The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/16/2008 Together We Can September 10, 2008 Frank Janes Hartford Group lnc 1300 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Ave S Bloomington MN 55431 PUD REVISION - LEGACY SHOPS AT MAPLEWOOD, COUNTY ROAD D, EAST OF SOUTH LAWN DRIVE The Maplewood Planning Commission will consider the above request at its meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. The commission convenes its meeting at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 1830 County Road B East. The commission requires a representative of the applicant be present at the meeting or they may table your request. A copy of the staff report is enclosed for your information. Please call me at 651-249-2302 if you wish to discuss the recommendation or if you have any questions. C-~ cr ~ cJ~J --- TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER as Enclosure OFFiCE: OF COMMUNITY OEYE:LOPME:NT 651-249-2300 FAX: 651-249-2319 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 CfiTY OF MAPLiEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 16,2008 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. September 2, 2008 5. Public Hearings a. 7:00 pm: Legacy Shops, Legacy Village, County Road D . Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revision . The Special Assessments Escrow Agreement . The Release of Development Agreement 6. New Business 7. Unfinished Business a. Comprehensive Plan Update Continued Discussion 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations September 22 CC Meeting: St. John's Hospital PUD Revision and Vacations (Mr. Yarwood) October 13, 2008: Legacy Shops PUD Revision Tentatively Scheduled (Mr. Desai) 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to Me podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 6. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jwlpclpcagd Revised: 01/95 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2,2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Cornmissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Cornmissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present . Present Present Present Present Present Present City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand. Citv Planner Steve Love. Citv Staff Enqineer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Martin seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES V. a. August 19,2008 Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the amended minutes of August 19, 2008, with the following revisions: change the name Jeff Dieter to Leo Capeder on page 2; change the name Harold Sletten to Ralph Sletten on page 3; change "commercial" to "residential" in Commissioner Desai's comments on page 4; change the name Svoboda to Capeder on pages 5 and 6; and change Mr. Walton to Mr. Yarwood in the 2nd sentence of the 8th paragraph on page 8. Commissioner Boeser seconded Ayes - Boeser, Desai, Fischer, Martin, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Abstention - Hess The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:07 p.m. - St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue, Easement Vacation Requests Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for the request by HealthEast for three easement vacations since they are not needed by the hospital and they serve no purpose. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-02-08 -2- Mr. Ekstrand explained that St. Paul Regional Water Services has requested that a new water main easement be dedicated as part of this vacation for future access and maintenance needs. Mr. Ekstrand said the current water line will be abandoned and relocated when the new addition is built. In response to a request by Commissioner Trippler, Steve Love, city staff engineer, noted the location of the ponding easement to be vacated and explained that the existing catch basin carries storm water drainage from the parking lot area into the system. Mr. Love said the proposed plan for drainage provides for a new ponding area in the northeast corner of the site, which replaces impervious area with restructured impervious area. Commissioner Yarwood asked where the new water main easement will be located. Mr. Love explained it will come off of Hazelwood Avenue and run between the parking ramp and new addition into the building. Anthony Thomas, System Director of Corporate Real Estate of HealthEast, addressed the commission and invited questions from the commission. Commissioner Pearson asked if there are elevator areas planned with the addition. Mr. Thomas responded that additional elevators are planned. The public hearing was opened for public comments; there were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the three resolutions vacating the water rnain easement, storm water easement and ponding easement on the St. John's Hospital property located southwest of the existing building. The vacation of these easements is recommended because it is in the public interest to do so as these easements do not serve any public purpose. The vacation of the water main easement is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant dedicating a new water main easement and private water main agreement with the St. Paul Regional Water Services prior to obtaining a building permit for the proposed hospital expansion. 2. This new easement and agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood City Engineer and the St. Paul Regional Water Services. 3. The applicant shall comply with any requirements of the St. Paul Regional Water Services as to their own easement-vacation procedures that may apply. Seconded by Commissioner Pearson The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Planning Commission Minutes of 09-02-08 -3- VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Upcoming Council Meetings and PC Representation: . September 8: No PC items . September 22: St. John's Hospital PUD Revision and Vacations - Mr. Yarwood X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Comprehensive Plan Update - Status of Consultants' Work Planner Ekstrand updated the commission on the cornprehensive plan update explaining that Michael Martin has recently been hired by the city as a planner. Mr. Ekstrand said Rose Lorsung and Jennifer Haskamp have resigned with MFRA to start their own planning-consulting firm, but they will continue to work with MFRA until Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and follow up zoning work is completed. Commissioner Boeser asked the status on the data on densities and other information that was requested from the consultant. Staff responded that Rose Lorsung has assured staff that she and Ms. Haskamp will continue to work with the commission and will continue the existing plan review schedule. The commission discussed the earlier public hearing meeting and whether another public hearing should be held. Mr. Ekstrand explained that the previous public hearing meeting for input from residents met legal requirements and that it is generous for the city to hold another upcoming special meeting for further public cornment by residents. Commissioner Martin said the information requested from the Metropolitan Council on densities is needed for the commission to move forward with the update. The commissioners then discussed their concerns regarding feasible densities for future development that need to be established in this plan, particularly for south Maplewood. They also discussed the change in calculating densities from net acreage in previous plans to gross acreage in the updated plan and noted they are still waiting for this additional data from the consultant for discussion at their September 16 meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM LOCATION: DATE: Acting City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner PUD Revision, Design Review and Development Agreements- Legacy Shops at Maplewood County Road D, East of South lawn Drive September 10, 2008 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of plan revisions for the Legacy Shops at Maplewood, a 14,616-square-foot retail center at Legacy Village. This project was previouslyapproyed by the community design review board on September 27, 2005, but the applicant has now revised the proposal to relocate the proposed building to the middle of the site rather than placing it with a 15-foot front setback from the County Road D right-of-way. Refer to the applicant's letter and the attached maps and plans. Re4uests The applicant is requesting the following approvals: For Plannina Commission Review . A revision to the approved planned unit development (PUD). The PUD required that the building have a reduced setback from the front lot line (code requires a minimum of 30 feet, the PUD required a maximum of 15 feet). For Community Desian Review Board Review . The revision of the approved 2005 plans. For City Council-Advisorv Committee Review Not Needed . The Special Assessments Escrow Agreement . The Release of Development Agreement The planning commission should review and recommend concerning the PUD revision. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved t~e Legacy Village PUD. The only condition of the PUD that is in question is the requirement that, "The building(s) on the retail/commercial site should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15 feet of the County Road D right-of-way with all parking to the south." September 27, 2005: The CDRB approved the original Legacy Shops proposal. Refer to the attached minutes from this meeting. August 14, 2006: The city council approved the Special Assessments Escrow Agreement and the Release of Development Agreement for the earlier proposal when there was a different retail developer for this site. These documents were not executed since that retail developer chose not to build. DISCUSSION PUD Revision On February 19, 2008, the planning commission reviewed the applicant's proposed design alternatives for this site. Refer to the planning commission's minutes. The main change was to pull the building away from County Road D and place it in the center of the site as now proposed. (There was another alternative that the planning commission minutes reflect in which there was a pOSSible driveway connection to Village Trail East on the south side of the site. The applicant dropped this idea for the current proposal.) The planning commission hl'ld mixed feelings regarding the proposed building placement in the middle of the site and its front elevation facing County Road D. According to the minutes, though, there were more members in support than opposed. On March 24, 2008, the city council discussed the applicant's site plan changes for this property. The minutes do not reflect any preference, but they expressed a willingness to consider options. From staff's point of view, the only negative is the visual departure from the theme of Legacy Village which promotes the reduced front setback from roadways for the "walkable" design element which was meant to bring buildings closer to front sidewalks. Buildings and landscaping were intended to be a primary feature as viewed from roadways in this community rather than parking lots. From a standpoint of function, staff agrees with the applicant in that if the back wall of this building was set close to the street, it would not serve as an appealing feature on the street side since there would be no customer doors on the street side. The north side of the building is the service side and it would have to function as the back of the building even though it faced the street. By moving the building to the center of the site, the building could still retail some of the "reduced" setback appearance since it would not be placed all the way on the south side of the property. This plan, if approved, should provide proper, aesthetic buffering on its south side for the Wyngate Townhomes. Substantial screening should be installed along the south property line by means of a decorative fence and proper landscaping. The goal of the CDRB should be to buffer this back side of the building for these residential neighbors. Another important element for the CDRB to consider is the control of light glare or spill over from the proposed retail site. The owner of Ashley Furniture is in favor of the proposed setback for the Legacy Shops. Staff met with the owner's representatives recently and they supported the increased setback. The currently-required 15-foot front setback would obscure the view of Ashley Furniture from the west which they strongly oppose. The owner of Ashley Furniture, in fact, would support the placement of the Legacy Shops building to the south side of the site. 2 Design Considerations Building Desian. Landscaping. Lighting The proposed building is attractive. The CDRB will be reviewing all design aspects at their upcoming meeting. Staff has not completed review of all design issues yet, but the plans are included for the planning commission's review. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution approving the revision of the planned unit development (PUD) for the Legacy Shops retail site at Legacy Village at Maplewood. This revision would allow the placement of the proposed retail shops building in the middle of the property rather than require a maximum setback from the County Road D right-of-way of 15 feet. Approval is subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): a. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site may be sited in the middle of the site. north to south. rather than the previous reauirement for a 15-foot maximum setback from the County Road D right-Of-way. should be sited ElA the north side of the !larvElI within 15' of the County Read 0 right of way with all!larkiAg tEl the SEluth; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs Shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent town homes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off the east leg of the roundabout and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent furniture store site; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. h. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building; 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.04 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and Slumberland Furniture South: Wyngate Townhomes East: Ashley Furniture West: Heritage Square Second Addition Townhomes PLANNING Land Use Plan: Be (business commercial> Zoning: PUD (planned unit development) APPLICATION/DECISION DEADLINE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on June 30, 2008. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. Staff, however, extended the required review deadline an additional 60 days in accordance with state statute. The reyised deadline for approval is now October 26, 2008. p:sec3\Legacy Shops PUD Revision 9 08 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Legacy Village PUD Concept Plan 3. Previously Site Plan Approved September 27, 2005 4. Proposed S~e Plan 5. Proposed Building Elevations (perspective drawings and elevations) 6. February 19, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 7. March 24, 2008 City Council Minutes 8. PUD Revision Resolution 9. Plans date-stamped September 9, 2008 (separate attachment) 4 Attachment 1 1-694 PROPOSED LEGACY SHOPS SITE i~- i I I -------- --- EE 1m IIIII .. . I I I I /71-1 -<, ~:::~ ~ - - -- -111, I I' "1::>/ i"i HERITAGE SQUARE ASHLEY ! / '\-' " 2ND ADDITION FURNITURE ,P \\ \\ \ WYNGA TE I /1/ n 'I~ RENTAL_J iii 1/' 1'1 TOWNHOMES II ., I Z I ! \~ . L iiHl 'ii \ ....-;;,,0='='== Il-T~ LEGACVPAR:::~L~~~/) l HERITAGE SQUARE 1\: r/ / i---'~ TOWNHOMES Ii "l SCULPTURE ~ I I ji , PARK ~ II , I Ii \ ~ ::E z ;0 o \. /y I' "\ \ I I \ / \j \/' \, \ \ I \ / // ii ,. / Jl j.J if! 3, Q/ Ol 01 $1 ~I ~I L___ L s JiT-, J~ I !t(f(!!'-a- ,~ I ~~ i I ii i r )~ BEAM AVEii r 1'1 U -"l \ \, " -., HazelWood ( -, ~ ll\TIT LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD 'fro pose J S .,t~ . ~ > i r........-............, ,.........~ -........- ----------- ---- -------r -="'==':;;::". 1-.......=..._-- ~ II . III' I 1.._ r\r- 'I ' I J , I I .... \" OUTLOT H , paR 8AU! TOWNHOIllI!S GROaI1'.71 Acl. ..,-._'''_VIICIl.Tm_ .- .- ..... / . -- \,.,1 t,) t: ;,}-.,,;:" l l k l.,,,,' '-~-- ------ -------- -------- ;W~.M ........~,.Il<"l; J---" rr' .. ''''" !l APPROVED PUD DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PLAN JULY 14, 2003 . ~ I~ k.. ! I 1111 i ill gg ~~ ~II 1111 I d P I I__il < .., d!lId!:.I'1111 i liiii ~~ i r.l i~ lr. m b~ lq Illr~J ! all .; h II ll~!' i~1 I;; ill! . Hi I*d;d !11.11 !I.I --= -------.---- I I I . I I . I I I I , I I . I ! I I I oil ~ ~ 8! --~P...J!l'!'!!'!!-~~---- "...............,&liI~liI --1 l'" I I I ~ I I I I I [-") i I I L Attachment 3 MI I I' ! ~ II ,.~ <10 ;~... z o ~G llil ~I;; ita .... !jf2 ~... o z I I I. ! . i . II ~IU III I !ll lllll!1i !lll g rlllJ III U~ ~' ~tl P I~; ~ 1.""'..,.,.,...1 ! I ~ I ~ 1 ~ I 'I' . , {,"^';;";c""~=,o..c,~;,,j :r !!!JD ~t '..', I {,,-!i .... ni ) ~ I . t ld I! ~ I'" " ti J 'Il \,) G~ t ~!il UD .~ , ~ ' P'II'! i pi ! 1111 , Ii !'! I ii ,1.1 'Ill II' I I' nn Iii 1',1:1 -!II'! I !,n!! ' fi ~ 'I ~! ." , I ,! ~ J ~ I; t i~l! III i~ il ;1 ~ 1 i" Ill" ,'! II ~ III .,; ill! 1I1!1 .' ~!, I, . II!! lll' 'I 11!!!I!I!!I.!~I!l!,l 1 I 11 HI II .j , 11.1i :!ll Ii II II! ipl" 1 '1'11 H~!l!1! I llll II I t II u~!llllili~llili ihi I ~ '" 'E <>", ~- ?l~ ~j' ~~ w & E ~. . ! (-:::'j ~ ~ ._.~ ~"""-:f \ --- "-I I , I , I , I I :tj T[ ~ ~ ~.. 2:':. ~.. 3i~ i il j' 4 ! I! I Ii i 'I' ~ ~ ~ '" I I 'I ,. u:~ ik !Ill! I'Ll! ~ b ti I ~ ~ lilli/lid Illllllu Attachment 4 ~ ~~ J;Z 0(1) 1=1= 1'0 m~ ijl.. ~~ -0 "" II I- ~ JO'IoH01lIl~~'" I nt 5 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l- I I of) of) I III I ~ I I ~ I I OC I () I z I I L I I ~ I I 11-. I I n I I \'f) I I I I .L____ I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .L c () :p I:i > \) Ul ->" '" I:i Ul c () :p I:i > \) Ul ->" '" ~ c () :p U > \) w fi L \) Z c () :p U > \) Ul I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ fi ::> J: ~ Attachment 6 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008 V. NEW BUSINESS a. Concept Plan Review - Legacy Village PUD Changes (Kennard Street and County Road D) 1. Rental Town House Site (Legacy Parkway - Kennard Street to Hazelwood) 2. Retail Site (Flandrau Street and County Road D) City planner Tom Ekstrand gave a brief presentation explaining that representatives of the Hartford Group wish to discuss with the commission alternative use and design ideas for the undeveloped areas of Legacy Village. Mr. Ekstrand said this item has been brought before the commission for discussion only and staff will not need a recommendation this evening. Mr. Ekstrand introduced Frank Janes of Hartford Group. Frank Janes addressed the commission and explained that Hartford Group is looking for informal discussion with the cornmission regarding the possible alternative use and design for the undeveloped area of Legacy Village. Mr. Janes explained to the commission the Hartford Group's possible commercial site development revisions. Mr. Todd Geller of Victory Capital Corporation explained that this corporation currently owns and manages about 600,000 square feet of retail, industrial and office space. Mr. Geller said Victory Capital Corporation expressed concern with the back of the building on County Road D, but did move forward with a purchase agreement. Mr. Geller explained the following design concerns with the building rear facing County Road 0: 1) signage on both sides of the building, 2) delivery and loading in the front of the building, 3) security issues due to the parking lot being shielded from County Road 0,4) trash collection from the opposite side of the parking lot from the building, 5) car traffic lighting disturbance, 6) existing design does not allow for a drive-through, 7) facade is designed with four fronts of glass making a restaurant or coffee shop use with a kitchen or storage in the back nearly impossible. Commissioner Desai said he does not have a problem with this design of flipping the building and feels it may be an improvement for the neighboring townhomes. Commissioner Hess said he also feels the revised retail/commercial design makes sense. Mr. Janes explained that the style for the proposed building would be very similar to the approved plan. Commissioner Pearson questioned how the delivery and loading is proposed for the new design. Mr. Janes explained that the new design is not perfect due to grade constraints, but the new design allows for deliveries in the area of the drive-through. Commissioner Pearson suggested that an area for the trucks to pull off of the roadway for deliveries should be considered. Mr. Pearson also was concerned about the poor soils in the area where the hotel would be located. Patrick Sarver, director of development for Hartford Group, said the current design allows two 12-foot travel lanes and a 6-foot parking aisle along the southern part of Village Trail East. Mr. Sarver explained that Hartford felt these areas could be used for delivery parking for short periods of time. Commissioner Boeser said that he likes the design of flipping the building, but was not in favor of parking the trucks in front of the town homes. Mr. Boeser said he does not like the entry on Village Trail East, because that allows commercial traffic to use that road. Mr. Boeser suggested blocking off Village Trail East cornpletely to control commercial traffic in the residential area and having entrances on both County Road D and Flandrau. , Mr. Sarver responded that in order to be sensitive to the private drives in the area, the commercial drive and Village Drive East were positioned to handle the Ashley Furniture truck traffic for deliveries. Mr. Sarver said that Ashley Furniture has legal access to these roads. The commission discussed the traffic congestion in this area with Hartford Group's representatives. Cornmissioner Trippler was concerned that the continuity of the design of the Legacy area be maintained and encouraged the developer to preserve the established design. Mr. Trippler did not feel that flipping the building would improve the truck access or parking for deliveries. Mr. Trippler agreed with Mr. Pearson that there may be poor soils in the proposed site of the four-story hotel location. Commissioner Pearson rnentioned the need for recreational facilities in the residential part of the development. Mr. Janes thanked the commission for their comments on the commercial proposal and proceeded to explain plans for the residential development. Mr. Janes explained that due to the current housing market, townhomes are no longer a viable product and therefore, the developer is instead proposing to build a rental apartment building. Mr. Janes said that the developer proposes to retain as many of the existing trees as possible. Commissioner Boeser commented that the plans for the childcare facility are a good choice for that area, but he does not think the plan for a four-story hotel fits in with the surrounding area. Mr. Boeser said that with the proposed hotel and apartments buildings and parking lots, he is concerned with maintaining the existing trees on that site. Mr. Boeser questioned the developer about plans for maintaining the overall look of the development. Mr. Janes said there is a two-acre parcel in the residential part of the project that will be dedicated to the city for development of a children's play area. Commissioner Trippler encouraged the developer to rotate the childcare facility ninety degrees to align the facility east and west on County Road D, with the parking lot located south of the facility. Staff cornmented that this might move the play area from behind the building and negatively locate it to the street side of the building. Mr. Trippler said he would like to see the hotel building limited to three stories and suggested the four-story hotel be revised to three stories to better the fit the style of the neighborhood. Mr. Janes thanked the commission for their comments and said that they would make revisions to the plans. Attachment 7 2. Final Plat - Beaver Lake Townhomes Fifth Addition (Maryland Avenue and Sterling Circle, west of Sterling Street). a. Planner, Ken Roberts gave the report and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the Final Plat of March 14. 2008 - Beaver Lake Townhomes Fifth Addition (Maryland Avenue and Sterlinq Circle. west of Sterlinq Street). Seconded by Council member Nephew. Ayes - Councilmembers Juenemann, Nephew & Rossbach Nay - Mayor Longrie & Councilmember Hjelle The motion passed. C). Concept Plan Review - Legacy Village PUD Changes (Kennard Street and County Road D). a. Rental Town House Site (Legacy Parkway - Kennard Street to Hazelwood). b. Retail Site (Flandrau Street and County Road D). c. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave a brief introduction of the concept plan review. d. Frank Janes, Hartford Group addressed and answered questions of the council. e. Tom Geller, Victory Capital Corporation addressed and answered questions of the council. f. Jeremy Yarwood, Planning Commission member gave the planning commission report. No action is required for this item. This agenda item is only for discussion, this item will be brought back to the council at a later date. L. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of 2007 - 2008 Contract Between the City of Maplewood and Maplewood Confidential and Supervisory Association. (Councilmember Nephew requested that this item be removed from the agenda. It will be discussed at the Aoril14. 2008. city council meeting.) 2. Heritage Square Fifth Addition (County Road D, west of Highway 61). a. Preliminary Plat Revision b. Design Approval c. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council. d. Jeremy Yarwood, Planning Commission member gave the report from the planning commission. e. Mr. Shawn Siders, K. Hovnanian Homes addressed and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Hielle moved to approve the preliminarv plat date-stamped February 1. 2008. for the Heritaqe Square 5th Addition. subiect to the followinq conditions: (chanqes to the oriqinal recommendation is in bold and underlined). 1. The applicant shall construct the northerly trail connection between the existinQ trail on their site and the existinQ trail section approximately 300 feet to the west beneath the power lines. This trail shall be built accordinQ to the specifications of the city enQineer. Staff shall hold escrow for this trail construction. The trail amenities for the north trail shall extend from the County Road D sidewalk to LaBore Road. March 24, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes 16 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISION WHEREAS, Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, applied for a conditional use permit revision to revise the planned unit development requirements of the retail site at Legacy Village at Maplewood. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located south of County Road D, between Flandrau Street and Bittersweet Lane. The legal description is: Lot 3, Block 2, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On September 16, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. On , 2008, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council conditional use permit, because: the above-described 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. 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 (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): a. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site may be sited in the middle of the site. north to south. rather than the previous reQuirement for a 15-foot maximum setback from the County Road D riaht-of-way. ShOlolls lle sites en tho nortl'! sise ef tl'!e I'lllrcol '....ithin 15' of the County RellS D right of way witI'! alll'lar-king to the south; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent town homes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off the east leg of the roundabout and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent furniture store site; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. h. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building; The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2008. 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood Comprehensive Plan - Monthly Process Update Planning Commission September 16, 2008 Background At the August 19th Planning Commission meeting, the public hearing was held for the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission fielded questions from several interested parties regarding future land use, trails, parks, transportation and water resources. There appeared to be little interest regarding South Maplewood as the Planning Commission, at a previous meeting, had voted to retain the future South Maplewood density as 1-2 acre lots (0.5-1 units per acre of developable property). Throughout the process, staff and consultants have given the Planning Commission quite a bit of information about rural density and future zoning development policies that might support sewered rural-type neighborhoods. The Task Force, Planning Commission, Advisory Panel, Park Commission and a few Council members prepared a top 10 list (see below) of priorities for South Maplewood in order to understand opportunities and threats to the future of the last undeveloped area of the City. . Efficient Use of Land . Low-Impact Development . Natural Habitat Corridors . Wetlands Protection . Cluster Development . Large Wooded Areas . Nature Preserves . Infrastructure Costs . Density . Stormwater/Impervious Surface . Trails Connections . Tree Preservation . Prairie Restoration . Active Parks . Slope Buffer/Preservation . Lot Sizes . Historic Preservation . Additional Shoreline Buffers . Passive Parks . Affordable Housing . Energy Efficiency . View Shed/Corridors . Group Septic Systems Top 10 Results 1. Efficient Use of Land 2. Low-Impact Development 3. Natural Habitat Corridors 4. Wetlands Protection 5. Cluster Development 6. Large Wooded Areas 7. Nature Preserves 8. Infrastructure Costs 9. Density 1O.Stormwater CnTOFM-ll>l.t:lYOOD 2030 co.uPRmUi'Sil''Ep1..A.:V 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood South Maplewood Density Final Discussion The majority of the area south of Carver Avenue, east of Interstate 494 is being proposed to be guided Rural/Low Density Residential. There is a strong desire by all the commissions and many of the property owners to protect the south portion of Maplewood because of the quality of the environment and rural way of life in the area. As part of the comprehensive plan update, the City hired an ecologist to establish natural resource corridors that identify sensitive and valuable natural areas. The results of the study, walking tours, top 10 priorities list, executive report and all other research shows that the City has a strong desire to protect the rural character of South Maplewood while allowing for some reasonable development. Development and Preservation are two goals that are difficult to achieve together without creative density and zoning. Staff brought the density discussion back to the table at the last meeting in order to ensure that the Planning Commission realized that the opinion of staff and consultants was that 1-2 acre lot density doesn't fully accomplish both goals. The top 10 results that would be incorporated into the future zoning district, things like... Efficient Use of Land, Low-Impact Development and Natural Habitat Corridors don't seem to logically make sense with 1-2 acre lots as developers don't do these things as they are an added cost and not cost effective under that density scenario. South Maplewood Rural Low Density Calculations In the future all subdivisions in the entire community will be reviewed under a net density calculation. In determining net density, variables that get deducted for any plat are abundant in South Maplewood. Review the picture on the following page (Rural Low Density parcels in the dull yellow color east of Interstate 494). The purple represents all the slopes over 18% and wetlands and their buffers are also represented. In the future, all conservation easements and trails would also be deducted from the gross acreage. The numbers are as follows: cm"O,fjl.u.PLEWQOlJ 203Q OOMPREHEN'Sn'EPIAN 2030 Comprehensive Pian 2030 Proposed Land Use Guide Plan: , 7 units @ 2.5 u/a 5.8 units @ 2.0 u/a 4.3 units @ 1.5 u/ a 2.9 units @ 1.0 u/a 1.5 units @ 0.5 u/a Zoning Ordinance City of Maplewood Example Parcel: Consultants discussed preserving rural character through the new zoning district for South Maplewood by incorporating the top 10 results as an incentive-based density possibility. What this meant is that each developer would have to go through the list, preservation variable by preservation variable, and with each policy met, additional lots would be given so that the maximum density would only be achieved if all the policies could be met in that particular development. If you look at the example parcel above, there is only 2.9 acres of developable property in 6,4 gross acres ofland. The developer who wanted to subdivide this property would start with 2.9 acres and would be entitled to the base number of units which would be 1.5 unites. The developer could get up to 7 units only if they meet the top ten policies in the ordinance. This policy or something very similar to it achieves a win-win for the city and the developer. The developer would preserve slopes, trees, open spaces, etc. and then achieve the maximum density, and those lots could be clustered to further retain the rural character. Final Discussion Summary The Met Council reviewed the overall MUSA density in Maplewood and concurred that the density in the community was over 6 units per acre. What this means is that the Met Council will work with the City on unique large sewered lots. However, the Met Council CUTOf}UPLEll'OOL/ 203() CO,llPREHLVSIVEPUN 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood is currently unaware of the City's desire to also achieve other policy measures in this area such as conservation and preservation of rural character. Developers, under a traditional 1-2 acre subdivision requirement, are not likely to give the City trees, open spaces and additional slope protection without some concession of additional lots, or some cost savings for the development. There is also the discussion of taxes, tax base and the efficiency of services that have to be run several hundred feet to serve a small development. The City currently assessed affected property owners for the services that benefit them. Under a rural large lot sewered development, those costs will have to be absorbed by fewer lots and thus will be more expensive for all property owners. Staff and consultants wanted the Planning Commission to know all the issues presented here in this final staff report before making a final recommendation for the City Council. 2030 CO~1PREHE"':S1l't' Fav