. There is no shortage of open space in this area. Maplewood recently bought the Grandview open space on Carver Avenue (13.3 acres) and the Kayser open space east of Sterling Street north of Highwood Avenue (16 acres). The city also is negotiating with Beverly Stielow to buy about 10 acres of her property on the northwest comer of Carver Avenue and Sterling Street. This purchase would be for additional open space and would be directly east of the Grandview open space. Pleasantview Park (14.4 acres) is south and east of the site, just east of the houses on Lakewood Drive. The city also bought another 8 acres of the Kayser property east of Sterling Street for a future neighborhood park. (Please see the Highwood Land Use Plan map on page 11 for the location of these areas.) Preliminary Plat Construction on a Slope Section 9-194 of the city code has standards for construction on slopes. Specifically, subsection (d) requires the city council to approve the alteration of slopes 25 percent or more in grade. The code requires the council to base their decision on the degree of alteration of the slope and the importance of the slope to the character of the area. Much of the proposed plat site has existing slopes of 25 percent or more. (See the plat and existing topography map on page 13.) As proposed, the plat will require grading of most of the site, including most of the area with slopes of at least 25 percent. (See the proposed grading plan on page 14.) The developer needs to do the extensive grading to have the proposed streets and utilities meet Maplewood's construction standards. However, the basic character of the site will remain unchanged. That is, the site will generally slope from east to west (Lakewood to McKnight) with the eastern and western edges of the site staying as is to match the grades of the neighbor's properties. Density and Lot Size Several neighbors thought that there were too many lots in this plat and that they were too small. As proposed, the lot sizes range from 11,899 square feet to 64,745 square feet with an average lot size of 25,216 square feet. The lots east of this site on Lakewood Ddve and Mamie Avenue range in size from 10,147 to 14,070 square feet. For the properties on the east side of McKnight Road, the house lots range in size from 34,200 square feet to 106,442 square feet (2.4 acres with a ponding easement). The city code requires at least 10,000 square feet above a drainage easement and 75 feet of width. All the proposed lots meet or exceed city standards. Maplewood cannot reduce the number of lots or require larger lot sizes if the proposed plan meets the city's ordinances. Trees Roar Development would grade much of the site and thus remove many trees on the site. 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 172 large trees remain. If the 2 developer cannot keep that many large trees, the ordinance requires him to plant replacement trees. This would be up to a maximum of ten trees per gross acre so there are at least 172 trees on site. The ordinance does not apply to trees under eight inches in diameter or box elder, cottonwoods or poplar trees. Wetlands There are no wetlands on this site. However, the site drains to the west to a ponding area behind 1050 and 1060 McKnight Road. The city engineer recommends that the developer add a storm water pond near the rear of Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 to slow and treat the storm water before it enters the existing pond. Drainage - Watershed District The Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed District received the proposed project plans. Pat Conrad, of the watershed district, has reviewed the proposed plans and has given them preliminary approval. Roar Development or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. Reduced Street Widths Section 29-52 of the City Code requires that local streets be 32 feet wide (gutter to gutter). The code says that the city council may permit variations from this requirement in specific areas that do not effect the general purpose of this section. Roar Development wants to build 28-foot-wide streets. (See the letter starting on page 19.) The city engineer is for this code variation if the city limits parking to one side of the street. Since 1993, the council has approved the same street widths with no parking on one side for the Oak Ridge, Maple Woods Estates, Beth Heights and Parkview developments. The narrower streets would provide a larger setback between the street and the homes and would put less impervious surface on the site. Neighbor Concerns (Refer to page 7 for the full summary of replies.) Traffic increase on Lakewood Drive would be hazardous. Ken Haider, the city engineer, said the city designed and built Lakewood Drive as a minor collector street to serve the traffic needs in this part of Maplewood. He also said the current four- way stop at Lakewood and Snowshoe is functioning well. Mr. Haider believes this intersection will continue to operate well after the construction of the proposed development. The proposed layout puts all the plat traffic on Lakewood Drive. Lakewood Ddve was designed and built as a minor collector street (36 feet wide instead of 32 feet wide) with a sidewalk on the east side. Some neighbors believe there is too much traffic on Lakewood Drive already. The city engineer believes that Lakewood Drive can handle the traffic from this development. Several neighbors suggested connecting a street from the plat to the north to Highwood Avenue. Such a street would go through proposed Lot 15 west of the Maidas (2322 Highwood Avenue) but would require additional extensive grading and tree loss. The existing grade south of Highwood Avenue is at least 15 percent while the maximum street grade that the city allows is 7 percent. Retaining walls also would be necessary to get to the Maidas' existing garage because the new street would be about ten feet lower than the existing garage. 3 This development would affect the trees and wildlife habitat. The developer has designed this site to preserve the trees west of proposed Dorland Road and east of the existing pond behind 1050 and 1060 McKnight Road. The required sedimentation basin will help protect the existing pond. Saving the trees east of the existing pond would lessen the loss of wildlife habitat. Neighborhood Preference Many replies said the city should buy this land as open space or reduce the number of lots in the development. The city reviewed this site as part of the open space process but the open space committee ranked the site 26th out of the 66 they considered. There is no shortage of open space and parks in this area as discussed on page 2. As I also noted earlier, the city cannot require the developer to increase the lot sizes or reduce the number of lots in the plat if they meet all city code requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the alteration of a slope over 25 percent in grade for the construction of Highwood Estates Number Four preliminary plat. The council should approve this alteration because: 1. The degree of alteration will not affect the basic character of the slope. 2. The alteration will not affect the importance of the slope to the character of the area. 3. The council approved a similar request in 1987 for the Gonyea Company t'o build the Oak Heights development in the area. B. Approve the Highwood Estates Number 4 preliminary plat (received by the city on June 19, 1996). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.° Place temporary orange safety fencing, silt fence and signs at the grading limits. c. Have NSP install street lights in three locations, primarily at street intersections. The exact location and type of lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements. Demolish or move the existing shed behind 2322 Highwood Avenue on proposed Lot 11, Block 1. Abandon any wells or septic systems within the plat, subject to the Environmental Health Official's approval. 4 Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. (2) Include contour information for the land that the street construction will disturb. (3) Provide a permanent, dual-purpose sedimentation basin as described in the draft 1996 Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District Watershed Management Plan at the end of the storm water pipe between Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 near the existing pond. (4) Show housing styles that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (5) All proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be identified on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. (6) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than 4 feet tall require a building permit from the city. c. Change the plat to show the street curves next to Lots 2-5 and Lots 8-11, Block 1 with a minimum of a 150-foot radius on the centerline. Also change the lot lines in the plat to make them radial to the new street centerlines. d. Change the grading and utility plans to follow the revised street and lot design required in Condition 2(c) above. In addition, move the proposed sanitary sewer line between Lots 9 and 10, Block 1 to between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. This change is to drop one manhole and to lessen the amount of sewer pipe. This sewer line change may require changing the grading plan to make the grades meet city standards. e. Provide a tree plan for the city engineer's approval before grading or final plat approval. This plan shall show where the developer will remove, save, move or replace large trees. This plan also must show the size, species and location of any trees that the developer will plant as replacement trees. All deciduous trees the developer plants shall be at least 2-1/2 inches in diameter. There shall be no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. f. The streets shall be 28 feet wide from face to face of the concrete curb and gutter with no parking on one side. 5 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add and change drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. 4. Provide all easements required by the city engineer. 5. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developers agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Co Adopt the resolution on page 29. This resolution approves a city code variation for 28-foot- wide streets. This variation is subject to no parking on one side of the streets and the developer paying the city for the cost of the no parking signs. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 85 properties Within 350 feet of this site. Of the 45 replies, 6 had no comment, 7 were for and 32 objected. (I have summarized the objections due to the large number and duplication of replies.) For I am for the proposal but do not want an outlet on to Highwood Avenue. (Wehrle - 2315 Highwood Avenue) I would like to see Highwood Avenue repaired to handle this increase traffic and truck use for this project. The road is getting quite tom up with the heavy truck use. (Ahems - 936 Currie Court) Only if the deer problem can be eliminated. The more development that occurs in the area the more landscape damage I get from feeding deer. (Eldddge - 2316 Valley View Court) I would like to see covenants enforced on the homes to be built, so as to protect property values. I would also like to see one street exit on to Highwood, rather than both on to Lakewood. (Anonymous) 5. It looks like a good development. (Dennis Gonyea, Gonyea Development Company) Objections There were several letters and comments in opposition. The main objections or concerns were: 1. The density is too high. Increase the I°t sizes and have fewer houses. 2. The city should buy the property for open space or nature preserve, there is a need for more open space in the area. 3. There would be a loss of wildlife habitat and trees, general em/ironmental impacts. 4. Storm water drainage impacts (especially on ponds near McKnight Road). 5. The amount of grading required and erosion and drainage concerns. 6. The traffic increase would be hazardous, especially on Lakewood Drive. Connect one street to Highwood Avenue. 7. The impacts on the schools. Also see the petition and letters on pages 22-28. These represent the comments staff received. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: gross acreage - 17.19 acres, net acreage - 15.05 acres Existing land use: A house and accessory buildings at 2322 Highwood Avenue and undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Houses across Highwood Avenue Houses in the Oak Heights Additions Houses on McKnight Road Houses on Marnie Avenue and Lakewood Drive PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan and Zoning designations: R-1 (single dwellings) p:sec 13-28/hghest4t.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Highwood Land Use Plan Map 4. Proposed Prelimina~ Plat 5. Plat and Existing Topography 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Erosion Control Plan 8. Proposed Utility Plan 9. 7-11-96 letter from Roar Development (slopes) 10. 8-9-96 letter from Roar Development (street widths) 11. Neighbors Petition and Alternative 1 12. 7-3-96 letter from Sullivans 13. 6-28-96 letter from Willis 14. 6-25-96 letter from Jodi Fish 15. Street Width Code Variation Resolution 16. Plans date-stamped June 19, 1996 (separate attachment) 8 Attachment 1 16 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2 OA~ RIDGE LA. 17 1. CURR;E CT. 2. VALLEY MIeN CT. 3. LAKE'WOOD CT. HiGH~OOD CT. AVE. AVE. LER DR. CT. NE MI'I"Z CREST .:.,..,XWO0 D AV. t O~,ERLOOK CIR. CARVER LOCATION MAP L .~ Loke N Attachment 2 950 ', 942 ~ :~<~'~ -~ ~ ? ~3 .~..~.~ ~.'-'- ~~.~ , ', 9461 949~ I' .- , ~e., ~'" ~ ..... 59~ ~ov , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =..~ ~,~ . . _ ~ --- ? ~ 964. ~z~] ~ I .... 12344 ~ ~ ' ~:s~ ' '.a 'l' ' I I~ . . ,,~ ~ , . ~ t ~ / I (~/ i : ~,~ ~.q;~. ~"'1 I / ~ ; 983 ','~ .~ ' ~> I I ~ ~ = ~ 1021-'ff .... [~.~. ~ 1022~ <~/ _~ 1031 ~1032 ~ ] .... ~H,L' ~,- - ~ 1025 = :; 1092 2329 2339 ~ 1i0.~i L " 1090 i z~ ~.~__._ ' ~ 1100 ~2342.,=a J ~ ;: 1123: 1110 0 ~K 2 ~19 ~ r / ZONING MAP PROPERTY LINE PLEASANTVIEW PARK N 10 Attachment 3 LinwoO.,d HighwoodZ' ' :'-~ " major collector R-1 ~ ~ ~! OS R-1 ~- I '~ collect [ majO"~co ectofI R-I~ P '~1 I collector I R- 1 minoF'~ Carver .l=~'tO, REVISED R"-' '1"~c~ 7-20-95 11 Attachment 4 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 12 Attachment 5 AREAS OF 25% SLOPES --4 PLAT AND EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY 13 -] PROPOSED GRADING PLAN Attachment 6 L 14 -L 15 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 / I / / / ~/ / / / / / .~ PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 16 Attachment 9 Roar Development, Inc. 2795 Highway 55 E. Suite R Eagan, Minnesota 55121 July 11,1996 City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN. 55119 Re: Highwood Estates No. 4 Preliminary Plat ATTN: Honorable Mayor and City Council Our company has submitted a Preliminary plat proposal for 2 tracts of land in south Maplewood for your review and approval. These tracts, consisting of about 17 acres, are located on the south side of Highwood Avenue between McKnight Road and Lakewood Avenue and described as: Tract A: Lot 2 and the west 1/2 of Lots 5 and 6, HIGHWOOD HEIGHTS. Also pan of Lot 1 and part of the east 1/2 of Lots 5 and 6 HIGHWOOD HEIGHTS. Tract A is owned by Raymond and Mary Lee Maicla. Tract B: Lot 3, except the north 300 feet of the west 110 feet, HIGHWOOD HEIGHTS, according to the recorded plat there of. Tract B is owned by Roar Development, Inc. These tracts are shown outlined in red on the attached plan. A resent review by city staff indicates that there will be some grading in areas of the project on existing slopes that exceed 25% grade which requires city council approval. We have been working with the city planning and engineering staff to develop preliminary plans for the highest and best use of the referenced properties. Preliminary meeting with city staff on the plans submitted have generally received favorable review, recognizing that this site is difficult for development. The development consists of 27 lots ranging from 11,900 square feet to 64,745 square feet, with the average lot size of 25216 square feet. Because of the existing slopes and our best efforts to preserve as many trees as possible, all the lots exceed by more than 18% the minimum 10,000 square foot requirement. 17 As developers of Highwood Estates No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3; Roar Development had its contractors grade, construct slopes and protect existing slopes along the south side of Southcrest Avenue (a wooded and steep slope area) to provide for some of the higher value homes in this area. Many of these homes range from $250,000 to $300,000 in value. There are no errosion problems along this steep slope segment of the Highwood Estates project. The owners of the subject tracts of land respectfully request your favorable consideration and approval of the preliminary plat for Highwood Estates No.4. Respectfully Submitted, Roar bev~'lopme]3~, Inc. 'l~ay~n~ ond R. Maida ~Mary L~' Maida 18 Attachment 10 August 9, 1996 Roar Development, Inc. 2795 Highway 55 E, Suite R Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Office 405-8811 City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 Re: Highwood Estates No. 4 Preliminary Plat ATTN: Honorable Mayor and City Council Our company has submitted a preliminary plat proposal for two tracts of land in south Maplewood for your review and approval. These tracts, consisting of about 17 acres, are located on the south side of Highwood Avenue between McKnight Road and Lakewood Avenue and described as: Tract A: Lot 2 and the west 1/2 of Lots 5 and 6, HIGHWOOD HEIGHTS. Also part of Lot 1 and part of the east 1/2 of Lots 5 and 6 HIGHWOOD HEIGHTS. Tract A is owned by Raymond and Mary Lee Maida. Tract B: Lot 3, except the north 300 feet of the west 110 feet, HIGHWOOD HEIGHTS, according to the recorded plat thereof. Tract B is owned by Roar Development, Inc. These tracts are shown outlined in red on the attached plan. We were informed by City staff that reducing the roadway width from 32 feet to 28 feet requires City Council approval. Reducing the roadway width be four feet would benefit and enhance our development and the surrounding developments for the following reasons: 1. The development has 25 large lots with ample off street parking. Many lots have over 100-foot frontages. 2. Although storm water drainage is not a problem, reducing the hard surfacing would reduce the storm water drainage by 12.5%. 3. Approving our request' to reduce the roadway width would be consistent with similar requests approved in recent plats. 19 City of Maplewood August 8, 1996 Page 2 The owners of the subject tracts of land respectfully request your favorable consideration and approval of the preliminary plat with the reduction in roadway width for Highwood Estates No. 4. Respectfully Submitted, Roar Development, Inc. Raymond R. Maida Mary Lee T. Maida 2O -~f rj i 1 :,: "( [ -' {/; [ Attachment 11 Maplcwood Project: Highwood No. 4 Section: 1.3-28 The Undei'signed' resid~:nt's o~ t~e'"0ak Heights" residential development strongly oppose the development "Highwood Estates No. 4" as presented by Roar Devclopmcnt of Eagan, Minnesota. Instead we propose that thc land be developed per "Oak Heights Residents' Alternative 1" which is attached. Name Address L' Date Maplewood Project: Highwood No. 4 Section: 13-28 The Undersigned residents of the "Oak Heights" residential development strongly oppose the development "Highwood Estates. No. 4" as presented by Roar Development of Eagan, Minnesota. Instead we propose that the land be dev.,,,Cloped per "Oak Heights Residents' Alternative ~" which is attached. Na:ap/ // ..~- Address (, " " " ? ~;t.~-'-' - /nc/c.. ,5. lc~r__eott-0oJ b-z5-% r--. .,~ ~ I I ~ I I I I 23' Attachment 12 Peter and Wendy Sullivan 1022 Lakewood Drive South Maplewood, MN 55119 July 3, 1996 Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts: I am writing in response to your mailing of June 21, 1996 regarding the proposed development called Highwood Estates #4. First let me say that while I favor an individuals right to do with their property as they wish, I strongly urge the city to restrict development and purchase open spaces as much as is feasible. I am most certainly NOT in favor of any development of this land. Many visitors to this neighborhood comment on its uniqueness- newer homes, good streets, yet plenty of trees. In addition visitors and residents alike are blessed with frequent wildlife sighting. I believe the development of this land would have a negative impact on the quality of life in this neighborhood, and would likely decrease my property value. That being said, and being realistic, I believe it is imperative that the city consider the needs of a neighborhood- full of children- to have a safe street system. The alternative proposals submitted by Brain and Jeanne Sinn accomplish that and we-would favor their Alternative #1. As they mention, this proposal would increase traffic on highwood only by one house- the of the owner of the development. It is only fair that those who will profit by this development pay a price along with those of us who also are impacted. Thank you for considering the needs of this neighborhood. Sincerely, Peter and Wendy Sullivan 24 Attachment 13 Kenneth Rogers Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 June 28,1996 Dear Mr. Rogers, This letter is to voice some concems we have regarding the proposed development of property directly behind our home -- Highland Estates No. 4. We appreciate the information you have made available to us and are very interested in being a part of the planning/development process. We are extremely concerned that the proposed plan will do major damage to the old growth trees in the area, will cause future drainage problems, and will create a tremendous increase of traffic for our street -- Lakewood Drive. Each of these issues will cause a loss of property value for us and our neighbors. First, the mature red oaks in this area have been very susceptible to oak wilt and other diseases. Many in the neighborhood have already been lost due to damage of the root system caused by construction compacting. The proposed grading plan for the development will mean the loss of most of these trees in short order. As currently planned, these 'wooded' lots are not likely to be wooded for long. I'm sure you recall the drainage problems directly across Highwood Ave. from our neighborhood in recent years. Their drainage 'plan' was not sufficient to keep from damaging the houses downhill from new construction. Since the land behind us is the last natural drainage area in the neighborhood, we fear that there will be no place for all the run-off to go. (Frankly, we're glad we don1 live downhill...) Finally, the current street plan puts all access to the new development on Lakewood - in fact, sandwiching our home in between access points. Our street already is used as a thoroughfare for many other homes and speeds have become excessive -- especially when you realize almost every house on the block has small children. We are very concerned about the increased traffic that this new addition will cause without an access point to Highwood Ave. We have talked with our neighbors, Todd Eckstrom & Dawn Duerre and Brian & Jean Sinn, and support both their suggestions for changes to the current proposal. Eliminating the cul-de-sac and making deeper lots behind us would 25 decrease the need for grading, thus reducing the loss of trees and providing better drainage. In addition, a street connecting with Highwood Ave would help alleviate our concerns about increased traffic and the safety of our families. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. With everyone's cooperation, we're sure we can make this new development a beautiful addition to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Steven & Marcia Willis 1053 S. Lakewood Drive Maplewood, MN 55119 26 Attachment 14 1092LakewoodDrive. S. Maplewood, MN 55119 June 25,1996 Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner Community Development Dept. City of Maplewood 1830 E. Cty. Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Dear Mr. Roberts: I am writing in regard to the neighborhood survey re: Highwood Estates No. 4. I object to this proposal for a few reasons: First and foremost, the traffic situation on Lakewood Drive S. The proposed development currently will route more traffic on Lakewood Drive South. As a parent to two small children (ages 1 and 4), I have been continually concerned for their safety regarding Lakewood Drive South. As you may or may not be aware, Lakewood is the main thoroughfare into our neighborhood and is wider than most roads in the area. It is also somewhat straight in its design. Because of these facts, it provides continual traffic - continual traffic that most of the time exceeds the posted speed limit. I have called the city engineer regarding dais problem in the past. He promised another "Slow, Children at Play" sign to posted on the road. We have yet to see the additional sign. I have summoned the City police previously for obvious violations (in excess of 60+ mph). The police officer that I talked with explained that because of the shape of the city, they often times cannot respond to issues in South Maplewood immediately, and additionally, do not have the resources to continually patrol the area. He explained that I could get the license numbers of the cars and take them to court myself if I wanted to. Let me ask you this, Mr. Roberts, would the City of Maplewood pay for your time off to take citizens to court if they were speeding in your neighborhood? I know my employer would not. The city installed a stop sign at the intersection of Snowshoe Lane and Lakewood Drive S. last year. This has actually caused faster traffic.., by the time that a car stops at the stop sign, they more often than not have sped up and are going even faster by the time they reach my house (which is 6 houses away from the intersection). I guess it is human nature that provides one to think that the Stol>sign slowed them down therefore it is necessary to speed up in order to make up for the lost time. So, as a concerned parent, my question is - does a child have to get hurt or killed before the road gets the attention that it needs or deserves? The thought of routing more traffic on this already dangerous roadway is of grave concern to me. The proposal as drawn will probably increase the traffic on the road by approximately 90- 120 cars/day. I agreed to sign the petition that was drawn up by Brian Sinn, my neighbor at 1062 Lakewood Drive S., in regard to redesigning the plat that was submitted in the neighborhood survey. This redesign would provide entrance into this property from Highwood as well as 27 Letter from Jodi F. Fish June 25, 1996 Page 2 Lakewood Drive. This is more acceptable than the current design, however, in all actuality, I would not like to see that property developed which brings up my second point .... I object to the development of this acreage because it is one of the last open wooded spaces in South Maplewood. As a citizen that voted FOR the open land referendum a couple of years ago, one of the areas that was designated as a possible open space is THIS property. I understand and realize that there were no guarantees when we voted for the Open Land referendum, however, I would like for the Office of Community Development to assess the open acreage in South Maplewood and identifi/possible areas that will be preserved. At the time the referendum was proposed and came up for vote, the wooded areas north of Highwood (off Sterling) and north of Linwood (again, off Sterling) were also undeveloped property. These are now being developed as homesites. There is very little acreage in South Maplewood that is being preserved. Third, we were assessed in 1992 for the drain-off created by our current housing development. Will the current drainage culverts and sewers accommodate another housing project in this area? Who will be charged when they do not? The terrain on the property in question is quite steep and could very likely develop more run-off problems for our neighbors on the St~ Paul side of McKnight Road. There will be a HUGE uproar by the citizens of Maplewood in this area if additional assessments for drainage problems occur (that should not have occurred in the first place!). Finally, with all the new development in South Maplewood, and our current elementary school already at capacity, how are we going to address the issue of continual over-crowding at our schools? If this development follows suit with our existing neighborhood, 75% of the houses will have children. At 2.3 children/house, this will be approximately 47 more children introduced to the school district. In addition to the housing developments at Highwood/Sterling and Linwood/Stefling, is the school district prepared to handle this additional influx of students? I enjoy being a citizen in the South Maplewood neighborhood'in which I live ... one of the biggest drawing factors to building my home in the area was the beautiful woods that have been preserved - this is not commonplace in most suburbs anymore. I think we would be doing our community an injustice by plowing over one of the few remaining wooded sites in South Maplewood. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding the development proposal referred to as Highwood Estates No. 4. I hope that you and the Office of Community Development will not take my concerns lightly. /~x~cerely, ~- ( '"' Citizen ~outh Maplewood Attachment 15 STREET WIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Arthur Werthauser of Roar Development requested a variation from the city code. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Highwood Estates Number 4 development that is south of Highwood Avenue, west of Lakewood Ddve and east of McKnight Road. WHEREAS, the legal description for this property is: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota; described as follows; Lot 2 and the west one half of Lots 5 and 6, Highwood Heights; Part of Lot 1 and part of the east one half of Lots 5 and 6 of Highwood Heights; Lot 3, except the north 396 feet of the west 110 feet of Highwood Heights. WHEREAS, Section 29-52(a)(9) of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets shall be 32 feet in width, measured between faces of curbs. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing 28-foot-wide streets with no parking on one side. WHEREAS, this requires a variation of four feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on August 19, 1996. The planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on September ,1996. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and to present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above- described variation subject to no parking on one side of the streets and the developer paying the city for the cost of no-parking signs. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on September ~ ,1996. 29 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: DATE: City Manager James Ericson, Planning Intern Preliminary Plat Pleasantview Park Number 3 August 12, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Gonyea Corporation of Minneapolis is proposing to develop five single family house lots on a 1.97-acre site around the existing house at 1021 Crestview Drive. Two of the lots would front on Lakewood Drive and three lots would front on Crestview Drive. The name of the plat is Pleasantview Park Number 3. The city has zoned the site R1 (single family residential). See the maps on pages 6 - 8. DISCUSSION Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lots would range from 10,132 square feet to 28,178 square feet with an average lot size of 17,150 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 8.) Several neighbors thought that the lots in this plat were too small. The lots south of the site exceed 30,000 square feet while those to the north range from 10,160 square feet to 37,700 square feet. In Gonyea's Oak Heights 3rd Addition near this site, the lots range from 10,436 square feet to 12,600 square feet. Maplewood's comprehensive plan addresses residential development with 11 land use goals, 17 general development policies and 6 residential development poli6ies. Of these, one policy directly relates to this proposed development: "The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood." Lot 3 of the proposed plat does not conform to the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood for three reasons: (1) it would require the creation of an irregular "L" shaped lot, (2) the proposed setback would be inconsistent with those of the adjacent homes, and (3) the proposed square-footage, although above the minimum requirement, would be much less than the areas of the other lots on the west side of Crestview Drive. Trees Maplewood's tree ordinance does not apply to trees under eight inches in diameter or box elder, cottonwoods or poplar trees. The ordinance requires there to be 10 large trees per gross acre. As applied to this 2-acre site, the ordinance requires there be at least 20 large trees. While the applicant does not plan to grade the site and thus would not be removing any trees, the contractors would remove the trees where they build the new houses. Utility Plans The proposed lots will not cause an expansion of city services as the utilities are already in place, The developer will not be constructing any roads or public improvements to service these lots as they all will front existing streets (Lakewood Drive and Crestwood Drive.) RECOMMENDATION Approve the Pleasantview Park Number 3 preliminary plat (received by the city on July 19, 1996). This approval shall be subject to the developer completing the following before the city council approves the final plat: (1) Drop Lot 3 from the plat and combine the area with Lot 2. The city is requiring this change because: a. Lot 3 would be inconsistent with the size and shape of the adjacent lots. b. The front setback on Lot 3 would be inconsistent with those of the homes on either side. c. Lot 2 would be an irregular "L" shaped lot. (2) Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Cap and seal any wells on site. b. Remove any septic systems or drainfields. c. Remove or demolish the existing detached garage. (3) Provide all easements required by the city engineer. (4) Pay the city $70 per front foot for cash connection charges for the new lot(s) on Crestview Ddve for the existing sanitary sewer and water. For proposed Lot 1, this charge will be $5609.80 ($70 x 80.14 feet). 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. 2 CITIZENS' COMMENTS We surveyed the 47 property owners within 350 feet of this site about this proposed project. Of the 29 replies, 4 had no comment, 1 was for, 23 objected and 1 had other comments. Refer also to the 4 citizens' letters beginning on page 9. Thoee for the proposal had the following comments: 1. All other lots in area are developed with single family houses. (Maida - 2322 Highwood Avenue E.) Thoee objecting to the proposed development had the following comments: 1. The only objection I have is that if I understand the map illustrating the proposed partition correctly, the frontage on some of the lots is 80 feet as opposed to 100 foot frontage for most of the houses in the neighborhood. I would approve the partitioning of the lot if 100 foot frontage requirement were met. (Federation - 992 Crestview Drive S.) 2. We have enough homes on this street and why can't some wooded area be left alone? (Chinander- 1001 Crestview Drive S.) 3. It would increase traffic and noise in a normally quiet area. This would result in an environmental impact on loss of trees and shrubs along Crestview Drive. Depending on the type of home that would be built on Lot 1, we could lose our view of downtown St. Paul. We are now able to also see and hear fireworks at the state capital and at the state fairgrounds. Construction type trucks will add to the deterioration of Crestview Drive and its condition could approach the present condition of Highwood Drive. (Jensen - 1024 Crestview Drive S.) 4. It will devalue my land. Leave as is. (Halverson - 1025 Crestview Drive S.) 5. You are breaking up an established neighborhood with no positive benefit to the neighborhood. The lots on Crestview Drive should be disallowedt We have all established homes up here on the perception that the city would not allow the lots up here to be piecemealed to stuff additional houses into the neighborhood. The proposal will detract some of the value of the rest of the neighborhood to the benefit of one developer who lives elsewhere. (Hannula - 1049 Crestview Drive S.) 6. We object to this proposal because of the #3 lot (primary) and #1 lot (secondary) proposals. Two new homes on lots 1 and 3 would not fit in aesthetically with the mature 30 year old homes and trees of Crestview Drive. Additionally the eastern borders of approximately 80 feet each are shorter than the shortest neighboring Crestview Ddve street borders of 100 feet. The new landscape as proposed would be a mowed-down, crammed-in section of houses on Crestview Drive. We have no problem with the Lakewood sites because they would fit in with the new construction and street border size for that location. Since it is probable that the owner will object to our objections, we offer the following compromise: 1. eliminate the site 3 proposal which fit the least, 2. extend the site 1 plot to the south for a more equal size plot and street curb length, 3. the owner would then build their new garage (which I believe currently exists on site 1) on site 3. Site 3 looks like an obvious attempt to milk as much capital as possible out of a limited space. It would not only be aesthetically objectionable, but a negative on our surrounding home values. We bought our home at 1062 S. Crestview Drive with the understanding that it was a mature neighborhood with no possibility for further surprise home construction. Now we are presented with the short term chaos/noise/muddy streets of new home construction in our mature neighborhood plus the long term eye sores of at least one crammed-in out of place home--site 3. (Harrington - 1062 Crestview Drive S.) 7. Enough homes already. Part of the appeal of this area is that one does not feel crowded by homes anywhere you look-and nature still is apparent--making ones living in our area so appreciative of the flora and fauna that is growing here. It gives one a small taste of country-side living. The trees, etc., are so important to us residents here--it's part of what makes this area desirable. Please don't destroy that attribute. (Nemitz- 106cj Crestview Drive S.) 8. I object to this proposal because of increased traffic--it was told to us at the time we purchased our lot that it would stay undeveloped. Nothing would make it acceptable-- should honor his original statement. (Harding - 991 Lakewood Drive S.) 9. The size of the lots are too small. Lots 4 and 5 on Lakewood drive should be one lot. (Patnaude- 1032 Lakewood Drive S.) 10. I think it should be a park with walking and biking paths. (WeikJHughes - 1042 Lakewood Drive S.) 11. Our only concern is that the lots facing Lakewood will be very narrow and will seem jammed in there. Add only one new lot facing Lakewood. (Willis - 1053 Lakewood Dr. S.) 12. Have to stop somewhere with adding houses in the area. It is out of control. (Altman - 2443 Mamie Avenue E.) 13. I feel the lots are too small - inferior housing will be erected. The lots are not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The drainage as I see it is inadequate - I feel there will be too much run-off from these 5 lots. It would be more appropriate to have 2 or 3 (not 5) home sites. (Lauren - 2357 Mamie Avenue) 14. The first three years in our home and $5,000 to solve water problems and don't want Crestview Drive's water. Put the exit through Crestview, not Lakewood. (Reeves - 2347 Mamie Avenue. E.) 15. It would alter the "housing" look of the area. Does this allow 1025, 1049, 1059 to split their lots. The builder has only the financial benefits in mind, not the aesthetic look of the area or the impact on neighboring property. He could tear down the existing home, split the lot in two and then build. That would be consistent. VVhat purpose is served in subdividing a relatively small parcel of land this way?. (Mulgrew - 2433 Nemitz Avenue E.) 4 16. You have not shown in sufficient detail how this will impact homes along Crestview Drive. Will the existing homes be demolished and replaced? How will the new site be accessed? Will Nemitz Avenue be extended to intersect with Lakewood Drive? How will the homes be positioned on the lots? What will be the value of the homes built? (Morgan - 2434 Nemitz Avenue E.) 17. Lot 3 much smaller than other lots in our development. Lots 4 & 5 OK, not sure how rest should be done. Maybe only 2 lots to make like rest of Pleasantview Park Number 2. (Ginzl - 2441 Nemitz) Also see the letters on pages 9-12 for more comments. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.97 Acres Existing land use: Homesite for 1021 Crestview Drive SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Houses on Crestview Drive Houses on Crestview Ddve Houses across Lakewood Drive Houses across Crestview Ddve PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designations: R-1 (single family residential) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single family residential) P:\...~sec13-28~pleasvu.dny Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une / Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Plat 4. 8-6-96 letter from Pellishes 5. ~-6-96 letter from Ludeschers 6. ~-96 letter from Berthiaume 7. 8-7-96 letter from Preuss 8. Preliminary Plat (Separate Attachment) 16 HUNTINGTON CT. OAJ<RIDGE LA. 17 Attachme~T~ ¢,! 1 LER P~L~S CT, CURRt[ CT. VAt.[ DY VIEW AVE. VALLEY V]E.W CT..-- ~'wooo c~. CT. taORELAND BO~OOD AV. OVERLOOK CIR. AVE. Loke LOCATION MAP Attachment # 2 .zg~' ~.e~ HIGHWOOD A~'ENUE ' ,'.. 983 1~04 2 · 2352: ,, 1014 .'~ 2360 ' SITE ~'~ ::~ 1021 ~.] ~ 1024~ 1021 , : /lO~_2~ ! ! ,,r._ ~,?~ . 1042 ~ :~ 1049 ";2 1052 , 1053 1052 , < ~ :.o 1059 ,0 lO6; = , N L I Attachment # 3 SCALE 30 60 90 ! INCH = 30 FEET 0 - O(~O~£S I~ON UO~dd~4T BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR: ) 0· i ,,,,7.79 N 19'07" E .28.60 N 89°40'5Y' W = 0 0--' mS 8g°40'53'' E 504.6 GONYEA COMPANY, SITE PLAN N Attachment 4 August 6, 1996 Community Development Department City of Maplewood Attn: Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner 1830 E County Road B Maplewood MN 55109-2797 Dear Mr. Roberts: We are currently residents of 1059 Crestview Drive South. We have sold our existing home and will be leaving the neighborhood on August 16, 1996. We have taken the liberty of forwarding copies of this survey to the new purchasers. Having lived in this neighborhood for 24 years, we have watched the explosive growth in Maplewood with many new developments. Many of our neighbors were attracted to this area because of the large lots averaging greater than 100 feet in width on Crestview, in addition to the panoramic view of the city skyline. We have also watched other new developments coming into the area that have consistently reduced the lot sizes to meet the R1 requirements. The current Gonyea proposed plat now attempts to squeeze four additional lots into the development, plus the existing property at 1021 Crestview Drive. Adding two additional lots, one on the north and one on the south of 1021 Crestview, completely changes the character of the consistent 100-foot lots on both the east and west sides of Crestview Drive. We'understand that your ultimate decision may have to be based on whether you can legally deny the applicant the proposed plat. For your consideration, I would like to offer these options: Divide the property into only two lots, preserving the existing one on 1021 Crestview Drive, and creating a second one on Lakewood Drive that essentially would start in the southwesterly corner of lot 1021, and extend northeasterly to the intersection of the southwest corner of the property at 1011 Crestview Drive· Create two additional lots, one fronting on Lakewood Drive and the other created on the northerly side of the existing property at 1021 Crestview Drive. I have tried to demonstrate both of these options on the enclosed plats. The proposed lot 3 of the new Gonyea plat to me is totally unacceptable because it creates, along with the other lots, three 80-foot fronting lots approximately on Crestview Drive which, in my opinion, impacts the total character of the neighborhood and all of the existing lots. Joe and Millie Pellish 9 Attachment 5 Kenneth Roberts City of Maplewood Office of Community Development Aug 6, 1996 Dear Mr. Roberts; My wife and I have reviewed, with many neighbors, the Pleasantview Park Number 3 application of Gonyea Company that the City sent. There were no positive responses from any neighbor, and none feels this proposal is acceptable. Our main concern is that the proposal is out of character for the neighborhood. Houses on Crestview Drive have 100 foot or greater frontages, and the lot sizes of the proposal would be visibly "different". Mr. Nemitz, the man who sold his property for this subdivision, had a vision of roomy suburban lots. How ironic that he retained the largest lot (1021 CresWiew Drive) for himself, and now Gonyea proposes to divide it into lots so small a rambler will barely fit. We are womed that small lots and small houses will devalue our homes. We believe that the small lots might encourage multi-story houses to be built among our ramblers. We moved here to get away from what is now being proposed next door. I would purchase 1021 Crestview Drive to prevent this from happening! This may be a small development, but it's clear that five houses isn't the right number here. If you can't see this from the site plan's unusual shaped lots, please drive through our neighborhood. Thank you for inquiring about our opinions. We would certainly appreciate you giving us notice as soon as possible regarding any public hearing on this application. Best Regards, Greg & Laura Ludescher 1011 S Crestview Drive l0 Attachment 6 August 6, 1996 Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Attn: Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner RE: Neighborhood Survey - Plat - Pleasantview Park Number 3 I do not feel the application for a preliminary plat to create 5 single-family homes on a 1.97 acre site around the existing house at 1021 Crestview Drive should be considered. The property should not be developed. There is not enough land on either side of the existing dwelling for homes. From your map, lots along Crestview Drive are a minimum of 100 feet. If the lots you propose are less than 100 feet, I feel it will crowd the existing homes and detract from the area. Also, the trees and shrubs in that area have been there for many years and destroying them will only detract from the wooded appearance it gives the neighborhood. I would like to be informed of any public hearings on this proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol V. Berthiaume, Resident 1004 South Crestview Drive Maplewood, MN 55119 August 7, 1996 Attachment 7 Mr. Kenneth Roberts--Associate Planner Community Development Department 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Re: Neighborhood Survey Pleasantview Park Number 2 AUG 81996 ~ ,, Dear Mr. Roberts, We strongly object to this proposal. We were one of the early builders in this area back in 1967. We purchased our lot fi.om Mr. Nemitz who originally owned the home and lot that the Developer, Gonyea, wants to subdivide. We were told that the lots as plotted would never be changed. All lots along Crestview Drive to the West were intentionally large lots. Nearly all the original Pleasant~ew Park Number 2 lots have 100 feet fi.ontage, and along Crestview Drive, many lots are much larger in area. The present home and garage that exist on this properly are centrally located on the lot. This home could be up- dated on the current lot, it would be a prime location and very nice. Decreasing the value of our home by crowding in additional homes that are not in aliglunent and will look horrible is not acceptable to us and our neighbors. We understand that the vacated street to the west of the property was added to all lots to the east. The Developer, Gonyea, is trying to jam in 4 houses at our expense and make a quick buck and thereby, lessen the value of the our existing homes and beauty of our neighborhood. Both of the proposed sites on Crestview Drive are ridiculous,as to location. If the Developer, Gonyea, were to tear down both the existing house and garage and create two decent size lots with setbacks that coincide with current structures it would be more acceptable, if an alternative is really needed. As to the two very small lots being created along Lakewood, we also find that objectionable. One lot and house would be maximum. The vacated street and former lot lines as originally plotted should not be allowed to change. c~cerely, __ /D ~~.s~'~Delroy W Preuss ~'o t,.~,~~ Karen B Preuss l~aplewood residents, taxpayers and homeowners at 1052 So Crestview Drive since 1967. 12