Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/20041. Call to Order 2. Roll Call MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 2, 2004, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. January20, 2004 5. Public Headngs a. Hillcrest Area (Larpenteur and White Bear Avenues) 1. Land Use Plan Map Changes (BC and R-1 to Mixed Use (MU)) 2. Zoning Map Changes (BC and R-1 to Mixed Use (MU)) 6. New Business a. Woodhill Subdivision (Linwood Avenue) 1. Planned Unit Development 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Zoning Map Change (F to R-l) Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9, Commission Presentations a. January 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Bartol b. February 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai c. February 23 Council Meeting: Ms. Diedch 10. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule the February 16 PC Meeting - Presidents Day Holiday 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. IV. Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Present Jeff Bartol Present Tushar Desai Present Mary Dierich Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Project Manager Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Chuck Vermeersch, Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Ekstrand said Chairperson Fischer requested an update on Legacy Village so he will give a brief update under number 10. Staff Presentations. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda with the addition. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Abstention - Mueller V. PUBLIC HEARING None. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for January 5, 2004. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for January 5, 2004. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Pearson, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of,01-20-04 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Legacy Village Ponds, Trails and Amenities Plan (Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) Mr. Ekstrand introduced Mr. Bruce Anderson, Parks & Recreation Director for Maplewood, for the presentation on Legacy Village. Mr. Anderson said Legacy Village is an 80-acre planned unit development project located west of Maplewood Mall between County Road D and Beam Avenue. This is a significant development project and includes residential, both rental and owner occupied, corporate center, senior citizen complex, restaurant, and commercial properties. As part of the planned unit 'development process, the city received a 10-acre site with the primary purpose of storm water holding ponds to serve the development. In addition, the city would be receiving between $1.3-$1.6 million in park dedication fees. Mr. Anderson said the Hajicek family planted some beautiful pine trees many years ago. In order to preserve some of those pine trees the plan has been converted from one large ponding area into three smaller ponding areas. Mr. Anderson said through a series of elevation changes and culverts the city would be able to preserve some of the highland areas and pine trees to create a trail system on the 10-acre site. Mr. Anderson said the concept they are trying to preserve is to develop a passive park with a sculpture park theme. He said the proposed park would have arbors, a walking path, and sculptures. Mr. Anderson said the city received its first commitment from the restaurant Noodles Inc. to purchase the first sculpture for this proposed park. He said the city feels this park proposal would work very well with the proposed senior center to be built nearby. Mr. Anderson said at one time the concept was to build an active water park with fountains but the location would have been right underneath the power lines and the crackling was not conducive for a water park. Mr. Anderson said the city believes this park would have great potential with the intense building that will take place and the proximity to the Maplewood Mall, as well as for the public/private partnership. Commissioner Dierich said she thought this was a great plan. She asked if this plan would take the place of the water park, which would have been underneath the power lines? Mr. Anderson said the developers have each agreed to pay into a playground equipment fund to construct a large playground structure. Rather than building small tot lots they have agreed to build one large playground structure that would cost between $150,000 and $175,000. He said there would be a tunnel underneath Kennard Street so the playground sight would be accessible by using the trail. The other half of the site would be set-aside as an open space to be maintained by the developer. Commissioner Dierich asked what class the original wetlands were? Mr. Ekstrand answered the wetlands are a class 2, which is a 100 foot buffer and can go down to 50 feet. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city was okay with the city's ordinances building a boardwalk over the wetlands? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, there are exceptions to the wetland ordinance that permit that. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -3- Commissioner Trippler asked what the elevation relief would be? Commissioner Trippler's concern was with the senior center being so close to this proposed park that the seniors have difficulty accessing the park. Mr. Anderson said it's a relatively flat site but he believed the elevation difference between the lowest and the highest point would be four feet. Commissioner Trippler said the proposed park is estimated to cost about $500,000, he asked Mr. Anderson what the plans were for the remaining $1 million in park dedication money? Mr. Anderson said the Parks Commission has many ideas of what to do with the money. Joy Park is one park that needs to be improved. Commissioner Trippler asked if the developers of the Legacy Village have a problem with the city spending the park dedication money somewhere other than at Legacy Village? Mr. Anderson said the developers have no input into the process it is strictly a decision by the city council where the park dedication money is spent. Commissioner Desai asked if the other areas or parcels will be developed at the same time that the park is developed? Mr. Anderson said Mr. Ekstrand can discuss that issue further but his understanding was that the other parcels are going to be restaurants. Mr. Ekstrand said there are no approved or conceptual plans other than the fact that it had been approved in the planned unit development for retail and restaurant. Those sites are to be developed through the Community Design Review Board process. The city would make sure proper linking takes place where appropriate to this trail network and that proper space is required for parking. Commissioner Mueller said regarding the proposed sculpture park, art is in the eye of the beholder, he asked who would determine what art would go into this park? Mr. Anderson agreed that issue would come up at some point. He said if this park prOposal gets approved the city would probably have to establish an arts committee to determine what would be appropriate for the park. However, ultimately the city council would make the final decision. Mr. Anderson pointed to the small pre-cast bronze statue. He said the statue comes from a new firm that does bronze casting and more of the sculptures may come from that company. The issue of who would maintain the sculptures when things like corrosion and graffiti happen would have to be determined. Commissioner Trippler said personally he liked the material and concept. What he doesn't like is when the commission looked at the Legacy Village as a whole they saw recreational facilities to be provided and now he hears that is not g°ing to happen which he thinks is unfortunate. He said he would rather see the whole package at one time rather than seeing one development at a time. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -4- Mr. Anderson said because of the power lines they found that a water park was not conducive in that location. Commissioner Pearson said he liked the concept of this park proposal especially with the vicinity to the senior housing. He asked if this park would be accessible to the seniors or handicapped persons? Mr. Anderson said this park would be 100% handicapped accessible. Mr. Bartol said he feels at a loss since he is new to this process and to the Legacy Village discussion. He said he agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Trippler that it is difficult to evaluate this as an individual without looking at the overall plan. What he sees he really likes as long as there are more active areas and not just the passive park. Mr. Anderson thanked the planning commissioner's for their comments and input into this process. b. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Planning Process Mr. Ekstrand said the Gladstone area is an aging neighborhood considered by many long-time residents to be the core of the city. This neighborhood contains businesses that have generally not invested in large-scale property improvements. As a result, the commercial properties have a tired appearance with a disjointed array of businesses in need of revitalization. Surrounding the commercial properties is a strong residential neighborhood as well as recreational amenities like the Gateway and Vento Trails that bisect the area. Also in this neighborhood is the city-owned open space at the southwest corner of Frost Avenue and English Street. Mr. Ekstrand said staff has contracted with Rick McLaughlin, of Architecture and Town Planning, to evaluate and create a design plan for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. The following meetings have been scheduled re(larding the Gladstone Neiqhborhood Redevelopment Planning Process. Wednesday, February 11, 2004: There will be a joint session with advisory boards and city council. The first week in March 2004: There will be two evening informational sessions with the neighborhood for business owners and residents. Monday, March 29, 2004: council. There will be a presentation/update to advisory boards and city Monday, May 10, 2004: There will be a final presentation on the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Planning Process given to the city council. Commissioner Dierich asked why the open space would be more valuable? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -5- Mr. Ekstrand said on page 3 of the staff report, in the second paragraph, the statements made regarding open space were made before the city contracted Mr. McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin said there is potential for the open space but he wants to discuss it. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ekstrand if he could give a ballpark figure how much per acre it costs to redevelopment verses raw land? Mr. Ekstrand said no he couldn't give a ballpark figure. He said if there are viable businesses there and rental properties where people make a living from the renters living there the land is more expensive verses raw land or open space. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ekstrand if he foresees the city doing any condemnation of property because the property no longer looks good? Mr. Ekstrand said that had not been discussed but he doesn't believe so. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the idea of redeveloping Gladstone because it needs renovation. He wondered if it was such a good idea for the city to be involved with redevelopment. It's good as long as people are willing to participate in redevelopment but what would happen if a quarter or half of the residents are not interested in selling or being a part of the redevelopment? Is the city going to start condemning property to make sure the redevelopment continues? He asked how proactive or reactive the city would be? Mr. Ekstrand said that is something the city has to determine and that decision is up to the city council. He doesn't think the city's attitude is to go and condemn property. There are many factors to consider such as the condition of the buildings or homes that play into this redevelopment. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned that the city will invest money into the streets, sidewalks, curbs, etc. but what if the commercial properties and residents don't want redevelopment and the city has already invested time and money? Mr. Ekstrand said the street and sidewalk projects are a starting point and time will tell what will happen with the redevelopment of this area. More will be known at the upcoming meetings with the business owners and residents. Commissioner Mueller said if the city doesn't do anything the area will keep deteriorating. Any type of redevelopment is a long-term process. These are small steps but to do absolutely nothing would be the wrong decision in his opinion. He asked staff how the process would work with the sale of the mobile home park? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has to go through the state law requirements. Whether or not the city purchases the property there will be relocation costs and finding new places for people to live. It will be a very lengthy process. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the city thought this area would be paid for by a citywide payment, area assessment, individual assessment or a mixture of the above? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -6- Mr. Ekstrand said that is a very good question, and these are the types of questions the city needs to get answers to. Hopefully these types of issues will come up in discussion at the future meetings for the city to follow up on. Commissioner Dierich asked how much curbing will the city be installing and how would that affect the redevelopment of this area so there isn't a need to make more curb cuts? Mr. Ekstrand said the city would look at street improvements. He is aware that various neighborhood streets have been redone in the past. He isn't sure of the schedule for street reconstruction that is handled through the Public Works Department. The city may want to reconsider the schedule for street reconstruction if there would be drastic changes proposed for the redevelopment of the Gladstone area. Commissioner Dierich said she appreciated the opportunity to review this plan early in the process and she is certain the people in the neighborhood appreciate it as well. Commissioner Pearson said the streetscape improvements wouldn't require purchasing of property, most of the improvements would occur in city easements and right-of ways. Mr. Ekstrand agreed. Chairperson Fischer asked if this was discussion was open to the public or should the public wait until the upcoming scheduled meetings? Mr. Ekstrand said that was up to the planning commissioners. The planning commission agreed it would be okay for residents to voice their concerns. Mr. Robert Overby, a Maplewood resident and the Chair of the Historical Preservation Commission, addressed the planning commission. In November there was a public meeting regarding Gladstone where several questions were discussed. The Historical Commission held a special meeting in December to discuss those questions and as a result sent a three-page copy of those questions to Melinda Coleman. (Mr. Overby gave a copy of the three-page report to Tom Ekstrand during the meeting to provide to the planning commissioners.) Mr. Overby said the reason he mentioned the report was because the staff comments and market study didn't mention anything about the historical significance. Which buildings should be saved in their present form and/or which buildings should be restored? The Historical Commission isn't against redevelopment in the Gladstone area. However, because Gladstone was the original village of the township prior to downtown Maplewood the historical significance is important. The Historical Preservation Commission hasn't been included in the discussions regarding the Gladstone area redevelopment so they are trying to catch up in the process. The Historical Commission just wants to be kept in the loop of any discussions or meetings. Mr. Overby said they have requested a copy of the Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance from city staff for discussion. Their concern is that it may not be appropriate to treat the Gladstone Area the same way you treat the Hillcrest Area. Frost Avenue and English Street are not major arterials like White Bear Avenue is. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -7- Mr. Ekstrand said city staff would make sure the Historical Commission is kept in the loop of upcoming meetings. Commissioner Bartol asked if he could get a copy of that report that was given to Melinda Coleman? Chairperson Fischer mentioned to staff it would be a good idea to get a copy of the report for all of the planning commissioners? Mr. Ekstrand said staff would make sure the commissioners receive a copy of the report. c. Ohlson Landscaping (1949 Atlantic Street) Ms. Finwall said Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques (Ohlson) and Thor and Jenny Oehrlein are proposing to subdivide 1949 Atlantic Street into two parcels. This property is located north of Frost Avenue and south of the Gateway Trail, within the Gladstone neighborhood. The Oehrleins will retain Parcel A for the storage of equipment associated with their property maintenance business, Outdoor Property Maintenance. The Ohlsons will retain Parcel B for the development of a 3,264-square-foot metal building for their landscaping business, Ohlson Property Maintenance and Landscapes. Commissioner Dierich wanted to thank staff for the wonderful job that was done on this report. Commissioner Dierich said the report was very thorough and complete and one of the best reports she has seen in a long time. She is concerned about the landscape bins. Her concern is if the drainage pond is right behind the bins will the bins drain into the area and plug it up? Mr. Chuck Vermeersch, Engineer for Maplewood said regarding the landscape bins, the grading of the parking lot is such that the drainage is directed to the northeast corner of the lot where there is a structure. The city hopes the drainage is going to be directed by the bins and the structure at the northeast corner. Hopefully it will be like a sub catch basin to remove some of the sediment before it enters the pond. He said that is one of the reasons the applicant is required to pave the lot in order to keep the fines out of the water garden. Commissioner Dierich said walking along the Gateway Trail she noticed that area is pretty sparse of trees. She asked if the city could put an additional condition on to add some additional landscaping outside the fence or is that something the city wouldn't allow? Ms. Finwall said the Oehrleins are proposing to construct a fence up to their property line, which was requested by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources when they reviewed this proposal last year. She said the city could condition additional landscaping as long as they pulled their fence closer onto their property. Commissioner Dierich said she would like to see the additional landscaping done because there isn't much vegetation behind that area. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city were to allow this permanent structure would the CUP allow the business to go with the land? Ms. Finwall said the CUP goes with the land. She said if another business similar to the ©hlson's or the ©ehrleins were to purchase the land they could operate their business there as long as the business followed the same conditions. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 01-20-04 Commissioner Dierich said in her opinion there were a lot of questions in this application and she would like to have this application tabled. There are questions that were raised from the various departments that the applicant has not provided plans for. Based on what the commission knows so far she thinks it would be difficult to comfortably approve this. Commissioner Mueller asked staff why a CUP is needed for a metal building? Ms. Finwall said the metal building is not a high quality building material and therefore, is allowed in the business commercial area with a CUP with several conditions. However, it would be allowed as a permitted use in a light manufacturing zoning district. Commissioner Mueller asked if it had to do with aesthetics? Ms. Finwall said yes. Commissioner Mueller said there are things in the report that make him hesitant to approve this. The south side of the property needs some work. Regarding the north side of the property, the applicants are storing a lot of things on the property. He asked what surface they are storing those items on? Ms. Finwall said it's a gravel surface. Commissioner Mueller asked if the reason staff did not require the area to be paved was because it was not going to be used for anything other than storage whereas the other area would be driven on? Ms. Finwall said staff is hoping this is a temporary situation and doesn't foresee the need for paving. Secondly, the city allowed Quality Restoration to operate under similar circumstances and were not required to pave the lot for storage of vehicles on the exterior. Commissioner Trippler said he is familiar with this area because it is in his neighborhood. He called and spoke with Ms. Finwall and Chris Cavett regarding several issues that appeared in the report and he feels comfortable that the issues are covered in the recommendations on page 6 of the staff report. The concerns raised by engineering have been covered in the recommendations that the applicant would have to follow. When you get on the Gateway Trail starting on English Street and you walk to the west, there is no fencing by the some of the businesses. Commissioner Trippler said the bowling alley has a wire fence that looks terrible and where the applicant is there are junk cars, which also looks terrible. He said the only thing that keeps people out of the area are some German Shepard dogs that guard the area. Commissioner Trippler believes the six-foot high fence will look fine for the range of five years or so. If it gets run down the city can require the applicant to fix the fence. He felt the applicant had provided the city with ample information and therefore, there is no need to table this item. He asked staff if there would be enough time to table this item with the 60 day rule? Ms. Finwall said unless both applicant's agreed to a time extension the city would have to continue with the process because of the 60-day rule. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -9- Commissioner Mueller asked if the applicants had agreed to the conditions outlined in the staff report? Ms. Finwall said the applicants looked at the conditions but she believed they had some concerns to bring up this evening. Commissioner Mueller said he had nothing against fences but if he had a choice between looking at a line of spruce trees or a cedar fence, he would choose the spruce trees. Commissioner Pearson said because of the nature of this operation the applicant would need a fence to protect their property and in this case spruce trees would not help protect their property. Screening of the fence would be appropriate but not in place of the fence. He said the staff did a nice job of writing this report and indicating the appropriate conditions. He said he sees no need to table this proposal. Commissioner Desai said he seconds Commissioner Pearson's comments. He said because of the equipment that would be stored on the property a fence is crucial. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Stephanie Jacques Ohlson, representing Ohlson Property Maintenance and Landscapes at 1949 Atlantic Street, residing at 1706 Barclay Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said she thought they were getting approval for an "amended" CUP. She said they did have a falling out with the previous partners and they decided to go their own direction, which they respect. Through this process they have been working with Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett and have worked through all the complications. She believed all of the information had been given to the city and she sees no reason to table this. Ms. Ohlson said they have scaled down the building with the understanding that the Gladstone area would be redeveloped and they would be moving to another location in five or ten years. They only want to use the land they have been waiting to build on for the past several years. She said this project would have been up and running a while ago but then the delay happened with the falling out with their partner. She said they have regrouped and they are ready to move forward. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if they are comfortable with the conditions listed in the staff report? Ms. Jacques Ohlson said yes. Commissioner Mueller said the reason the question is asked is the planning commission has no way of knowing what the applicants have agreed to, therefore, the question has to be asked. Commissioner Bartol said he thinks confusion lies on page 23 of the staff report in the engineering plan review. He said it stated at least 2 things have not been done to satisfy the engineering department. He asked if anybody could respond to that? Mr. Vermeersch said the engineering department has been in communication with the applicant and these are the conditions for this proposal to move forward. He said when the next run comes through they will be checking to make sure the conditions are met. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -10- Commissioner Bartol asked if that meant that all ten conditions would have to be met before the applicant could move forward? Mr. Vermeersch said correct. Chairperson Fischer asked the other applicant to come forward and address the commission. Mr. Thor Oehrlein, representing Outdoor Property Maintenance, residing at 1650 Payne Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the commission. He said the reason they want to build a wood fence on the property is because there is a junkyard behind their property and the fence would cover the junk and maintain security of their property. He said the previous owner dumped all kinds of stuff on the property and he and his former partner cleaned up the area, hauled it out and because of that the natural growth is gone. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the lot division request to subdivide the property at 1949 Atlantic Street into two lots. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Provide a certified land survey showing the existing and proposed property lines and proposed building and parking lot. b. Deeds describing the two new legal descriptions, which must be stamped by the city. Ramsey County requires the city acknowledgment of approval to record the deeds. City code requires that the deeds be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of lot division approval (February 9, 2005) or the lot division becomes null and void. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on pages 26 and 27 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Thor and Jenny Oehrlein for exterior storage within the Business Commercial (BC) zoning district in order to store lawn care maintenance vehicles on Parcel A (north parcel) at 1949 Atlantic Street. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Exterior storage is limited to vehicles associated with a property maintenance business. All vehicles must be licensed and operable. No landscape material can be stored on the property, including but not limited to, lawn clippings, landscape rock, etc. b. A 6-foot-high, solid wood, screening fence must be installed and maintained on the north property line. c. There shall be no noise-making business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by city code. d. The city council must approve a revision to this permit if the owner wants to put a permanent building on the site. e. The city council shall review this permi't in one year. f. This permit ends on February 9, 2009. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -11- Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on pages 28 and 29 of the staff report. This resolution approves Erik ©hlson's and Stephanie Jacques Ohlson's request for a conditional use permit to cOnstruct a 3,264-square-foot metal building within the Business Commercial (BC) zoning district On Parcel B (south parcel) at 1949 Atlantic Street. This approval is subject to the following conditions: a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. b. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall become null and void. c. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on pages 30 and 31 of the staff report. This resolution approves Erik Ohlson's and Stephanie Jacques Ohlson's request for a conditional use permit for exterior storage on Parcel B (south parcel) at 1949 Atlantic Street with the following conditions: Exterior storage is limited to four landscape bins (8 feet wide x 8 feet deep x 6 feet high in size). The bins shall be constructed of treated lumber that is brown in color. Storage within the bins is limited to landscape goods or materials such as rock, mulch, sand, woodchips, etc. b. The four landscape bins must be placed on the southeast side of the lot and must be screened from Atlantic Street with landscaping. There shall be no noise-making business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by code. d. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Nay- Dierich The motion passed. This item goes to the CDRB January 27, 2004, and to city council on February 9, 2004. Commissioner Mueller commented that he believes anytime the city can improve the Gateway Trail with plantings the city should take advantage of it. Commissioner Trippler said he knows the right of way on either side of the Gateway Trail is owned by the DNR. Right after the DNR paved the trail they made an attempt to plant some pine trees on both sides of the trail but 80% of the trees died from lack of watering. He thinks if someone wanted to plant trees along the Gateway Trail they could call the DNR up to see what the restrictions were. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -12- Commissioner Mueller said his point was that the view from the Gateway Trail to the business property could be improved by planting trees. d. Resolutions of Appreciation - Mr. Rossbach and Ms. Monahan-Junek Mr. Ekstrand said with the elections of William Rossbach and Jackie Monahan-Junek to the city council and their resignations from the planning commission, attached are the resolutions of appreciation for the two of them. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the attached resolutions of appreciation for Will Rossbach and Jackie Monahan-Junek. Commissioner Dierich seconded. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on February 9, 2004. e. Election of Officers Ms. Finwall said the planning commission's rules of procedure say that the commission will elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second meeting of each year. The current Chairperson is Lorraine Fischer and the most recent Vice-Chairperson was Will Rossbach. After taking a vote Lorraine Fischer was nominated as Chairperson and Gary Pearson and Tushar Desai were nominated for Vice-Chair. However, Gary Pearson respectively withdrew his name from the voting process so Tusar Desai was the nominee for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend Lorraine Fischer as the Chairperson and Tushar Desai as the Vice-Chairperson to the city council to serve through January 2005. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. There were no planning commissioners needed at the January 12, 2004 city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-20-04 -13- b. Mr. Bartol will be the planning commission representative at the January 26, 2004. Items to disCuss include the Planning Commission's 2003 Annual Report, the Mixed-Use Zoning Change, and the Vacation of 2416 Teakwood Drive c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the February 9, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the CUP's for ©hlson Landscaping and the resolutions of appreciation of Mr. Rossbach and Ms. Monahan-Junek. d. Possible Planning Commission Interview Questions Mr. Ekstrand said Lorraine Fischer submitted a list of possible interview questions for vacancies on the planning commission. The application form and list are in the staff report that gets filled out by prospective commission members. Chairperson Fischer asked for any suggestions from planning commissioners. Some of the suggestions were: 1. Do you have any difficulty reading blue prints or maps? 2. Do not ask questions that only require yes or no answers. 3. Are you comfortable being in the eye of the camera? 4. Define the process better by defining the role between the city staff and city council. Let the applicants know there is a plethora of information available from city staff and they are available to answer questions and for telephone calls. Let the applicants know they should be at ease approving or disapproving items as a new commissioner, everyone respects your decision and the vote made by commissioners is only a recommendation and the city council makes the final decision. 5. Do you have any special interests or causes to bring to the commission? 6. Explain that this commission is an advisory commission. People have all different levels of experience as citizens or residents of the City of Maplewood. You don't have to have any special experience to serve on this commission. 7. Are you comfortable expressing opposition to decisions? 8. Candidates should be encouraged to watch several meetings on cable so they better have an understanding of what happens during a meeting before serving on a commission. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Update on Legacy Village Mr. Ekstrand gave a brief update on what is happening with Legacy Village to the planning commissioners. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Mixed-Use Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Map Changes City of Maplewood Hillcrest Area January 27, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description The City of Maplewood is proposing to change the comprehensive land use and zoning map for the Hillcrest area. These changes would be from business commercial (BC), single-dwelling residential (R-l), and church (C) to the newly adopted mixed-use (M-U) land use designation and zoning district. The comprehensive land use and zoning map changes are intended to promote the redevelopment of the Hillcrest area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian- oriented commercial and residential land uses. Refer to the land use and zoning maps attached on pages 7 through 9. Request Maplewood city staff is requesting that the city council approve a comprehensive land use and zoning map change for the Hillcrest area. These changes would be from business commercial (BC), single-dwelling residential (R-l), and church (C) to the newly adopted mixed-use (M-U) land use and zoning district designation. State law requires comprehensive land use map changes to be passed by a two-thirds city council vote (4 votes). DISCUSSION Background 2003: City staff, planning commission, and the community design review board drafted the mixed-use zoning district. This new zoning district is based on the Metropolitan Council's smart- growth concepts and will allow for a mixture of land uses, made mutually compatible through land use controls and high-quality design standards. On January 26, 2004, the city council approved the first reading of the mixed-use (M-U) zoning district and comprehensive land use changes. Comprehensive Land Use Map Change The purpose of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan is to help the public and private sector in planning for future physical, social and economic development within the city, while considering surrounding cities and the region. The city's implementation of the mixed-use land use designation in the Hillcrest area is consistent with regional policies and will help manage projected population growth in the metropolitan area by fostering more residential and employment opportunities. Zoning Change One purpose of the Maplewood Zoning Code is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city by encouraging the most appropriate use of land. The Metropolitan Council and the cities of Maplewood and St. Paul created the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to implement smart-growth principals within the Hillcrest area. The goal of the plan was to help guide changes within the area in order to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, recreation and civic uses. The city's implementation of the mixed-use zoning district will encourage the most appropriate use of the land based on smart-growth principals. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the comprehensive map change resolution on pages 10 and 11. This resolution changes the land use designations in the Hillcrest area from business commercial (BC), single-dwelling residential (R-l), and church (C) to mixed-use (M-U). The comprehensive map change includes properties located north of Larpenteur Avenue and south of Ripley Avenue, along White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street as follows: Properties 295 feet west of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to the north property line of 1829 White Bear Avenue; all properties east of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue; all properties east and west of Van Dyke Street from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue, including 1847, 1887, and 1899 Larpenteur Avenue. The comprehensive map change is based on eight specific comprehensive plan land use and housing goals and four land use policies as follows: Goals: Provide for orderly development. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. Minimize the land planned for streets. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Provide a wide variety of housing types. Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. Plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. Polices: Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents. Disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines. Support innovative subdivision and housing design. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Hillcrest Rezoning/Comp Plan Chaoge 2 January 27, 2004 Adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 12. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Hillcrest area in the City of Maplewood from business commercial (BC) and single-dwelling residential (R-l) to mixed-use (M-U). The zoning map change includes properties located north of Larpenteur Avenue and south of Ripley Avenue, along White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street as follows: Properties 295 feet west of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to the north property line of 1829 White Bear Avenue; all properties east of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue; all properties east and west of Van Dyke Street from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue, including 1847, 1887, 'and 1899 Larpenteur Avenue. The city is making this change because: ao The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Hillcrest Rezoning/Comp Plan Change 3 January 27, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS On November 17, 2003, city staff submitted the mixed-use zoning district to all affected property owners within the Hillcrest area. Of the 47 mailings sent, staff has received six responses back as follows: Dr. Steven Hallstrom, Minnhealth Family Physicians, PA, 1814 No. St. Paul Road, Maplewood, MN 55109: The Hillcrest area is very much in need of a major redevelopment. The area looks very run down and poorly kept up. We struggle with our business neighbor, Performance Transmission, in the failure to meet Maplewood city ordinances in terms of storage of materials outside the physical building. We need a fresh redevelopment in order to attract businesses and residential properties. Raleigh P. Nelson, 1 Hill Farm Ct., North Oaks, MN 55129: My business associates and myself have a very poor opinion of the City of Maplewood. In the year 2000, we closed our Burger King Restaurant at 1706 White Bear Avenue. We sold the property to VValgreen's and received an earnest money contract. Walgreen's representative and our attorneys and the architect made many changes on the building and property design to comply with the City of Maplewood's requests. After three council meetings we were defeated. This cost us considerable money and Walgreen's over $30,000. Now since plan changes have been made, there is a new Walgreen's on the corner of White Bear Avenue and Larpenteur. This increases the tax base for St. Paul (it is in St. Paul) and reduces the tax base for Maplewood. I do not believe that the City of Maplewood is business oriented. Sue Q. AIIhiser, 1799 White Bear Avenue N., Maplewood, MN 55109: The proposed rezoning map shows the area up to Hejny Rental. The map we looked at in the meeting did not show the homes on White Bear being affected, only a few at the corner of White Bear and Larpenteur. A lot of good can come from the redevelopment however. Being respectful of the neighborhood, its homes, and type of people here is crucial. For example, no one living in this area now is going to buy a $300,000 condo. Craig Nelson, 1783 White Bear Avenue N., Maplewood, MN 55109: During a telephone conversation with Mr. Nelson, he expressed concern over possible tax increases with a zoning change to his property. He inquired about whose responsibility it would be to remove snow from future sidewalks. He also indicated that he thought the existing angle of North St. Paul Road acts as a traffic-slowing feature and questioned plans for realignment. John Mirsch, 1769 White Bear Avenue N., Maplewood, MN 55109: During a telephone conversation with Mr. Mirsch, he questioned whether the City of Maplewood was looking to purchase his property. Samuel S. VanTassel, Senior Real Estate Representative, Marathon Ashland Petroleum (representing Sul;)er America): Marathon Ashland is opposed to any new regulation that would make the Super America station/store a non-conforming use. Hillcrest Rezoning/Comp Plan Change 4 January 27, 2004 SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: REFERENCE INFORMATION 41 Acres Commercial and Single-Family Houses SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Ramsey County Campus (Zoned F) Larpenteur Avenue and the Hillcrest Shopping Center in the City of St. Paul Single-Family Houses on Hazel Street and Larpenteur Avenue (Zoned R-l) Single-Family Houses on Flandrau Street (Zoned R-l) PLANNING Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Business Commercial and Single-Dwelling Residential Business Commercial, Single-Dwelling Residential and Church CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Land Use Plan Amendment: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Eight specific land use and housing goals apply to this proposal: Provide for orderly development. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. Minimize the land planned for streets. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Provide a wide variety of housing types. Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. Plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. In addition, four specific land use policies apply to this proposal: Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents. Disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines. Support innovative subdivision and housing design. Protect neighborhoods from' activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Rezoning: Section 44-165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. Hillcrest Rezoning/Comp Plan Change 5 January 27, 2004 The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. P:com-dev\hillcrest~hillcrest rezoning memorandum Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Hillcrest Area Existing Comprehensive Land Use Map Hillcrest Area Existing Zoning Map Hillcrest Area Proposed Mixed-Use Map Comprehensive Land Use Map Change Resolution Zoning Map Change Resolution Hillcrest Rezoning/Comp Plan Change 6 January 27, 2004 Attachment 1 Larpenteur Avenue Government Business Commercial Single Dwelling Residential Church ~ Hillcrest Ar.ea Existing W~~s Comprehensive Land Use 7 Attachment 2 / Larpenteur Avenue Farm Residence Business Commercial Single Dwelling Residential 8 H illcrest Area Existing Zoning Attachment 3 [] 1815 . ' : St. Paul 'Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Areas Hillcrest.Area Proposed M~xed-Use Attachment 4 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has requested a change to the city's land use plan from business commercial (BC), single-dwelling residential (R-l), and church (C) to mixed-use (M-U) for the Hillcrest area. WHEREAS, this change applies to the Hillcrest area in the City of Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the boundaries of this property are located north of Larpenteur Avenue and south of Ripley Avenue, along White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street as follows: Properties 295 feet west of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to the north property line of 1829 White Bear Avenue; all properties east of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue; all properties east and west of Van Dyke Street from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue, including 1847, 1887, and 1899 Larpenteur Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 2, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public headng whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the land use plan change. On February 23, 2004, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described land use plan change for the following reasons: The land use plan change is based on eight specific Maplewood comprehensive plan land use and housing goals as follows: Provide for orderly development. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. Minimize the land planned for streets. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Provide a wide vadety of housing types. Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. Plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. 10 The land use plan change is based on four specific Maplewood comprehensive plan land use policies as follows: ao Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents. Disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines. Support innovative subdivision and housing design. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 11 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 5 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has requested a change to the city's zoning map from business commercial (BC) and single-dwelling residential (R-l) to mixed-use (M-U). WHEREAS, this change applies to the Hillcrest area in the City of Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the boundaries of this property are located north of Larpenteur Avenue and south of Ripley Avenue, along White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street as follows: Properties 295 feet west of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to the north property line of 1829 White Bear Avenue; all properties east of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue; all properties east and west of Van Dyke Street from Larpenteur Avenue to Ripley Avenue, including 1847, 1887, and 1899 Larpenteur Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 2, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. On February 23, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public headng whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 12 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Woodhill PUD and Preliminary Plat South of Linwood Avenue, east of Steding Street January 27, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bruce Nedegaard, representing Nedegaard Custom Homes, is proposing to develop a 16-1ot plat for single dwellings called Woodhill. It would be on a 12.44-acre site on the south side of Linwood Avenue, east of Steding Street. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 14-17, the maps on pages 18 - 24 and the attached plans. Requests To build this project, Mr. Nedegaard is requesting that the city approve: A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). The PUD would allow the development of the site with 16 single dwellings on a cul-de-sac with a narrower right-of- way (50 feet instead of 60 feet) and narrower pavement width. In addition, the developer is asking the city to allow a vadety of front yard setbacks for the houses within the development. 2. A preliminary plat for 16 lots for single dwellings. (See the maps on pages 21 through 24 and the enclosed project plans.) In addition, city staff is proposing to change the zoning for the site from F (farm residence) to R-1 (single dwellings). BACKGROUND The city bought the 24 acres south of this site for open space and park purposes in 1995. DISCUSSION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or supedor quality to that which would result from stdct adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 16-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because of the proposed narrower street right-of-way, narrower pavement width and to have a variety of front yard setbacks for the houses. In other words, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. It is the contention of the applicant, as they note in their project statement, that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development, with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. The narrower street with reduced house setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards, such a plan would require more tree removal and grading because of the wider street and the larger setbacks. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the number of lots or the density of the housing in the development The developer intends to sell each of the houses and expects that each will sell for at least $400,000. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the landscaping, rainwater gardens and retaining walls. Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 16 units on the 12.44-acre site means there would be 1.29 units per acre (an average of 33,868 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential development and is well above the 10,000- square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each single dwelling. Preliminary Plat The development of this site into anything more than its current use of a house and accessory buildings will be a challenge. There are several existing factors including the topography, wetlands and pipelines that limit and direct the possible development of the site. In addition, the shape of the property (823 feet wide by 624 feet deep), the street grades on Linwood Avenue, its one access point (on Linwood Avenue) along with its characteristic of generally sloping from the middle of the site to the north and to the south limit the development and design possibilities for the property. With the existing conditions on the property, there are not many options for designing a subdivision to fit the site. The proposed preliminary plat, with its street and lot design, raises many issues for the city to consider. I will discuss the major issues with this proposal below. Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the ordedy, economic and safe development of land...". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the 2 city as a whole. To this end, Section 34-6 of the code says that "the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city." Open Space and ownership of outlots The proposed plat has two outlots and 16 lots for single dwellings. As shown, Outlot A is on the west end of the site, is primarily over the pipeline easement area and is 1.53 acres. Outlot B, as proposed, is across the south end of the site that includes the wetlands and is 3.47 acres in size. Bruce Anderson, the city Parks and Recreation Director, and Ginny Gaynor from the Nature 'Center have both reviewed the proposed development. (Please see their comments on pages 29 - 31 .) They both told me that the city should take ownership of Outlot B to protect the wetlands and to combine the land with the open space property to the south and east. Outlot A also has some value to the city as an open space and trail corridor. The grading plan (page 23) shows a possible trail location from the west end of the cul-de-sac going to the south along the existing pipelines. This trail would serve as a pedestrian connection to the future Applewood Park that the city is planning for the area east of Sterling Street, south of the wetlands near Outlot A of the Amber Hills Fifth Addition plat. The applicant is asking for approval to dedicate the two proposed outlots to the city in lieu of the developer or builder paying the usual park dedication fees. Bruce Anderson agrees with this proposal as the value to the city of the two outlots is well worth the value of the park dedication fees that would usually be paid. Because of the value and importance of the two outlots to the city and because of their limited value to the developer, staff is recommending that the developer dedicate Outlots A and B to the city as a condition of the plat approval. Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 11,496 square feet to 22,890 square feet with an average lot size of about 15,939 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 21 .) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning distdct to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. All of the proposed lots would meet or exceed the standards in the city code. Double-frontage lots As proposed, the plans show a new street right-of-way running pdmadly east and west through the center of the site. This would create double street frontage for Lots I through 7 of Block One. Section 34-8(f)(5) of the city code says, "double frontage lots shall not be permitted, except where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable. Such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for a protective plant screen along the back line." Based on staff's review of the site and the existing topographic conditions, the proposed street and lot layout are reasonable. The proposed lots within the development that are also on Linwood Avenue have extra depth (they range from 167 to 210 feet deep) so that the proposed houses will not be dght on top of Linwood Avenue. Staff is also recommending that the city require covenants or deed restrictions for the double frontage lots that will prohibit driveways onto Linwood Avenue. 3 Trees As proposed, the contractor for Mr. Nedegaard would grade about 6 acres in the center of the site to create the street right-of-way and the house pads. (See the grading and tree plans on pages 23 and 24.) This grading would remove about 74 large trees (including Colorado spruce, oak, birch and maple) and would leave about 137 large trees on the 12.44-acre site. Since the city code requires the developer to save at least 124 trees (10 per acre) on this site, the proposed plans meet this requirement. Watershed District Comments and Wetland Ordinance The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct reviewed the preliminary plans for this development. (See the comments from Tina Carstens on page 25.) They have classified the large wetland on proposed Outlot B as a Class One Wetland. These are the wetlands that humans have impacted the least and have the most diverse types of vegetation and the most community resource significance. This wetland classification requires a 100-foot-wide no-disturb buffer area. In addition, the building foundations must be at least ten feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The proposed grading plan (on page 23) meets these requirements. Ms. Carstens also told me that the 60-foot buffer as shown on the plans for the wetland on the east end of the site near Lot 8 is adequate. This is because this wetland is of a lower quality and importance than the larger wetlands to the west. It is important to remember that Mr. Nedegaard or the contractor must meet all the conditions of the watershed district and that they must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Chds Cavett's and Edn Laberee's comments are in the attachment starting on page 26. Public Utilities There is sanitary sewer and water near the site to serve the proposed development. Specifically, water is to the east of the site at the intersection of Linwood Avenue and Femdale Street. The developer will extend the water main across Linwood Avenue to and through the site. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the plan for the water main. Sanitary sewer is west of the site near the intersection of Linwood Avenue and Steding Street. The developer is proposing to extend the sewer up Linwood Avenue from Steding Street to and through the development. The city engineer must approve the final engineering plans before the applicant or contractor may start construction. As noted in the engineering comments, the city is going to install the improvements on this site as part of a public improvement project - including utilities, street and curbing. The city will do the final design of the project plans and the developer or applicant will pay the city back for all costs. Drainage Most of the site drains to the north and to the south. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed ponds and rainwater gardens as storm water detention facilities, the development would not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. Mr. Cavett noted this requirement, along with several others, in his comments. (See the information starting on page 26.) 4 Magellan (Williams Brothers) Pipelines There are three Magellan Pipeline Company pipelines running north and south near the west end of the site. The developer has proposed to create Outlot A over this part of the site since the city code prohibits the construction of homes or buildings with habitable space within 100 feet of a pipeline. The proposed plat and lot layout meets this setback requirement and it creates a north/south corddor with creation of Outlot A. The preposed plans show utility and trail construction within Outlot A near the pipelines. Mr. Cavett noted that any grading or construction near the pipelines requires the wdtten approval of the pipeline company. Other Engineering Concerns Chris and Erin noted in their comments that the developer is to construct the retaining walls within the project during the grading of the site. This is to ensure that the walls are in place before the contractors start building the houses. They also noted a concern about the proposed house locations on Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Block 2. As proposed, these houses would be set back about 77 feet from the front property line. This is much greater than the typical front setback of 30-35 feet and also is a larger setback than most of the other houses within this development. Chds and Edn recommend that the developer place the houses on these lots closer to the street so they would be more closely aligned with the neighboring homes. In addition, I would note that the proposed location and orientation of the house on Lot 8, Block 2 is unusual as it is shown set back about 45 feet from the street right-of-way and turned to face directly south. The more typical location for the house on this lot would have it 30-35 feet from the front property line and it would be tumed so that the front of the house is parallel to the street. Staff recommends that the city set a range of front setbacks of 20 to 45 feet within this development to address these concerns. In addition, the city should not approve the proposed house pad location for Lot 8, Block 2 as part of the plat but rather consider the merits of the proposed site plan as part of the staff review of the building permit for the house. Other Comments Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department noted that he wanted the city to be sure that there is enough room within the site to allow emergency vehicles to maneuver and also noted that the entrance/exit of the development may present visibility problems for ddvers. The sight visibility at the new intersection was an initial concem of the reviewing engineers. However, the developer's engineer provided Mr. Cavett supporting data and a sight-line analysis that showed the proposed intersection would meet design standards such that his initial concerns were satisfied. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted that the cul-de-sac must have a tuming radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. Neighbors' Comments City staff surveyed the 62 property owners within 500 feet of the site. Refer to the comments on page 12 and the e-mail messages on pages 32 and 33. Zoning The city has zoned this property F (Farm Residence) and has planned it R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) in the city's comprehensive plan. The city's subdivision ordinance allows for the platting 5 of single-family lots within the Farm Residence zoning district. To be consistent with the comprehensive plan, however, staff recommends that the city change the zoning of the site from F (Farm Residence) to R-1 (single dwellings). RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution starting on page 34. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the 16-unit Woodhill development on the south side of Linwood Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) Revised storm water pond locations and storm water system designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. The proposed construction of the plat must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the city engineer's memo dated January 22, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodhill development shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street right-of-way): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 45 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street right-of-way): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback: minimum - 10 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. The developer or contractor shall: Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, install all retaining walls as required and any other site improvements required by the city engineer and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove the house, any debds or junk from the site, 6 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Woodhill preliminary plat (received by the city on January 2, 2004). 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 retaining walls, site landscaping and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the street intersections and at the west end of the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear I°t lines of each lot and five- foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, building, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. f. Install survey monuments along the wetland and wetland buffer boundaries. g. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification, wetland buffer and no parking signs. h. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. i. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. j. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. k. Complete all curb on Linwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Linwood Avenue, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.* 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 all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated January 22, 2004, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan Shall show: (1) The proposed building, pad elevation and contour information for each home site. 7 The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. This shall include changing the house pad locations on Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2 so they meet the approved development setback requirements, to more closely match the other house setbacks and orientation on the street. (4) The proposed street and ddveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) Include the tree plan that: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (7) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (8) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed distdct or by the city engineer. (9) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (10) As little grading as possible north and' south of the proposed street. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. (11) The pipelines and the 8-foot-wide trail from the cul-de-sac to the south property line. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) The street shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The street with continuous concrete ribbon curb, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is necessary. (3) The completion or replacement of the curb on the south side of Linwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Water service to each lot. 8 (5) Repair of Linwood Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (6) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (11) Label the street as Dahl Avenue on all construction and project plans. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Vedfy inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. A landscape plan for the areas along the street, including the rainwater gardens and the cul-de-sac island. The coniferous trees shall be at least six feet tall and any deciduous trees shall be at least 2~ inches in diameter. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add 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. c. Label any common areas as outlots. d. Label the street as Dahl Avenue on all plans. e. Change the lot lines for Lot 8, Block 2 so they are more radial to the street right-of- way. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond at the northwest comer of the plat. 6. The developer shall complete all site grading and retaining wall construction. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 9 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, install all retaining walls, install the landscaping for the rainwater gardens and the cul-de-sac island, install all other necessary improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Linwood Avenue (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, landscaping and retaining walls. 9. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on Lots 1 through 7, Block I and Lot 9, Block 2 from going onto Linwood Avenue. c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. d. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. e. Deeds transferring the ownership of Outlots A and B to the city. The city will accept ownership of these outlots in lieu of charging PAC (park access charges) with the building permits. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. Submit to city staff a copy of the wdtten permission from the pipeline company for any grading or construction within the pipeline easement. 13. 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. 10 Adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 36. This resolution changes the zoning map from F (Farm Residence) to R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) for the proposed Woodhill plat on the south side of Linwood Avenue. The city is making this change because it will: 1. Be consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. Not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. Serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. Have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Serve the site better as the owner plans to develop this property for lots for single- family houses. 11 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 62 properties within 500 feet of this site and received three wdtten replies. The following are the comments we received: 1. Our only concem at this time is Linwood Avenue itself. It is very difficult to tum left from Ferndale onto Linwood because you cannot see traffic coming up the hill. So, perhaps when the new intersection is made you can do some grading and we will be able to see oncoming traffic. (Brooks - 699 Femdale Avenue). Also, see the e-mail message on page 32 and the letter on page 33. 12 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 12.44 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings from the former property owner SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings across Linwood Avenue City-owned Applewood open space Houses fronting on Linwood Avenue and on Sterling Street Houses fronting on Linwood Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 34 and 35.) APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete revised project plans and application materials for this proposal on January 2, 2004. As such, the city needs to take action on the proposal by March 1, 2004, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. kr/p:/sec13-28ANoodhill plat.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Property Line Map 4. Area Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Proposed Utility Plan 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Proposed Tree Plan 9. Tina Carstens' comments dated 01-22-04 10. Engineering department plan review dated 01-22-04 11. Ginny Gaynor's comments dated 01-21-04 12. Bruce Anderson's comments dated 01-22-04 13. E-mail message from Nate Smith dated 1-13-04 14. Letter from John Gregerson 15. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 16. Zoning Map Change Resolution 17. Project Plans (separate attachments -including 11x17s and full-size) 13 Attachment 1 Woodhill Planned Unit Development Project Description December 31, 2003 RECEIVED Int roduct ion: This Woodhill Planned Unit Development is proposed as a single family residential development consisting of sixteen market rate homes. The project meets all of the City codes with the exception of three items. They are: 1) Road pavement width 2) Front yard setback criteria 3) Road right of way. Due to some of the unique ecological characteristics of the property as well as an existing gas. pipeline corridor, Two out-parcels have been proposed. As a result of the three variances and the proposed out-parcels, the developer has considered the project to fall within the category of a Planned Unit Development. The applicant is also asking the City to consider the acquisition of the two out-parcels or use the park fees towards this acquisition. Site Description: The proposed Woodhill Planned Unit Development is a 12.44 acre parcel of land located at 2516 Linwood Drive in the City of Maplewood. The property is bordered by Linwood Drive to the north, single family residential lots to the east and west, and a large wooded open space parcel to the south which the City has purchased for a future city park and as permanently dedicated open space. The development parcel has a specific set of physical and visual characteristics that not only have guided the development strategy, but provide the character inherent to this site. They include the following: A. A pristine, perched wetland pond and drainage system on the south side of the property which extends into the future parkland and city owned open space system. Woodhill Planned Unit Development 12/31/03 14 B. A linear wetland corridor along Linwood Drive on the northwest corner. C. Underground gas pipeline that runs adjacent to the west property line. D. Steeply sloping topography on the north and south sides of the site. E. Dense mature woodland cloaking the north and south facing slopes. Proposed plan: The proposed plan consists of sixteen market rate single family homes arranged along a publicly dedicated interior neighborhood residential road. Lot widths along the road are varied, but maintain a minimum width of seventy five feet. Building envelopes have been indicated that establish a minimum setback of twenty five feet from the edge of pavement to the front yard building envelope,, a minimum sideyard setback of ten feet from property line (for an aggregate of twenty feet from sideyard building envelope to building envelope), and fifteen feet of sideyard setback where building envelopes are adjacent to the overall parcel property line. Rear yard building envelopes have been set at a minimum of seventy five feet from the surveyed edge of wetlands and an average of one hundred feet for the overall development. The building envelopes are a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. Habitable living space has been set at a minimum setback of 100 feet from the underground gas line. The road right-of-way width is fifty feet, with the paved road surface proposed at twenty eight feet in width. A ninety four foot diameter cul-de-sac is proposed at the end of the street system. A planted inner island is proposed at the center of the cul-de-sac to foster the woodland image within the development. In the interests of the City and the gas company, two out- parcels have been created. The largest out-parcel incorporates the wetland corridor to the south. The western out-parcel incorporates the underground gas line. It is intended that all two out-parcels be dedicated to the City of Maplewood in lieu of park fees. Woodhill Planned Unit Development 12/31/03 15 Justification For Deviations From City Code The proposed project deviates from the City code in three areas, they are: 1. The paved road width has been reduced from 36' to 28' 2. The front yard building envelope setback is twenty five feet from the edge of the paved road surface instead of the right-of-way line. 3. Right of way width has been reduced from 60 ft. to 50 ft. There are a number of supportive arguments for why these changes have been proposed. They can be summarized as follows: 1. Paved Road Width Reduced From 36' to 28' This site has a special character that derives from the extensive woodland frame and the unique wetland environment. Since the development consists of only sixteen homes, the development team felt that a narrower pavement width would be more visually appropriate within this woodland environment. The narrower width also minimizes the extent to which the homes are pushed down the steep sloping terrain thereby reducing the grading footprint and minimizing tree loss. 2. Front yard Building Envelope Setback The front yard building envelope setback of twenty five feet has been taken from the edge of pavement instead of the right-of-way line. The reason for this deviation derives primarily from the need to minimize the extent to which the building site must extend onto the steeply sloping rear yard. The extent of retaining walls, site grading, foundation wall depth and tree loss are all minimized with this deviation. Since the road paving width has also been reduced, this setback adjustment is not significant. Ample space has been allowed for two guest vehicles to park within the front driveway. Right of way reduction Because of the special character that exists on the property with the woodland frame and unique wetland Woodhill Planned Unit Development 12/31/03 16 environment, the right of way is being proposed as a reduction from 60 ft. to 50 ft. Reducing the right of way width minimizes site grading, tree loss, and impacts to wetland areas. Because the paved roadway width reduction and the setback are shown from the paved road, it is a good planning practice to minimize the right of way width as well. In summary, these three deviations from the City code are keeping with all five of the City's findings for approval. This includes the unique nature of the site, consistency with the purposes of the chapter, the equal or superior quality of the proposed development changes, the absence of any significant threat to homeowners, and the demonstrated requirement to meet reasonable and practicable physical development. Woodhill Planned Unit Development 12/31/03 l? Attachment 2 240S 15 480S 16 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAK. RIDGE LA. 720S 3 DORL~O ~. 5 IX)RL,~D 6 DORLAND PL 7 MNLAND CT. 8 IX)RLNdD CT. LONDIN IN. OAKRIDGE HILLWOOD DR. DR. AVE. RAUSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY PONDS OF BATTLE CREEK GOLF COURSE 960S 1200S 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VNJ..EY VIEW 5. LAKEW(X)D CT. 18 19 VALLEY HIGHWOOD NEMITZ /o,~ ~ ~ ~ ~...~..CREST AVF_- -I,,o,,~o .I~ -~ cm. ~. 1 NEW CENTURY pl. 2 NEW c~r/u/~ TER 3 NEW CEHTURY LN Attachment 3 ,. SE ON'D ,, .41). ~, : t ~ .... , I' ...~ .... . ...... ~-~'-2. ~ ~ ~_ I ~& ', ~ ~.~ ~.,- ,~ ' .~* 12 '" B 2 ~ .... ~ ~ ..... ~ Cl~ OPEN SPACE PROPERTY LINE MAP 19 Attach ne n't~ H~LLWO00 682 )LICE I PRACTICE I RANGE ~.__. 702 2519 LINWOOD AVE E 2480 2516 TIMBER CT 2536 LINWOOD ~--'JvE SITE CITY OPEN SPACE SCHALLER DR i r- r"--' r_~'-'--I _ AREA MAP 20 Attachment 5 DEVELOPER NEDEGAARD CUSTOM HOMES ~-200 CENTRAL AVENUE NE MINNEAPOtJ$, MN 55~.21 765.757.2926 ENGINEER HUMPHREY ENGINEERING, INC. 1~5 WAIN STREET. P.O. BOX252 WOODVILLE. WI 54028 715.698.54-40 SURVEYOR BOHLEN SURVEYING <~ ENGINEERING 4.7'~5 1238D SW~EET WEST, Suf~ 200 952.895.9212 ARCHITECT HART H OWI~':~T0 N ,30 HOTAUNG PLACE S 88'54'30" W 824..65 0EDICATED TO ME PUBLIC LINWOOD AVE. E. BLOCK CITY OPEN SPACE I PROPOSED PRELIMINARY~,.i PLAT /-~'~'-/ 1 ~ Attachment 6 TO EXISTING 12' OIP LEGEND PROPOSED SANITARY ~EV~..R PROPOSED SANITARY SEW'ER PROPOSED SANITARY S~.R MH/~2 - 81~IMINOUS REMOVAl. CO~NECT TO ~N~ ~' ~P I ~ ! CQNNE:CT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED UTILITY 22 PLAN Attachment 7 :-:::.' . LINWOOD AVENUE REG. NO. ~ CiTY OPEN SPACE 1- z-off WOODHILL ~,~ ~,~. ~..~ ~ .... NEDEGAARD CUSTOM HOMES P.o. Box ~2 ~ ~eyota MAP~OD, MN PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 23 Attach ment 8 LINWOOD AVENUE GRADING CITY OPEN SPACE ~ 7.? WOODHIU. NEDEGAARD CUSTOM HOMES 'MApI ~'WOOD, MN TREE INVENTORY Ken Roberts Page 1 of 1 Attachment 9 From: Tina Carstens [tina@rwmwd.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:38 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Woodhill Comments Hi Ken, Here are the comments from the Watershed District regarding the Woodhill development. 1. Sill need to receive a full size plan and also an updated erosion control plan for the development. More comments may be generated at the time when those are received. 2. Special features shall be designed and engineered to diffuse all flows from the homes south of the street before hitting the buffer area. The concern here is that concentrated flows will cause filling and erosion in the buffer area due to lack of ground cover in the shaded buffer. 3. The larger infiltration basin located at the end of the cul-de-sac shall have a piped outlet. Overflow from this basin and others in the development shall be directed to the north. 4. The larger infiltration basin shall have a freeboard of 2 ff above the 100 year flood elevation. 5. Silt fence shall be placed at least 2 feet back from the buffer line. 6. The wetland buffer edge shall be signed at every other lot line. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Tina Carstens Rarnsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Permit Program Coordinator 1/22/2004 Attachment l0 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Woodhill PROJECT NO: 03-35 REVIEWED BY: Chris Cavett and Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: January 22, 2004 Nedegaard Custom Homes is proposing to develop the property at 2516 Linwood Avenue with 16 single-family lots on a cul-de-sac. Williams Pipeline has an easement and pipelines on the west side of the property and there are several wetlands on the property. The developer is proposing to incorporate ribbon concrete curb into the street design. In addition, the applicant is proposing rainwater gardens in the street boulevards as part of the storm sewer system. The ribbon curb will allow storm water to sheet off the street and into rainwater gardens. The gardens will catch sediment and allow runoffto infiltrate into the ground instead of flowing directly into a storm sewer system. The proposed design is a benefit to the environment and will improve the quality of water discharging into the wetlands. It is proposed that the street and utilities be public infrastructure. As such, they are to be constructed as part of a public improvement project with all costs assessed to the developer. The Maplewood Engineering Department will prepare the detailed plans and specifications for the street and utilities. The city will address the many small details of the street and utility plans when the city prepares the plans and specifications. The developer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted below and shall address the concerns listed below. The applicant or the applicant's engineer shall address the following issues: Drainage The watershed district has reviewed the proposed plans. It is our understanding that unless the area of direct runoff into the main wetland can be reduced, they are recommending that the proposed storm sewer line be directed to the northern wetland instead of the southern wetland as the plans currently show. The city does have concerns about directing additional drainage to the northern wetlands. If drainage is to be directed to the northern wetland, as the watershed has requested, then the applicant must meet the following conditions: The rate of discharge into the northern wetland must be equal to or less than existing conditions. · Resubmit plans showing the revised storm sewer and ponding. · Submit drainage calculations that reflect the revised plans. Model the effect additional runoff will have on the existing wetlands. · If the pond is to remain on the Williams Pipeline easement, an agreement will be required with the pipeline that details the type of pond (wet/dry) to be constructed within their easement. 26 Provide an emergency overflow outlet for the pond west of the cul-de-sac, (if it is to remain). Due to the steepness of the site and concerns about erosion, an overflow pipe should be constructed. Again, an agreement with Williams Pipeline will be required. Grading & Erosion Control Maintain 3:1 slopes throughout the grading plan. If 3:1 slopes cannot be achieved, the city may require a retaining wall. In areas where 2:1 slopes are appropriate (Block 2, Lot 9), the city will require a specific slope stabilization detail plan that uses permanent soil stabilization blankets and a native seeding plan. The proposed slopes at Block 1, Lot 3 are currently proposed to be 1:1. This area needs to be revised to show 3:1 slopes or the city may require retaining walls. 2. The contractor shall use riprap at all outlets. The riprap will be shown on final plans. A building permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall located north of the wetland since the total height of the wall is greater than four feet. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. The city will require a covenant on the adjoining properties to ensure proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the wall. 4. The developer or applicant shall construct any retaining walls 'during the grading phase of the project, not during the construction of the buildings. The proposed structures on Block 2, Lots 6, 7 and 8 are set too far back on the lots. The city shall require the applicant to shift the structures to the north closer to the street to more closely match the front yard setbacks of the adjacent structures. NOTE: The proposed elevation of the site seems generally too high. The overall site grades would benefit by lowering the street 2 to 3 feet, especially near Block 2, Lots 4 and 5. This would reduce the height of the proposed retaining wall. The 1:1 slopes at Block 1, Lot 3 could also be reduced. This change would help several driveways achieve a positive slope towards the street and other negative driveway slopes could be reduced. Negative driveway grades shall not exceed 5%. Lowering the site also would allow additional runofffrom the roofs and front yards to be directed towards the street. This would reduce the amount of runoff sheeting directly into the wetlands, which was a goal of the watershed. Currently, the proposed sanitary sewer is 22' deep at the deepest spot. Lowering the site by several feet also would reduce the depth of the sanitary sewer. 27 Streets 1. The city will require concrete curb around the center island in the cul-de-sac. 2. Provide calculationS that support bus-turning movements around the cul-de-sac and center island. 3. Provide the city with an additional copy of the site distance calculations done for the intersection of the proposed street with Linwood Avenue. Misc The proposed plan currently shows the construction of utilities within the Williams Pipeline Easement. A pond and grading also are proposed within the pipeline easement. The applicant shall submit the proposed plans to Williams Pipeline Company for their approval. A written agreement with Williams Pipeline will be required for construction of utilities, ponds and grading within their easement and before the city approves the final plat. A bituminous trail is planned directly over the Williams Pipeline. A written agreement with Williams Pipeline will be necessary for the construction of the proposed trail within their easement and over the pipeline. 3. Verify with the watershed district that the 60 foot buffer around the eastern wetland is adequate. 4. Sewer and water services for the property at 2480 Linwood Avenue shall be constructed as pan of this project and will be shown on the final plans. A developer's agreement will be required before final plat approval. This agreement shall detail the payment for or the who will be the responsible parties for following issues: · A landscape plan for the rainwater gardens and cul-de-sac island. · The landscaping to be installed by the developer. · An association to maintain the rainwater gardens and cul-de-sac island. · Wetland signs are required at the edge of the buffer area for each lot abutting the wetlands. · Coordination and installation of private utilities (gas, electric, etc.). o Several sanitary sewer manholes should be shifted to reduce the number of manholes required. MH #11 can be eliminated by moving MH #10 to the north and connecting the service for Lot 9, just south of the manhole. Shifting MH #6 to the south and connecting it to MH #4 will eliminate MH #5. The water main can then be offset from the sanitary sewer with 11 1/4° bends. 28 Attachment ll MEMORANDUM TO: CC: FROM: DATE: RE: Ken Roberts, Maplewood Community Development Ann Hutchinson, Bruce Anderson, Chris Cavett, Erin Schacht Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator 1/21/04 Proposed Woodhill Development Thank you for the oppommity to review the proposed Woodhill development, which would be adjacent to Applewood Neighborhood Preserve. The primary focus of open space staff and task force review for this development is protecting the uniqueness and high quality of the pond that Applewood Preserve shares with Woodhill Development. Our comments are directed to development's southern wetlands. The best way ensure protection is to: 1. Enforce the 100' wetland buffers. 2. Limit the amount of surface runoff entering the wetland by directing it into rain gardens and swales for infiltration. Buffers. My understanding from Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District is that the three wetlands on the south end of the site all have the same protection - a 100' buffer under Maplewood ordinance. The proposal shows a 100' buffer around the pond and central wetland, and a 60' buffer for the eastern wetland. The eastern wetland is very degraded but has the higher protection because it connects to the other wetlands. Recommendation: The 100' buffer should be strictly enforced on the pond and central wetland. The 100' buffer should be enforced on the east wetland or mitigation should be done that helps protect this series of wetlands. Mitigation might be the donation of the out lots to the city and vegetative improvements to the eastern wetland. If the 60' buffer stands (with or without mitigation) it should be identified as an ordinance deviation in the proposal. In addition, page 2 of the proposal states that the rear yard-building envelope is a mimmum of 75' from any wetland. Is this referring to the wetlands along Linwood? As discussed above, the envelope should be a minimum 100' from the southern wetlands. Enforcing Buffers. We are concerned about the difficulty of enforcing the buffer during and after construction. As a no-disturb area, there can be no removal of existing vegetation, no grading, no planting lawns, no installation of patios. A couple of the homes will have only a 10'- 15' strip of yard behind the house. Without educational efforts and design assistance, there may be little compliance with the buffer standards. Recommendation: Enforce consequences for the builder if the buffer is violated during construction. Ensure that prospective homeowners are informed in advance about the wetland buffer and how far from their backdoor they can plant or put patios. Someone should provide landscape design assistance to homeowners for their back yards. 29 Runoff. I understand that the Watershed District has discussed the possibility of adding a shallow berm on the hillside to help slow runoff and reduce gully erosion. We strongly support this idea if the berm is not within the 100-foot wetland buffer. If the city recommends that runoffbe piped into the eastem wetland (rather than to storm sewers on Linwood), the eastern wetland would require biological and structural modifications to help slow and filter water before it enters the central wetland. We would hope that before piping nmoffhere, the city or the developer would mn models to determine: 1) how much mnoffwill enter the wetlands, 2) how water levels might change in the wetlands, and 3) predicted nutrient inputs to these wetlands. Summary This site has one of the most unique and ecologically healthy ponds in Maplewood. Open space staff and task force look forward to working with neighbors to help protect it. 3O Attachment 12 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Ken Roberts, Associate Pl~n"~ Bruce K. Anderson, Director of,.~~_~.~ '~~;' January 22, 2004 Proposed Woodhill Development I have reviewed the proposed Woodhill development project and applaud their efforts in designing a plat within an extremely sensitive ecological area. I support and wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by open space coordinator Ginny Gaynor in her memo dated January 21, 2004. I would further amplify Ms. Gaynor's comments by stating that the city would waive the park development charges for the 16-lot subdivision with the following understanding: 1. The developer would deed outright to the city Outlot A in the amount of 1.53 acres. 2. The developer would deed outright to the city Outlot B in the amount of 3.47 acres. The developer would work in cooperation with the city to construct a trail at the developer's expense on the west side of the proposed cul-de-sac through Outlot A to the city's border as highlighted in the proposed grading plan. The trail would be constructed of a pervious surface to be designed in cooperation with the city parks and recreation department and would ultimately tie into the proposed trailway corddor system to be constructed at the city's expense onto the city open space property. Should you have any questions regarding my comments, feel free to contact me directly at ext. 2102. kh\woodhill development.parks-openspace.mem c: Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator 31 Attachment 13 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: Subject: Nate Smith [nate@aarontech.com] Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:53 PM Ken Roberts Woodhill Subdivision comments RE: Development of Kayser property at 2516 Linwood Ave. Dear Ken, I'm really bothered by someone trying to stuff 16 houses in an area where there is really only room for less. If someone were asking for relief from city codes for a single lot, I would find it a lot easier to approve it. But for every house in an entire subdivision? The developer is asking to reduce the street width which could result in problems. For example, if someone in the neighborhood has a large gathering there will be many vehicles parked on the street. Any children playing in the area will be more at risk due to the narrower street. The fact that the houses would be built closer (reduced set-back) to the narrower street means that the driveways would be shorter and smaller gatherings would more frequently result in streets crowed with parked vehicles. Additionally, it seems paradoxical to try to preserve the natural features of the land while crowding 16 homes onto it. Instead of altering the code to fit the plan, how about the developer altering the plan to fit the code? I am opposed to these deviations from code being approved. Thank you for your time. Nathan Smith 2546 Beth Court Maplewood, MN 55119 651-730-1800 32 Attachment 14 John Gregerson 2622 Linwood Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55119 Ken, This is a response to the proposed Woodhill Subdivision, Kayser property, 2516 Linwood Ave. I have great respect for the work done by City planners and the difficulty of trying to please everyone, even anyone. So, I submit these comments with great respect as well even though I disagree with the revised proposal and the staffrecommendations. The revised recommendation still allows the developer to profit at the existing resident's expense. I have the same concerns with the Woodhill proposal as I did with the New Century plan, particularly the variances and changes (access, primarily) to the City master plan and City code that were granted to allow higher density housing. The recommendation to allow setback and road width variances only serve to give the developer the greater profit of selling 17 lots and increasing the traffic loading on Linwood by another 17 households. Linwood already has much more than the planned traffic loading because of other concession made by the city to developers in the past. - A more appropriate City response, if you care about existing residents, is to offer no additional deviations to City code to developers in South Maplewood. This might mean the Woodhill developer can get only 8-9 lots, so be it. That would be in keeping with the special nature of the site and would be easier on the traffic loading of Linwood. The bottomline is: The City shouldn't feel they have to make concessions to developers that hurt current residents. More traffic on Linwood is hurting us. As an alternative, take some traffic offLinwood. - Close the firing range. Yes we can influence the St. Paul police department to move. The Arden Hills ammunitions plant site would be a perfect long term home for the fzring range. Make it more difficult for Woodbury residents to cut across South Maplewood using Linwood. Put another east-west access through the New Century development. Give the existing residents some compensation for the very real loss in property value due to the high level of traffic on Linwood. Maybe the developers should take it out of their windfall profits due to City concessions.  ~' ..... ~.,, ~ JChn Gregerson . . ! 33 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Nedegaard applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Woodhill residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 16-1ot Woodhill development the city received on January 2, 2004. The legal description is: The North one-half of the West one-half of the NW % of the NE ¼ of Section, Township 28, Range 22, according to the US Govemment Survey thereof: and The North one-half of the West one-half of the West one-half of the East one-half of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, according to the US Government Survey thereof, in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-7, Block 1 and Lots 1-9, Block 2 of Woodhill) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 2, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On ,2004, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves 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. 34 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) Revised storm water pond locations and storm water system designs as suggested or required by the watershed distdct or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. 2.The proposed construction of the plat must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the city engineer's memo dated January 22, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the VVoodhill development shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street right-of-way): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 45 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street right-of-way): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback: minimum - 10 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, install all retaining walls as required and any other site improvements required by the city engineer and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove the house, any debds or junk from the site. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2004. 35 Attachment 16 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff is proposing to change the Maplewood zoning map from Farm Residence (F) to Single-Family Residential (R-l). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 2516 Linwood Avenue in the north one-half of Section 13, Township 29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the property owner is proposing to plat the property into 16 lots for single dwellings. WHEREAS, the proposed development is known as Woodhill and the new legal description will be: Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, and Lots 1 through 9, Block 2, Woodhill. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 2, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the zoning map change. On February ,2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public headng whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner has plans to develop this property for lots for single-family houses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 36