Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/2003AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 24, 2003 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the May 27, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business Design Review: Mendota Homes Town Houses (County Road D) Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations: Community Design Review Board Representation for the July 14, 2003, City Council Meeting Adjourn WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 II. III. IV. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CONFERENCE ROOM A TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Present Absent Present Present Present Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 13, 2003. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of May 13, 2003. Board member OIson seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ayes-Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Ms. Finwall said Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 20-unit town house development on the vacant city-owned property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be primarily for work force housing for Iow to moderate-income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the property. Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County Road B Ayes---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Abstention - Longrie-Kline Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 2 Ms. Finwall said the proposal would have two, four-unit buildings, two, six-unit townhouse buildings and a 24-foot by 24-foot maintenance/caretaker building. Each town house woulc have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. Ms. Finwall said the applicant is requesting that the community design review board approve the building, site and landscape plans. On April 28, 2003, the city council approved a CUP for a PUD for 20 town house units on this site. Chairperson Ledvina clarified that the caretaker building would not be for occupancy and that it was only a garage? Mr. Mogren said correct. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if it was their understanding that the cedar fence was going to extend the entire length of the west side of the site? Ms. Finwall said yes, that was what she understands from the applicant's letter. Chairperson Ledvina asked what the rational was to require screening on the east side of the development by Van Dyke Street? Ms. Finwall said the intent would be to soften the view of the town houses from Van Dyke Street. She said maybe the correct word is to "enhance" the landscaping instead of "screening". Board member Shankar asked staff how the vehicles would turn around in the development? Ms. Finwall said the vehicle turn around would be done in the driveways or parking areas. Board member Olson asked staff if the Fire Marshal approved of that? Ms. Finwall said yes, the Fire Marshal approved this plan. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the original proposal was for 24 units? Ms. Finwall said the original proposal was for 24 units and it was approved by the city council for 20 units. Board member Shankar asked what the reason was for having six parking stalls so close to Van Dyke Street and the rest of the parking stalls on the west side? He asked if it was because some parking stalls are for visitors and some parking is for the residents? Ms. Finwall deferred that question to the applicant. Board member Shankar said he is concerned about the parking stall next to Van Dyke Street. He asked if there was concern expressed regarding the traffic there for the people driving into those parking stalls verses someone driving into the development from the street. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 5-27-2003 Ms. Finwall said that's a good observation. City code requires that there be a 15-foot setback from the right-of-way for this type of parking stall. It is clear that there would be more room available for parking on the west side of the proposal. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the city had required additional parking for this type of development? It seems there is an excessive amount of parking stalls 20 units. Ms. Finwall said the city ordinance states there shall be 2 parking stalls per unit. There is one parking stall inside the garage and one parking stall in front of the garage. So technically there would be no additional guest parking stalls required, however, it's always a good idea to include extra parking stalls for guests. Board member Olson said she recalls parking was an issue the last time the CDRB heard this proposal. She's pleased that this new proposal provides ample parking. She remembered the neighbors had requested no parking be allowed on Van Dyke Street. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Bruce Mogren, 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, Mogren Development Company, addressed the board. Mr. Mogren said they propose to use vinyl siding instead of steel siding. He said there will be a fair amount of children in this development and he felt that steel siding would dent easier than vinyl siding. He said vinyl siding is relatively easy to replace if a problem occurs with the siding. He proposes to attach the fence on the west side of the site to the currently existing fences behind Bleachers Bar and Doherty's Auto Body Shop. Mr. Mogren said he knows kids would gain access through that area if the fencing were left open. Chairperson Ledvina asked how staff felt about the fencing issue? Ms. Finwall said it would be important to screen the commercial buildings to the residential area in some manner, whether it's with a fence or with landscaping. Chairperson Ledvina had a question about the site plan. He asked Mr. Mogren if there had been discussion regarding moving the four unit and six unit buildings so they are facing each other? Mr. Mogren said the reason the buildings are laid out the way they are is because of the soil conditions on the property. Mr. Mogren said the costs for this project keep increasing and any changes that are made are costly. In fact, they may decide to eliminate putting the patios in that were originally proposed. Mr. Mogren said they will not be installing sliding patio doors off the back of the units instead they will install a single french door. Because there will be kids living in these units who will be going in and out often the doors get abused and having a single door will help from a maintenance standpoint. Board member Olson said she thinks it's a good idea to have a single door. It may be better for safety for the residents bordering up to Emma's Place. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 4 Mr. Mogren said he proposes to use the type of door that is half glass and half covered door. Regarding the lighting issue in the tot lot or not, the question is, are the children going to b~ playing outside in the tot lot after dark or is the idea for the children to play outside until dark and then go inside? His concern is if lighting is used the tot lot may be a place for the teenagers to hang out. Board member Longrie-Kline said her experience with teenagers is they like to go places where it is dark so no one can see the trouble they are up to. Mr. Mogren said if the teenagers wanted someplace dark to hang out they could go another 50 feet into the woods. Board member Olson said just remember the tot lot is pretty close to the rear of Doherty's Auto Body Shop. Ms. Finwall said she doesn't have strong opinions either way regarding the lighting issue. However, it may be nice to have some Iow-lying patio lights in the tot lot. In her opinion not installing lighting could be an attractive nuisance as well. Mr. Mogren said he would be meeting with both Bruce Anderson and Johnny Johnson and they will come up with a lighting plan for the tot lot. Chairperson Ledvina said maybe the police department could shed insight iinto security issues they come in contact with and share them with staff regarding whether or not it is necessary fo, lighting to be installed at the tot lot or not. Board member Shankar asked if the cedar railing on the front porches would be painted white or remain natural? Mr. Mogren said he hadn't really thought about that. Board member Olson said the cedar will require maintenance if it is painted white. Cedar tends to look weathered and becomes a silvery-gray color if it remains natural. Board member Shankar said due to the weathering process when you stain cedar the wood turns several different colors. Mr. Mogren said that can be discussed, however, he would like to use a product that requires the least amount of maintenance. Board member Longrie-Kline said when they went on the tour to the Ryland townhomes in Apple Valley the builder used a maintenance free aluminum railing that was black. She thought that was a very nice product and maybe it would be a good alternative to cedar railings. Board member Shankar said he would still recommend that the applicant use the bric. wainscoting on the front elevations. Community Design RevieTM Board Minutes 5-27-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree with board member Shankar that the brick wainscoting would accentuate the architecture. Community design review board members discussed the brick wainscoting options and which elevations the wainscoting would best be placed. Board member Shankar moved to approve the project plans date-stamped May 13, 2003, for Van Dyke Village town houses on Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: (changes are underlined and deletions have been stricken through). Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issues a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: ao Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) (2) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north, west and south sides of the site (near the businesses and the daycare center). Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 6 (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 15 replacement trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The design of the rainwater gardens shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width--no parking on either side and 28-foot width--parking on one side. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north west and south property lines near the daycare center and businesses and the applicant shall change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remainins along the northern, westerly and southerly property lines as possible. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional landscapinq ccrccning (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. (4) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the east and west properly lines and five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the north and south property lines. (2) The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north and south side) of the buildings for firefighting needs. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Community Design Review Minutes 5-27-2003 Board 8 Submit for city approval revised building plans and elevations that include brick wainscoting to be installed from the ground ,qrade to the bottom of the windows on the followinq locations of all townhous6 buildings: entire east elevations and in front of bedroom #2 in all unit-A style townhouses (end units) startinq from the porch railings to the end of the building. In addition, the revised plans should show an alternate porch railinq material than the proposed natural cedar (i.e, cedar painted white to match the window trim or white aluminu thc ~'' ,i~,4i,-,,-, .-i,4,-,~. ~.~.i,-,,-, ,k,-, ok-~r~H ,4ri, ..... ~,,~ Submit for city staff approval building elevations and plans for the maintenance/caretaker building. This building shall have materials and colors consistent with the main buildings on the site. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. fo Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street to match the driveways. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or~.....,.,..,"'~;*;"""~,.., ,.~,~""'~,......~.~.,,;"~',u along the entire south property line and on a portion of the west and ncrth property line starting from the tree line (i.e., preserved trees) to the north property line. Install additional landscaDin_q along the north property line. of *~'" "~* .... ~'"'" *~ ...... *~*~-"- dccs ncr .......~ ..... ~ ,~,.- * ..... ~..- ..... ~-'-~' *hc ~'' '''; ......These additional materials SCrCCR .................... are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval, k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. All work shall .follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 lO VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. St. Paul Regional Water Services - McCarrons Plant Ms. Finwall said the (SPRWS) Saint Paul Regional Water Services is proposing to make changes and additions (listed in the staff report) to their facilities at the McCarrons Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street. They include a new two-story, 36,000-square-foot office building, a one-story, 11,230-square-foot warehouse/meter shop, and a one-story, 17,350- square-foot vehicle storage and maintenance building. Chairperson Ledvina said there seems to be a lot of parking associated with this proposal. He asked if a review of the structures verses the parking required was done? Ms. Finwall said she didn't write this staff report, but she could do a calculation of the necessary parking spaces. The city code states there shall be one parking space per 200- square feet and this is a 36,000-square-foot office building. Chairperson Ledvina said that equals 180 parking spaces and staff has indicated 240 parking spaces in the staff report which is in excess of 60 parking spaces, maybe that can be addressed with the applicant. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicants to address the board. Mr. David Wagner, Project Manager, (SPRWS) St. Paul Regional Water Services, 40(. Commerce Building, Eight - 4th Street East, St. Paul, addressed the board. This project is intended to bring all the facilities together in one location. Their goal was to try to locate buildings so everyone can work together in one location. The other goal was to build the buildings as cost effectively as possible because of budget constraints. The other issue is that security is a huge concern. Regarding the parking issue that chairperson Ledvina brought up, because of budget constraints they are watching costs carefully. They would like to be able to pave certain areas but currently there is no money. With security being a big issue, the parking spaces that are currently available will be eliminated and with the new buildings the large area will be for employee parking. Board member Olson asked if SPRWS planned to reopen the connection to Rice Street or will it remain blocked off? Mr. Wagner said they would like to reopen the connection with Rice Street but that depends on the budget. The small bridge on the spur line track is not wide enough for two-way traffic. When the bridge gets rebuilt there will be two-way traffic and a new entrance, right now going into the facility it will be a one-way street. Mr. Jim Butler, Associate Vice President, (HGA) Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc., 701 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Mr. Butler showed the board some picture boards of the project and pointed to the additions and changes. He said this site is a real challenge because it slopes 30 feet in certain areas. Therefore, they have terrace~ the project to a lower and upper yard. He showed the traffic flow in and out of the facility and said that most of the traffic would be coming off of Roselawn Avenue as it does currently. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 Mr. Butler said the existing structures are white stucco and were built in the 1920's. The projects will continue to be white stucco and will have dark blue metal panels. The dark blue metal panels represent the entrances to the buildings and the color blue represents water. The window mullions and rooftop screen are clear anodized aluminum. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the windows are tinted? Mr. Butler said no, the windows are clear which tends to give a blue cast. Board member Olson asked if the graphic elements on the dark blue metal panels of the building signify the function of the building? Mr. Butler said yes the graphic elements are letters such as the "G" on the building stands for garage, the "E" on the building stands for employees, and the '¥V" on the building stands for warehouse etc. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Butler what the height of the garage and maintenance building would be? Mr. Butler said the height of the maintenance and garage building would be 24 feet at the highest portion. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans (date-stamped April 24, 2003), for the proposed office building, meter shop and vehicle maintenance buildings (with the associated parking and landscaping) at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Water Treatment Plan at 1900 Rice Street North. This approval does not include the future cold vehicle storage building shown on the plans along the west side of the site. The city bases this approval on findings required by the code'. The property owner or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: Building material and color samples of the plaster, metal panels, roofs, trim, and garage doors. b. A revised landscape/screening plan that shows the following: (1) The spruce trees proposed for the south and east sides of the parking lot and the property revised from 6 feet in height to 8 feet in height. (2) The planting of more coniferous trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot to help screen the parking lot from the houses to the south and east. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 (3) Landscaping details for the stream buffer area and for the proposed rainwater gardens. If the basin area will only be seeded, the area must b6 vegetated with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be approved by the city before the contractor does the seeding. (4) An in-ground irrigation system (including sprinkler heads) for the areas that would have sod. The city does not require irrigation for areas with native grasses or for the rainwater gardens. Detailed grading, drainage, paving, utility and erosion control plan for approval by the Assistant City Engineer. These plans shall meet all the requirements of the Assistant City Engineer. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting showing the location, style, height and design of the proposed light fixtures. All freestanding lights shall not be taller than 25 feet, and the illumination from any outdoor light must not exceed 0.4-foot candles at all property lines. Plans for any trash-dumpster enclosures. The gates for such enclosures shall be 100 percent opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new buildings. These plans shall be subject to staff approval. fo Proof of recording of a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along th6 west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Complete and install all required exterior improvements, including the approved landscaping and any dumpster enclosures before occupying the buildings. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-27-2003 Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the planning commission on June 2, 2003, and to the city council on June 23, 2003. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. IX, STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall stated the following: a. No CDRB representation is needed for the June 9, 2003, city council meeting. The city council will be holding a workshop on June 23, 2003, to discuss the Maxfield Market Study for the Hillcrest and Gladstone neighborhood. Either a notice or a packet of information will be sent out. c. Ms. Finwall reminded the board that the annual tour will be held on June 30, 2003, with more information to follow. Board member Craig Jorgenson has resigned from the board and he will be sending a letter of his official resignation this week to staff. After his letter is received staff will be advertising for an opening to the CDRB. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 'FO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes Between County Road D and Woodlyn Avenue Mendota Homes, Inc. June 18, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Erin Mathem, of Mendota Homes, Inc., is proposing to build a 26-unit twin-home development on a 5.2-acre parcel between County Road D and Woodlyn Avenue. The proposed development would have 10 buildings fronting on a private roadway running south from County Road D to the Xcel power line easement. There would also be three twin homes fronting on Woodlyn Avenue south of the Xcel easement. Refer to the maps and narrative on pages 14-28. The proposed twin homes would each have two-car, front-facing garages. They would be sided with no-maintenance vinyl horizontal-lap siding, vinyl shake detailing beneath the gable peaks and brick wainscot on the front of the garages. The applicant has included three optional front- elevation designs as well. Refer to the building elevation reduction on page 22 or the larger plans (separate attachment). Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: A wetland buffer variance, since they propose to displace two small wetlands and mitigate them within the site. They would also incorporate a third wetland into a large wetland they would create beneath the power lines. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). The applicant is proposing this project as a PUD since they would be platting this as a townhome development and not create individual 12,000-square-foot double-dwelling lots as specified in the ordinance for twin homes. 3. A preliminary plat. 4. The project design plans. BACKGROUND Recent Housing Developments in this Neighborhood February 14, 2000: The city council approved the last three buildings to be constructed in the Woodlyn Heights Townhome development on Woodlyn Avenue west of McKnight Road. The first of the remaining three three-plexes is under construction. October 9, 2000: The city council approved the 60-unit Birch Glen Apartments on the west side of the proposed twin-home site. This development is completed and units are available for rent. April 28, 2003: The city council approved the 100-unit Sibley Cove Apartments located south of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Adel Street. DISCUSSION Wetland Buffer Variance There are three depressions on the site that the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct has classified as Class 4 wetlands. The northerly and southerly ones would be removed as part of this development. The middle one, under the power lines, would be incorporated into a considerably larger wetland. Refer to the grading/drainage plan on page 19 or the full-sized plan (separate attachment). The watershed district has approved the proposed changes and has issued a permit already to the applicant. Refer to their letter on page 29. At the June 2 planning commission meeting, Commissioner Rossbach stated that when the planning commission reviews this proposal, he will recommend that there not be any net loss of wetland buffer by the removal of the existing wetlands. I spoke to Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district. He concurred and suggested that the applicant provide a 25-foot buffer around the proposed wetland, equivalent to the required Class 4 wetland buffer requirement. (The code requires an average buffer width of 25 feet with a 20-foot minimum.) I measured the perimeter of the existing three wetlands and the perimeter of the proposed wetland. The existing wetlands have a combined distance of 740 linear feet of buffer surrounding them measured 25 feet from the wetland edge. The perimeter of the proposed wetland, also measured 25 feet from the proposed wetland edge, is 750 linear feet. Staff also compared the gain in wetland area between the three existing wetlands and the proposed mitigated wetland. The total area of the existing wetlands equals 6,600 square feet. The proposed wetland would have 17,200 square feet of area. This is an increase of 62 percent. A question came up at the planning commission meeting as to whether the proposed wetland would have an equivalent width of buffer to those being removed. Tina Carstens of the watershed district explained that the district felt that the buffer around the proposed wetland, as well as the wetland itself, would be substantial improvements over the existing ones. The three existing wetlands, in fact, do not show up on their wetland inventory. The proposed replacement would be an improvement over the existing three depressions and would be a benefit for wildlife along with the wetland vegetation to be required as part of this created wetland improvement. The applicant is requesting a vadance because they propose to replace the existing wetlands with the larger proposed one. The wetland ordinance allows the city council to approve variances and states that the council may require that the applicant mitigate any buffer alteration. Staff agrees with the applicant's proposed mitigation plan and, as stated in the watershed district's letter, feels that they would be improving the quality of wetlands on this site. Staff recommends that the 25- foot average-width buffer around this new pond be planted with native wetland vegetation (code requirement for mitigated buffers). Drainage/City Engineer's Comments In addition to the wetland pond proposed, the applicant is proposing a storm water treatment pond on the uphill side. This pond will collect and treat storm water runoff from the majority of the site before it enters the wetland. The runoff from the three building sites to the south will flow directly to the new wetland. I have included a copy of Chris Cavett's and Edn Schacht's report from our engineering- department's review. They have addressed grading, erosion control, storm sewers, drainage, the pdvate street, utilities and trail/sidewalk easements. Please refer to pages 31-33. In bdef, their main concems are: · The need for proper turf establishment and slope stabilization. The use of proper native seed mixes for the wetland area. · The applicant should dedicate 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all sides of each lot. The applicant should dedicate a 10-foot pedestrian easement along the northerly edge of the site for the relocation of the bituminous trail and relocate the bituminous trail within this easement. Regarding the bituminous trail, this trail did not follow the required and proper setback from County Road D when it was installed, because of objections from the previous owner. Now is the opportunity to correct this matter and provide an increased trail setback from the street edge. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Density This proposal complies with the R2 designation in the land use plan and meets density requirements. The land use plan allows a maximum density of six units per acre for a total of 30 dwelling units. The proposed 26 units are under this limit. Compatibility The proposed twin-home use is compatible with the adjacent properties. It would provide an appropriate transition between the Birch Glen Apartments to the west and the Maplewood open space property to the east. It would also be an appropriate fit with the Village on Woodlyn seniors housing and the Salvation ^rmy Church to the south and with the two houses to the north 'across County Road D. These homes, however, are on lots planned for BC (business commerc, ia!).. I.f the city gets a commercial-development application for these parcels, we will work toward m~mm~.mg any negative impact on the twin homes. The applicant has applied for a PUD for the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The code requires that double dwelling lots be at least 85 feet wide and have at least 12,000 square feet of area. These requirements are meant to apply when a twin home would be built on a lot in a typical 3 single-family neighborhood. The city code does not have provisions for twin homes within townhome developments, although we have approved several such developments. One recent development is the Dearbom Meadow twin home plat on the south side of Highway 36 east of VVhite Bear Avenue. Another is the Holloway Ponds twin-home townhome development on Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common areas including the private driveway and parking lot. PUD Criteria/Flexibility Section 36-438(b) of the city code states 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 superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or 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. Staff feels that'the proposed plan would create an attractive townhome development of double dwellings that would blend into this existing neighborhood creating an appropriate transition between neighboring land uses. Preliminary Plat As proposed, the 26 units on the 5.2-acre site means there would be five units per acre--an average of 8,712 square feet per unit. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000- square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. The applicant is proposing a private roadway from County Road D. This roadway measures about 21 feet in width from curb-to-curb (inside edge to inside edge). The minimum roadway width required for a two-way roadway is 24 feet. The applicant should be able to accommodate this within their 27.63-foot roadway area. Staff recommends that the "outlot" designations on the plat be changed to "lots" to create a common-interest community. We have seen in the past where outlots have gone tax-delinquent which can result in unmaintained property or property that becomes available at county auction. Granted, this occurrence is very unlikely. Staff feels, though, that it is a good practice for this and future such developments to designate common areas as lots vs. outlots. T~c A representative from the Salvation Army Church expressed concern over the existing traffic congestion along White Bear Avenue and in the Maplewood Mall area in general. One neighbor on Lydia Avenue also expressed concern that the traffic was turning Lydia Avenue into a "freeway." The city engineer does not feel that the proposed 20 dwelling units that would enter at County Road D and the six on Woodlyn Avenue would have any significant affect on the traffic. Noise Analysis The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MnPCA) requires that the proposed dwelling units not be impacted by noise over specific levels. If the freeway noise exceeds these levels, the applicant should dampen the noise within the units by methods like installing sound-reducing windows, better wall insulation and by providing air conditioning. The applicant is having a noise analysis performed to evaluate freeway noise impact. Design Architectural The applicant has proposed roof design options that would provide some architectural variation within the project from building to building. This is illustrated in the streetscape drawing on page 23 and on Sheet A1 of the elevation drawings. Please note, however, that the 3-unit building shown right of the streetscape sketch is not proposed in this twin-home development. The exterior materials would be consistent from building to building. The applicant would mix color schemes for vadety. All color ranges would be neutral tones such as tan, cream, taupe, gray and brown. One comment made by the planning commission was concern about the prominent garage views from the front of these strUctures. As proposed, there would be very little dwelling visible from the front. Garage doors would be a prominent feature. Staff concurs with the planning commission's point about this, but also recognizes the difficulty the applicant has had by trying to fit this development onto this long, narrow site. As an attempt to dress up the architectural appeal from the public views, staff recommends that the applicant enhance the elevations facing County Road D and Woodlyn Avenue. More wide use of brick should be utilized along with the shake, trim and siding details already proposed. Deck Encroachments Staff has one concern with the proposed building placement. The rear decks on the three southerly buildings would be within the Xcel power line easement. The applicant should obtain wdtten approval from Xcel verifying that they will allow the deck encroachments. The city council made the same requirement of the developer of the Woodlyn Heights town houses to the east. Tree Replacement and Landscaping Tree Replacement The applicant prepared a tree survey. Of the 78 large trees on the site, 30 were found to be significant trees according to our ordinance. These trees are of the following species: American 5 Elm, Norway Spruce, White Spruce, Silver Maple, Austdan Pine, Crabapple, Green Ash, Blue Spruce, Paper Birch and European Mountain Ash. Other large trees on the site are species such as: Boxelder, Cottonwood, Black Locust and Sibedan Elm. To comply with the city's tree- replacement requirements, the applicant must plant 30 replacement trees. They show 117 new trees on their landscape plan. The applicant would surpass the tree-replacement requirements. Landscaping The proposed landscaping is shown on two drawings. There is an overall plan showing new trees around the site. The other drawing is more specific in showing the proposed plantings around each building. Staff finds the proposed landscaping acceptable. Site Considerations Sidewalks/Trails The applicant should provide a sidewalk along the southerly lot line as was required of the Woodlyn Heights Townhomes to the east. This will complete this section of future sidewalk on the north side of Woodlyn Avenue. The existing bituminous trail along the north side of the site should be relocated closer to the applicant's property as discussed above. Site-Lighting Plan The city code does not require a site-lighting plan for double dwellings, so none has been requested. Roadway Width The private roadway should be widened to 24 feet, which is the minimum width for two-way traffic. This roadway should also be posted for "no parking" on either side. The fire marshal, furthermore, requires a 20-foot-wide unobstructed ddve for emergency vehicles. Visitor Parkinq Lot The applicant has proposed a seven-space visitor parking lot at the south end of their private roadway. Staff feels that this is a good idea though it would not be useful for the northerly six buildings. Staff is also concerned that the homeowners association should make sure that it does not become a storage lot for RVs, boats, trailers, etc. Barbed Wire Fence There is an old barbed wire fence on the east, west and south sides of the site. The applicant should remove these as part of their site development. Police and Fire Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the north-south roadway must be at least 20 feet wide. Likewise, the shared ddve serving the southerly six units must also be at least 20 feet wide. The ddveway in front of the easterly building narrows to 18.5 feet. Mr. Gervais will accept this as long as this driveway is kept clear of snow and parking is not permitted within this ddve. Deputy Chief Banick sees no public safety concerns with this proposal. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, stated the following: · This project must comply with the International Residential Code. Some of the units may need to be handicapped accessible. If retaining walls are over four feet tall, they must be designed by a structural engineer and have a separate building permit. COMMITTEE ACTIONS June 16, 2003: The planning commission recommended approval of the variance, PUD and preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution beginning on page 34 approving a wetland buffer variance for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the applicant will replace three small, poorer-quality wetlands with a larger, better-quality wetland. 2. Stdct enforcement of the code, by requiring the preservation of the existing wetlands, would not result in the best use and layout of the property and would, therefore, cause undue hardship. The three subject wetlands are not of a nature that they would be an asset to the site for either water retention or wildlife habitat. In this instance, it is an advantage to the developer, as well as the city, to create a useable and aesthetic wetland in lieu of the existing ones. Approval is conditioned upon the applicant doing the following: a. Revise the site plan to provide a wetland-protection buffer around the proposed wetland. This buffer must be an average of 25 feet wide with a minimum width of 20 feet. b. Dedicate a wetland buffer easement to the City of Maplewood pdor to obtaining a grading permit for the project. c. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the buffer before the first unit is occupied which states, =WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD.~ These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. d. Provide a planting plan for the wetland buffer to be approved by the watershed district. This plan shall consist of a proposal to plant the buffer with native wetland vegetation. Adopt the resolution starting on page 36 approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. This approval is based on the findings for approval listed in the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall provide a noise evaluation for this site to determine if freeway noise would impact their proposed units above the maximum noise levels required by the MnPCA. If freeway noise does exceed these levels, the applicant shall reduce the outside noise within the units. The homeowners association documents shall state that the visitor parking lot shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. 6. The applicant shall post the north-south pdvate roadway for no parking on both sides. Approve the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes preliminary plat date-stamped May 20, 2003. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. Provide all required and necessary easements, including ten-foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the property, the wetland buffer easement and the 10-foot pedestrian easement along the north of the property. d. Cap and seal any wells on site. e. Have Xcel Energy install street lights. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. g. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 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 Engineering Plan Review memo dated June 6, 2003. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. This escrow amount is $1,000. 4. Label the common areas as "lots" instead of "outlots." 5. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct for grading. Also obtain MnPCA and NPEDS (National Pollution Elimination Discharge System) permits. 6. 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. 7. Submitting 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 private utilities, driveways and common areas. The applicant shall submit these prior to obtaining a building permit. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003 (site plan, landscape plan, grading/drainage and architectural) for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit: Have the city engineer approve final engineering plans, subject to compliance with the Maplewood En.qineedn,q Plan Review dated June 6, 2003 from the staff report. This data shall be considered an addendum to these conditions. b. Dedicate a 25-foot (average width) wetland-protection buffer easement to the City of Maplewood around the proposed wetland. This buffer may narrow to 20 feet. c. Provide a revised landscape plan for the wetland-protection buffer for approval by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct and the city engineer. d. Provide'written approval from Xcel for any deck encroachment into their easement. e. Provide engineering data for the retaining wall if the height would exceed four feet. 9 f. Provide revised building elevations for the elevations facing Woodlyn Avenue and County Road D to enhance these elevations with brick. This is subject to staff approval. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the wetland buffer edge which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. 4. The north-south private roadway shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. This roadway shall be 24 feet wide and be posted for "no parking" on both sides. 5. The 18.5-foot east ddveway in front of Lots 5 & 6 by Woodlyn Avenue shall be kept free of snow and posted for "no parking". 6. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. (code requirement) 7. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. 8. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Provide the city with verification that the units will meet all state noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise levels on this site violate any of the state standards, then the contractor will have to construct the building so that it can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the building. 10. Relocate the bituminous trail to the south to widen the boulevard and to align the trail away from the street edge. 11. Complete the following: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install a reflectodzed stop sign at County Road D. d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. So Install streetlights at the County Road D roadway connection, at the end of the private roadway by the visitor parking lot and at the VVoodlyn Avenue ddveway connection. f. Remove the old barbed wire fencing around the perimeter of the site. l0 12. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required extedor improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spdng or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 13. call work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed 26 property owners within 350 feet of the site about the proposal. We received seven replies. Three property owners had no objection, two were in favor and two objected. No Objection 1. I have no objections knowing that these units will be "for sale." (Howard Rekstad, the Village on Woodlyn) No problems to us. (Tinh Zuan Le and Thu Huong Thi Nguyen, 2091 Lydia Avenue) No reservations for this project. (Edward and Helen Dode, 3745 South Hills Ddve) In Favor The development of the proposed Mendota twin homes would blend the area from the apartments to the residential single family homes, which would enhance the community. This is an excellent proposal! (Jerome and Patdcia Parker, 12866 Ingersol Avenue) Twin homes seem like an appropriate use for the property. (Tom Schuette, Plaza 3000 Shopping Center) Opposed We have serious concerns in regards to traffic flow.' We already have a very difficult time trying to get onto White Bear Avenue, especially dudng the holidays, just to get to the 694 interstate and we are only a couple blocks away. What (how) are they going to handle this problem? (Salvation Army) 2. Refer to the wdtten response on page 30 from Douglas and Sherfi Sporre. 12 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Lot Area: 5.2 acres Existing Use: Vacant (the single dwelling previously on this site has been removed) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: County Road D and two single dwellings on property planned BC Undeveloped Maplewood open space land and the Bruentrup Farm Lydia Avenue, the Salvation Army church and the Village on Woodlyn Birch Glen Apartments PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Land Use Plan Designation: R2 Zoning: F (farm residential) Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution starting on page 36. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 20, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 19, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 13 p: sec2n/MendotaHomes.6-03 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Preliminary Plat Denoting the Existing Wetlands 7. Overall Site Landscape Plan 8. Foundation Planting Plan 9. Building Elevations 10. Woodlyn Ponds Streetscape Drawing 11. Applicant's Letter of Vadance Justification dated May 14, 2003 12. Applicant's Letter of Conditional Use Permit Justification dated May 14, 2003 13. Letter from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District dated Apd121, 2003 14. Survey Response from Douglas and Sherd Sporre dated May 27, 2003 15. Maptewood Engineering Plan Review dated June 6, 2003 16. Vadance Resolution 17. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 18. Plans date-stamped May 20, 2003 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 MAPLEWOOD I~t~LL ~ WOODLYN AVENUE . Ii~111111' I' ~"6 I'~~ LOCATION 14 MAP PERKINS ~ ~_~MER~LD INN CHILDRENS WORLD SlBLEY COVE APARTMENTS SITE 0 'PLAZA 30O0 NORTH ANNEX PLAZA 3000 _ I Attachment 2 2075 2091 COUNTYROAD D E F- PROPOSED z MENDOTA ~ HOMES n, TWIN-HOME 21 < SITE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD a. OPEN SPACE z LAND uj ZONED: : -~ F (FARM :3: RESIDENTIAL) --~ PLANNED: ~ R2 (DOUBLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL) 0 WOODL YNN AVE SALVATION ARMY o CHURCH VILLAGE ON WOODLYN 2043 2049 2055 2061 2067 2073 2079 Z085 2091 2099 2103 2109 2115 2121 2127 LYDIA AVE E AREA MAP 15 Attachment 3 interchange Coun[y D White Bear Lake arterial R-1 694 Figure 14 Attachment 4 v 1 , ~C 0 U ,~ ,,Th' ;C ! >) -, I '- A I PROPOSED ~ ~ MENDOTA HOMES , ....... ~-I[ ...... ~ ~l~ HOME. -I SITE ~ll _ .~ ~1- ~3.~ ~ ...... -"~ ~-~ ~! ~ ~o' ~c ~ 5 ~ 6 ~ 7 , lO -.-,TE,i .~ .... 3~9. f "1 ~J6UI~Y ROAD D ........... L~.? '" i ( WOOOLYN r'OND$ MAPLe. WOOD. MN ~3 -- 7 ' ,, OUTLOtI' A ,,, oo ,i / ,/ 18 Attachment 6' :,.~...' ' '",~ ......... COUNTY ~3 :1I · I ~o ~° OUTI,OT A i / ! WOODLYNN AVENUE ' arson Attachment 7 .--.~ COUNTY ROAD D i 2O r.~ Attachment 8 21 M,APLEWOOD TWINHOMES ~ MAPLEWOOD. MN. MENDOTA HOMES, INC. 22 bvt ARCHITECT 80 r'rl m Attachment 10- MAPLEWOOD TOWNHOMFS - 30 UNITS COUNTY ROAD D MAPLFWOOD, MN. MENDOTA HOMFS, INC. 23 bvt ME NDO A l-1 NC. May 14, 2003 RECEIVED HAY 2 0 2003 Attachment 11 P.O. Box 416 Forest Lake, IVlN 55025 Roseville (651) 604-0967 Fax (65 l) 604-0972 Forest I.~ke (651) 464-9055 lax (651) 464-905~ City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Mendota Homes, Inc. is requesting a variance to fill three small wetland areas located on the property at 2090 East County Road D in Maplewood. This request accompanies an application to construct 26 new townhomes (13 twinhomes) on the property. The development site has two significant characteristics which make this variance ' necessary..First, the existing, small wetland areas on the site are dispersed throughout the property in a way that makes a cohesive housing develoPment impossible while preserving these areas. Second, the site is bisected by a substantial utility easement, 'making a one and one-half acre area of this five acre parcel unbuildable. The proposed development plan includes the creation of a new wetland in the easement area, The new wetland replaces the existing wetlands at a ratio greater than the required 2:1. Moreover, the new wetland creates an aesthetic and environmental amenity for the development and the surrounding neighborhood, while making use of an otherwise unusable portion of the property. Finally, the new wetland area provides cohesion to the development plan, helping to tie together the north and south portions of the development. This variance request meets the State law requirements for undue hardship. First, under the present conditions, developing the site while maintaining the existing small wetland areas would require under-utilization of the property and sporadic placement of dwelling units to accommodate wetland preservation. As a transitional area between a City park and a higher density apartment complex, twinhome construction is an appropriate, reasonable use of the property. Under-utilization is an unreasonable alternative, in light of the wetland replacement plan proposed. Second, the sporadic placement of wetland pockets and the existence ora utility easement are conditions unique to the property and not the creation of the developer. Third, granting this variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The property contains wetland areas now, and will contain a wetland area after development. In fact, the variance would facilitate the creation of a larger, maintainable wetland, enhancing the neighborhood's character. 24 This variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. We have worked extensively with the Ramsey County Watershed District to ensure we are appropriately replacing the existing wetland pockets. The proposed new wetland exceeds the required 2:1 replacement ratio and represents a maintainable alternative to the present conditions. We are not wholesale removing a wetland. We are creating better conditions on the site that allow for wetland maintenance and well-planned residential construction. Please contact Mendota Homes, Inc. at 651-604-0967 for additional information. Sincerely, Erin Mathern for Mendota Homes, Inc. Attachment 11o c. May 14, 2003 City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RECEIVED HAY 2 0 2003 P.O. Box 416 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Roseville (651) 604-0967 Fax (65 I) 604-0972 Forest Lake (651) 464-9055 Fax (651) 464-9056 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Attached, please find Mendota Homes' application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct thirteen rambler-style twinhomes (26 dwelling units) on the property at approximately 2090 East County Road D, legally described as Tract A, Registered Land Survey g463. This property is rectangular in shape with County Road D as its north boundary and Woodlyn Avenue as its south boundary. The property includes 264 feet of street frontage on both streets and is 857 feet long. The property contains a wetland area and a pipeline easement running east / west, effectively bisecting the property. The property is zoned F, farm residential. One vacant single-family home is presently located on the site. It is bordered by a City park area to the west and a newly constructed apartment building to the east. We understand that twinhomes are a permitted conditional use within the farm residential Zoning classification. We believe our proposal meets the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit set forth by the City of Maplewood. 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. The proposed use is consistent with the residential character of the underlying zoning designation. Moreover, the style of housing proposed - twinhomes - is permitted as a conditional use. A residential use of the property has been contemplated by the City Maplewood. The presence of a 235 foot wide easement, the buildable portions of the property, makes twinhomes a logical choice. The proposed development will provide a lower density transition between the high density apartments to the west and the park area to the west. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The surrounding area is either used as, or planned for, residential uses. The proposed development is exclusively residential and is in keeping with the surrounding area. 3. The use wouM not depreciate property values. The proposed development will bring 26 new homes to the neighborhood, enhancing property values. 4. The use will not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment, or methods of operation that would be dangerous... The proposed use is strictly residential, and poses no danger to the surrounding area. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and wouM not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The 26 planned units will be served by two new private roadways. A roadway with access from Woodlyn Avenue will provide ingress and egress for the three twinhomes located on the south end of the development. A roadway with access from County Road D will provide ingress and egress for the remaining ten twinhomes. County Road D and Woodlyn are significant thoroughfares that do not presently appear congested. The proposed development will appeal to couples and empty-nesters likely to take fewer vehicular trips per day, thus minimizing the traffic impact of the development. Additionally, the new roadways included in the development provide for just two new curb cuts - one on Woodlyn and one on County Road D. The use wouM be served by adequate tmblic faciBties and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools, and parks. The existing services, coupled with new services and amenities created by the development, will provide adequate public services for the project. The use wouM not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. We believe this statement to be true. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The site currently contains three small wetland areas. The proposed development plan allows the creation of a much larger wetland area, centrally located between 27 the north and south portions of the development, for the enjoyment of all residents. The creation of this new, sustainable wetland allows for better, more efficient use of the property by replacing marginal wetland areas sporadically located on the site. The wetland will be the dominant natural feature on the site and will provide an appropriate transition between the proposed development and the new park area to the west. 9. The use will cause minimal adverse environmental impacts. The proposed development will allow for sustainable preservation of a significant wetland area, and will result in no foreseeable adverse environmental conditions. We feel that the proposed twinhome development represents an appropriate, thoughtful use of the property. Please contact me for any additional information. 651-604-0967. Sincerely, Erin Mathern for Mendota Homes, Inc. Ramsey-Washington Metro District April 21, 2003 John Mathem Mendota Homes, Inc. PO Box 416 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Attachment 13 1902 East County Road r~ Maplewood, MN 55'~ (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 email: office@rwmwd.org NAY 2 0 2002 RE: Woodlyn Ponds Dear Mr. Mathern, After review of the replacement plan submitted for the above-mentioned projectl there are additional components of the plan that are required. Please see the attached copies of the Wetland Conservation Act with the needed items highlighted. Because of the review time associated with replacement plan reviews, this project will not go to the Board in May but will go to the Board the following month. A notice of application has been sent out to the necessary agencies. A full staff review was held today and there were a couple of comments about the plan that should be addressed. Our engineer suggests that you either verify there is no increase in the flood level in the wetland to the southwest OR show that the 100-year flood elevation of the wetland is at least 2 feet below any nearby low floors. Also, the plans were unclear as to where the inlets and outlets to the stormwater ponds were located. Please send a plan where that is clearer. Also, on the revised set of plans, a rock construcii0n entrance and inlet protection shall be shown. Overall, I feel this is a good Plan with an exciting opportunity to create a wonderful amenity for the development. I hope that a good vegetation and monitoring plan is developed to ensure this created wetland is a success. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 651-704-2089. Thank you. Sincerely, Tina Carstens Permit Program Coordinator 29 May 27, 2003 Together We Can Attachment 14 Douglas D. & Sherri L. Sporre 2099 Lydia Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55109-1458 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY - MENDOTA HOMES TOWN HOUSE PROPOSAL (FORMERLY THE HAUSE PROPERTY AT 2090 COUNTY ROAD D) I This letter is to get your opinion on an application the city received for property in your neighborhood. Mendota Homes, Inc., is requesting that the Maplewood City Councilla. pprove their proposed 26-unit town house development. The applicant is proposing to deve-5~'~;~ property with 13 twin homes. Three twin homes would front on Woodlyn Avenue; the other ten would be accessed from a private street that would intersect County Road D. Refer to the attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please wdte your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have wdtten comments, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by June 6, 2003. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-770-4562 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. I will send you a notice of any public hearing on this application. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. THOMAS EKSTRAND - ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Enclosures: ~:~.~ ~--~,~-rrj ~ 0 ]~ Maps and Drawings q~ ~~~ O~ ~~ I have no comments: ~ ~ Comments: [~. ~',~ ~ ~M ~ ~}~~ ',~ (Mendo~Homes/Se~on2N) , ~~4 ~~ ,,~ ~,~~, ~ ~ OFFICE OF COM~ONI~ DEVELOPME 651-770-4560 · F~: 651-748-5096 CiTY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B · MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Attachment 15 Maplewood Engineering Plan Review Date: 06/6/03 By: Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett Project: Woodlyn Ponds Review Summary: The applicant shall address the following comments to the preliminary plans. Grading and Erosion Control: 1. A large number of contours are missing from the grading plan between the buildings in block 2. 2. Grading permits from the city, Watershed, and MPCA (new NPDES Construction Permit) are required. 3. The applicant shall submit a specific seeding plan of exactly what seed mixtures are to be used in different areas. Steep slopes, as well as the areas in and around the ponding areas shall be seeded with a appropriate native (wet and dry) grass and forbes mixtures. In fact much of the area between blocks 1, 2 & 3 shall be vegetated with native vegetation. It is strongly recommended that the applicant utilize an experienced installer firm who specializes in the establishment of native plant communities. Seed mix designs should be compatible to the native restoration work taking place in the open space property to the east. Seeding and mulching of the site with a temporary cover crop (rye, oats or winter wheat) shall be done in phases to secure the site and shall be completed in accordance to the new NPDES Construction Permit. The emergency overflow to the wetland, and the ditch on the west side of east side of the site needs to have soil stabilization blanket. Include riprap at all inlets and outlets. 5. All slopes 3:1 or greater need erosion control matting and blanket to protect the seeded area from erosion. 6. Revise the grading plan to show existing trees, as well as elevation of the top and bottom of the walls. The city requires a building permit for any retaining walls 4-feet tall or higher. The applicant shall include all retaining walls on the project plans. The developer or applicant shall include a detail of the wall design with the building permit 31 o application. More detail (including cross-sections) is required for the walls at the east side of the site. A temporary grading easement will be required for any activity on the adjacent properties. This includes the grading for the overflow swale at the south west. The City of Maplewood has been undergoing a native vegetation restoration project in the open space to the east and it is critical this area is not disturbed. Silt fence installation and work required to construct the retaining wall shall not extend east of the east property line, (city open space). Street: 1. The street shall be a private association driveway. The street shown on the plan is 24-feet-wide, which allows for no on street parking. If on-street parking is desired, a minimum 28-wide street is required to allow parking on one side. Drainage/Storm Sewer: Summa~: The proposed storm water management plan is generally very good. The large pond area being created in the middle of the site will be nearly 3 times the size of the wetlands being lost. In addition, a treatment pond and grassy swales will treat storm water before it enters this large basin. Though properly engineered and constructed overland flow is advantageous to water quality, we strongly question this application: directing concentrated flows from impervious surfaces onto vegetated slopes. Either provide specific details of how short-term and long-term erosion and runoff will be managed with such an application, or provide catch basins and storm sewer on both streets that flow to the ponding areas. On the south side of the plat, one option is to consider spillways between parcels 2&3 and 4&5, as well as utilizing permanent soil stabilization blanket on the slopes. On all sloped swales where concentrated flows will be expected and where soils are susceptible to erosion, permanent soil stabilization blanket, (Enkamt, NAG C350, others) shall be utilized. No drainage map accompanied the runoff calculations. The applicant shall submit a drainage map of the site with pre-development and post-development runoff calculations. 32 Indicate NWL and HWL elevations on the grading and utility plan for all basin areas. 4. Direct FES 1 to the south. Utilities: No sanitary service shall be connected directly to a sanitary manhole. The service shown at sanitary manhole #5, shall be connected to the sewer main with a wye just upstream of the MH. The development, north of the power line easement, will be served by the St. Paul Regional Water Services, (SPRWS). The area south of the power line easement will be served by North St. Paul Water Utility. The applicant must coordinate plan review and approval by each of the appropriate agencies. Specific agreements and easements may be required between the homeowner's association and each agency. For SPRWS, contact Bill Tschida ~ 651-266-6265 For NSPWU, contact Mark Bartholomew ~ 651-770-4488 Other: Provide a deeded 10-foot pedestrian easement on the north side of the property. Reconstruct the entire bituminous trail along the County Road D frontage and locate a minimum of 5-feet behind the curb. Taper into the existing alignment at the east side of the property. Provide 1 O-foot drainage and utility easements on all sides of the property. Install a 6-wide concrete sidewalk on along the entire Woodlyn frontage, placed 7-feet behind the curb. Provide curb ramps at the drive entrance. 33 Attachment 16 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, Inc. has applied for a variance from the wetland buffer requirements of the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this vadance applies to the property at 2090 County Road D East. The legal description is: TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 463, RAMSEY COUNTY WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 25-foot-wide wetland buffer around the three existing Class 4 wetlands on this property. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to remove these wetlands and mitigate them with a better quality, larger wetland. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On June 16, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council this variance. The city council held a public hearing on ,2003. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity 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 variance for the following reasons: 1. The vadance will be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance since the applicant will replace three small, poorer-quality wetlands with a larger, better-quality wetland. Strict enforcement of the code, by requiring the preservation of the existing wetlands, would not result in the best use and layout of the property and would, therefore, cause undue hardship. The three subject wetlands are not of a nature that they would be an asset to the site for either water retention or wildlife habitat. In this instance, it is an advantage to the developer, as well as the city, to create a useable and aesthetic wetland in lieu of the existing ones. Approval is conditioned upon the applicant doing the following: a. Revise the site plan to provide a wetland-protection buffer around the proposed wetland. This buffer must be an average of 25 feet wide with a minimum width of 20 feet. b. Dedicate a wetland buffer easement to the City of Maplewood prior to obtaining a grading permit for the project. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the buffer before the first unit is occupied which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. 34 d. Provide a planting plan for the wetland buffer to be approved by the watershed district. This plan shall consist of a proposal to plant the buffer with native wetland vegetation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 35 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION Attachment 17 WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct the 26-unit Woodlyn Ponds Twin Home development. WHEREAS, Section 36-438(b) of the city code provides a means to allow flexibility in design by the planned unit development process. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2090 County Road D East. The legal description is: TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 463, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 16, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council permit. this On ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 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. 36 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: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall provide a noise evaluation for this site to determine if freeway noise would impact their proposed units above the maximum noise levels required by the MnPCA. If freeway noise does exceed these levels, the applicant shall reduce the outside noise within the units. The homeowners association documents shall state that the visitor parking lot shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. 6. The applicant shall post the north-south private roadway for no parking on both sides. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 37