Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/20041. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 17, 2004, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May3,2004 5. Public HeaHngs 7:00 7:30 2005- 2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Olivia Gardens (Stillwater Road) 1. Comprehensive Plan Change (R-1 to R-2) 2. Zoning Map Change (R-1 to R-2) 3. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 4. Preliminary Plat 7:45 Trout Land (west of Highway 61 and new County Road D) 1. Comprehensive Plan Changes a. Land Use Plan Changes - R-1 and M-1 to R3(H) b. Collector Street Designation - County Road D 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 3. Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. Conditional Use Permit- 2086 Edgerton Street (Rygwalski) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. May 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. May 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Bartol c. June 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 10. Staff Presentations a. Planning Commission Interviews - May 24 City Council b. Annual Tour 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 3, 2004 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Commissioner PaUl Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Erin Laberee, City Engineer Chuck Vermeersch, City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Tri~ppler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 19, 2004. Commissioner Bartol moved to approve the planning commission minutes for April 19, 2004. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Abstentions - Dierich, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Mounds Park Academy Expansion (2051 Larpenteur Avenue) Mr. Roberts said Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy, is proposing several changes for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 -2- Mr. Roberts said the first request is for a land use plan change for two residential properties on Larpenteur Avenue and the second request is for a CUP revision. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about having an outlet on the westerly side of the property. It seemed to him the people that live on Ruth Street would be very upset. The parking lot is 125 feet awaY from residential. Vehicles turning out onto Larpenteur Avenue means it will be impossible for people to get out onto Ruth Street. He was surprised by the county's response on page 35 of the Staff report. They recommended that the primary entrance to the school be on the east and the Primary exit should be on the west. Mr. Roberts said the western driveway is designed with one entrance lane and two exit lanes. The two exit lanes will have a left out or a right out option as well as a right in. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood that staff doesn't think there will be any problems getting in and out iof Ruth Street? Mr. Roberts said there may be a period of time where it will be congested in the morning and afternoon. Chairperson Fischer asked if fire and safety personnel had a problem closing the west exit to the parking lot to Price Street? Mr. Roberts said no as long as emergency personnel could get in and out of Beebe Road they were okay with the plan. Commissioner Pearson asked if it made any sense to vacate the easement on Price Avenue and closing off the fence line? Mr. Roberts said there is at least one home that has a driveway on the right-of-way and they are still using the right-of-way. Commissioner Triippler said a resident wrote in their letter on pages 38 and 39 of the staff report that they have lived there a long time and in one of the previous additions some additional trees were supposed to be planted by their property line. He knows there have been cases in the past that developments were supposed to plant additional landscaping and they did not. He asked if staff checked into the resident's complaint to see if indeed those trees were supposed to be planted? Mr. Roberts said he checked the plans and everything that was supposed to be planted was planted. He checked the city records to see if anything had been missing but it looked like everything had been planted. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 05-03-04 Commissioner Dierich said is concerned with the way the driveway on the western side enters onto the site. It is yery close to the property line and she would like to ensure there is a significant amount of coniferous trees planted along the driveway. When she had her kids at Hill Murray her concern was that ithe left hand turn coming out of the parking lot in the afternoon is almost impossible to mal<e and it stops traffic both ways. A lot of the kids come screeching out of the parking lot to make the turn just like at Hill Murray. She thinks the traffic should be routed differently. It doesin't make a lot of sense to have both of the entrances so close together and she is surprised the c(~unty approved it. Commissioner De~ai asked for clarification regarding the six-foot high fence that exits behind the homeowners of Ruth Street and the MPA boundaries. He asked if that was a good enough requirement for fencing or should there be better fencing? When he was visiting the site he asked the neighbors ho~ the fencing was working out and they said they hear a lot of noise in their homes and the traffic drives in and out. With this road being so close to their homes it will be even louder in the~ir homes than it is today. Mr. Roberts said l~he code for fencing and screening is primarily for light and the screening of headlights and is hot intended as a noise barrier. You would have to have a 20-foot tall wall to accomplish anything as a noise barrier. The fence is primarily to protect the residential homes from headlight gla~re and the fence was never intended for noise protection. The intention is for the school to extend the fence down the new west property line and there would be new landscaping between the new driveway and the new fence. On page 9 of the staff report, item 10 under the CDRB c~onditions, staff has added a condition to add more evergreen trees in that area. Commissioner Tdppler said on page 3 of the staff report it says MPA believes there will be approximately 200 students who would be driving out of a population of 790 students. However, when he does thd math he comes up with 8 extra parking spots. It doesn't seem near enough parking spaces for the school. MPA says there will be 343 parking spaces total and 335 of those parking spaces Will be needed everyday and if the school has any type of activities simultaneously theschool will be short parking spaces. He asked if staff talked to Mounds Park Academy about a[dding more parking spaces? Mr. Roberts said ~,taff did not speak with MPA about adding additional parking spaces. The 200 student parking s ~aces are the maximum MPA could expect the students to use. He said the school may have a permit process for a certain number of students to drive each year. Commissioner ML~eller asked if he was correct that you can't get from the southwest parking area to the east entrance unless you circle all the way around, and is there any reason for that? Mr. Roberts said hat is really for loading and unloading and keeping those cars moving through the site. It is really to separate the two functions. Commissioner Maeller asked staff if the new grassy area was just for aesthetics? Mr. Roberts said as far as he knew the grassy area is just for aesthetics. Commissioner MUeller asked if some of the grassy area could be used for the driveway or some way to access the area? He wondered if everything could be moved over between Beebe and farther away from Ruth Street? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 Mr. Roberts said he did not know. -4- Commissioner Mu Mr. Roberts said Commissioner Di west and still hav( Mr. Roberts said it option. eller asked if there was a school speed zone on Larpenteur Avenue? ~e didn't notice a sign. ~rich asked if there was a way to slide the parking lot over to the left or to the the separate function but have the driveways parallel? may be possible to rework the site but he isn't sure anybody has looked at that Commissioner Di~rich said she wondered if the school had thought that plan through or not. It seemed more rea~sonable to move everything farther away from the homes on Ruth Street. / Mr. Roberts said the commission should consider if it is better for a car to drive by as it goes in and out of the driveway or to have a car park and slamming the car doors closer to their property. You have to be c~reful which option you pick. / Commissioner Di~ ~rich said that's true but it should be left up to the neighbors to decide that option. Commissioner ML some schools wh, with slowing peop ~eller said getting in and out of schools is difficult. However, he has gone to .~re there have been four way stops. People don't like them but they do help le down. He asked if that option had ever been considered? Mr. Roberts said I~e spoke with Dan Soler with Ramsey County about that and he said no. He said Larpenteur Avenue is to move traffic across the county between White Bear Avenue and McKnight Road and he would not foresee a traffic light or a stop sign there because it wouldn't be warranted. -- Chairperson Fischer asked about the 5-foot utility easement mentioned in the resident's comments on pa.( e 12 of the staff report. Mr. Roberts said staff read that comment and wasn't sure what the resident was commenting about. His assumPtion was generally there are drainage and utility easements on both sides of the line that are 5feet wide. That means there is 5 feet to each property owner. Depending on which side of the property they are on there could be an easement on the school's property and an easement onlhe neighbor's property that she was concerned about. Commissioner D( Mr. Roberts said at one point and Mr. Chuck VermE pond had been e: ~sai asked if the existing pond was classified as a pond or a wetland? Lt one time the pond was classified as a class 5 wetland and then it was dug out nade into a man made pond so it didn't qualify as a wetland. ersch, Maplewood City Engineer, said the wetland delineation report said the (cavated in the early 1900's but that was as specific as the report got. Planning Commiss Minutes of 05-03-0 Commissioner De: was spring fed. Mr. Vermeersch s Mr. Roberts said tt conditions and ve¢ a clear enough ar~ Commissioner De Mr. Roberts said t Commissioner De or was there any Mr. Roberts said care but it would Chairperson Fisc Mr. Michael Dowr addressed the co~ improve the class parking have bee problematic for th~ grades 9-12 have Commissioner M~ parking lot is laid Mr. Downs said o ~on -5- ¢ sai said on page 12 of the staff report in comment number 2, it stated the pond lid if the pond was spring fed pond he wasn't aware of it. ~at wouldn't necessarily qualify the pond as a wetland either. It depends on soil letation. He will clarify that with the Watershed District because they didn't give swer regarding that. sai asked who would be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the pond out? ~e pond would be private and would have to be maintained by the school. sai asked if the city has any say in making sure the school cleans out the pond ecourse if the school didn't maintain or clean the pond out? he city could tell the school there is debris in the pond that they need to take ~e on the school's dollar. ~er asked the applicant to address the commission. s, Director at Mounds Park Academy, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood, nmission. He said this plan began with thoughts of how the school wanted to room experience for its students. The two main concerns for the drive and safety and traffic flow. The school also acknowledges the traffic has been school, parents and neighbors. Mounds Park Academy is a K-12 school and ~bout 260 students with drivers in grades 10 to 12. ~eller asked why he felt this plan was going to work better than the way the ~ut now? ne issue they have now is the bus pick up point. The kids have to cross the carpool lane to get to the buses, which is a safety concern. Because there is only one entrance to the campus there tends to be a jam up of cars waiting to enter. What they have tried to do with the new design i~to create a much longer pick up lane, which winds along the building so they can have more ca:rs sitting and waiting. They will have space for six buses, which allow students to get on the buse~s without crossing the traffic lane. In addition to that, once all the students have been picked up tl~e cars can get back out onto Larpenteur Avenue because there will be double exits. They also believe parents will use the option of driving into the new west entrance, park their car and walk into school to get their kids which means fewer cars will get in the drive up line. Commissioner M~eller said the plan says MPA will have 343 parking spaces but the school will be using 335 of those spaces daily, he asked how the school proposed parents would park and go into the school to.get their children if there aren't enough parking spaces? Mr. Downs said t~here has been a lot of discussion about the parking spaces. He knows the school will have a~ net increase of 80 parking spaces when the final plan is done. He said this is an increase proportionally to the student drivers the school would be adding. He said where parking is tight now it will be less tight in the future. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-0~4 -6- Commissioner De= grassy area and ~ Mr. Downs said th space and as a lar the visibility of the space is has to dc Commissioner Tri are not students ¢ Mr. Downs said 2~ that may occur in Commissioner Tri Mr. Downs said w The overall plan i~ anticipate adding. takes very seriou.~ at one time beca~ Commissioner Tri have why is the s~ Mr. Downs said w students are not' anticipate driving the buses clear o, Commissioner Tr: Mr. Downs said h Commissioner Tri facing 2025 Larp( day which will dra to shelter the noi,, Mr. Downs said it' street level to the to be 20 feet awa The separation b, evergreen trees, sai asked why the school was going to turn the existing parking lot space into a 'hy are they turning the grassy area with large trees into a parking lot? e parking lot will be turned into a grassy area. It will be used as instructional ge play area for the K-6 grade students, it's not just a green space to enhance campus. The other reason for setting the parking lot where the current green with grading issues, which could be addressed by the architect. ~pler asked on an average day how may people visit the school and park that r staff? )-40 people could visit the school on any given day depending on the activity Ihe middle of the day. 3pler asked where they proposed those people to park? wen visitors come to the school they are able to find parking spaces in the lot. to increase the net amount of parking greater than the amount of drivers they The school may still have situations where parking is not sufficient. He said he ly the comments made by staff whether to schedule two consecutive activities se of the lack of parking. apler said if the school knew how many staff members and students they would ;hool only increasing their parking by 8 parking spaces? hen an activity takes place after school and in the evening the same staff and Jsing the same parking spaces up. The maximum number of students they :o school is 200. During the day the custodial staff helps direct traffic and help Jt of the parking area, which moves traffic along. ppler asked how many vehicles would be exiting the school on a typical day? ~ is guessing a few hundred. ppler said the residents who live at 1686 to 1708 Ruth Street have a backyard ~nteur Avenue their backyard will be a thoroughfare for buses and cars twice a rnatically change their living situation. He didn't see how the school was going ;e for those residents in the plans? s not shown on the plan but there is a fairly significant grade difference from the top of the fence, which is about 11 feet different. He said the original plan was ~ from the west property line but now they are going to be about 30 feet away. ;tween the curb of the exit drive and the property line will include screening of vhich will help buffer a noise barrier and visual break. Commissioner PE;arson asked if the parking spaces would be 9Y2 feet or 9 feet wide? Mr. Roberts believed the parking spaces would be 9 feet wide. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 05-03-0I Commissioner Di~rich asked how deep the lots are along Ruth Street? / Mr. Roberts said tl~e lots along Ruth Street are about 140-150 feet deep. The lots are standard suburban size lots Chairperson Fiscl' Mr. David Aune, Maplewood, addr~ commission. In 1 Academy but he ~ School. He came lockers he himself ago and is in dire r 85% of the stude er asked if anybody else wanted to speak on this item? Business Manager at Mounds Park Academy, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue, ;ssed the commission. Mr. Aune shared some prepared comments with the ~ugust 2002 he became the newest member of the team at Mounds Park ,as not new to MPA. He attended school at this building when it was Hill High on board just in time to see the installation of the new lockers to replace the used 35 years ago. A good portion of the main part of the building is 45 years ~eed of improvement, which this project will help the school do. Approximately its either drive or are driven to and from school each day. The remaining students use the 9us system so there is 4-6 buses used each day to school and home from school each day. The proposed grounds improvement and expansion will allow the school to have a better traffic management system and control the daily flow which should alleviate any backups on Larpenteur Avenue during the morning drop off and afternoon pickup times. There was a concern by one of the staff why there wasn't a left turn into the parking lot. Part of the reason the schoo doesn't want to do that is because any sort of delay is going to delay traffic coming in from La'penteur Avenue, which starts to backup traffic. MPA wants to create a smooth drive through with two lanes coming into the campus property. The proposed additional green space will be crea':ed when they turn the existing bus turn around area into green space which will give the 450 plu~ K-8 students more room to enjoy their outdoor time and give them much needed daily physical exercise. The proposed building expansion will allow the school to make improvements, which will include additional classrooms and athletic facilities to better meet the current needs o~the students and allow for growth. In reviewing the staff report and in conversations with some of the neighbors he has become aware of the feedback both for and against the propo~sal as well as comments from previous building projects and the lack of MPA following throughWith some items. He and Mike Downs are both new to the school and as part of MPA they are coqnmitted to being good neighbors and are willing and open to working with the neighbors for the best outcome for everybody. MPA considers themselves a part of the neighborhood not! an island onto themselves. It is their intention to be sensitive to their concerns as well as uphold!and respect the image that comes with being a part of the community. He is personally a pa~ of the extended neighborhood growing up less than a mile south of the neighborhood and currently lives less than a 1 mile east of the school. They are very excited about the future Of the school and believe that these improvements will be an enhancement to both the school ahd the local area. Thank you for allowing MPA to share the project with the city this evening. Commissioner Di,~rich asked if the school would be willing to rework these parking lot plans and bring back a dif[erent alignment to the commission? The commission could offer some suggestions as t¢ how the plan could be better aligned. Mr. Aune said MPA would consider any suggestions from the commission as to how to improve the plan. MPA thought the drive and parking lot would be the easy part of the plan and after hours and hours 0f fine-tuning this plan they thought this was the best plan, however they are willing to work wi~h the city. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-0~4 -8- Commissioner Di( many times when you didn't think a prolonging the de( Mr. Aune said the leading up to the r MPA would ask h~ quickly in order to Commissioner Di( the plan and brine Mr. Roberts said new grading plan planning commis.~ Commissioner Di( to vote on this iter Commissioner ML space. On the w there was a reas¢ ,rich said she doesn't doubt MPA has worked long and hard on this plan but many different sets of eyes look at something somebody may see something bout or consider. She would like to know that the city has the option of :ision and reworking the plan if necessary and that it is amenable to MPA. , first phase of the plan is important which they plan on doing this summer ~ext phase, which includes the building additions. If the city has to delay this, ~w long the delay would be because MPA needs to move the process along stay on track. ,rich asked staff if two weeks would be long enough for the applicant to rework it back to the commission? )r the architect to redesign the plan it would require new civil engineering plans, s and new drainage calculations. In order for it to come back to the next ion meeting he would need the new plan in the next two days. ~rich said depending on how flexible the applicant is depends on how she plans n. ~eller said there is pavement on the east and they plan on changing it to green .~st they also plan on changing the green space into pavement. He asked if n MPA couldn't work with the existing pavement and existing green space. Mr. Aune said tha': plan would separate the green space from the school. The idea of having the green space was so that the kids have space to play and if you separate the green space from the school you arb causing a safety issue moving the children a distance from the school and playground area. Commissioner DE sai asked if you could direct traffic so half of the traffic enters and or exits onto Beebe Road and the other half exits and or enters onto Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Aune said the school believes the traffic would split naturally where the cars would use both entrances and exts. Commissioner DE~sai said if the traffic flow would happen naturally than why isn't it happening already? Mr. Aune said with the new plan if there was an event in the field house it would be natural for people to enter a'nd exit onto Beebe Road. The goal for picking students up is to get to the nearest curb in fr~ ~nt of the school where your student will enter or exit the school. Commissioner Desai asked if there was a traffic study with traffic statistics done before this proposal was dohe? Mr. Aune said hei wasn't sure if a traffic study had been done. The school feels if they provide parking closer to Beebe Road that will alleviate traffic coming and going onto Larpenteur Avenue. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 05-03-0~4 Commissioner De~sai asked if the school had a parking permit process to ensure that only people at Mounds Park ACademy were using the parking lot? Mr. Downs said nc one. Commissioner De the school would Mr. Aune said tha Commissioner Di( Mr. Aune said cor Commissioner Di( campus it would b vehicle count that , they do not have a parking permit process and so far have not had a need for sai asked if the school had non-students and non-employees parking in their lot lot know? is correct. ,rich asked if she heard correctly that 85% of the students do not take the bus? rect. ,rich said realistically there would not be 400 vehicle trips a day in and out of the ~ closer to 800 vehicle trips a day plus the employee vehicles. That is a higher what is in the report. If you have kids that have siblings riding in the same car plus the 135 staff !vehicles it would be closer to 500 to 600 vehicle trips a day. Mr. Aune said th~ sounded close. Commissioner ML~eller asked if there was a way to put more parking north of the property or was there a serious enough grading problem that made that not possible? Mr. Randy Pete, Architect with Pope Associates, 1255 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Pete said there is a 50-foot drop off there. He held a display board up to illustrate and d~scuss the flow of parking throughout the campus property and the completion of the second Phase. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to address the commission regarding this item? i Ms. Peggy Hacksbth, resident at 2040 Larpenteur Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the commission. She has lived across the street from the school for 23 years. This school has become a real heartache for the~m regarding traffic and people not showing respect. She does not see the entrance and exits working for the school as shown on the plans. Right now the school has a lot of lighting and removing the trees on the two residential properties that were sold to MPA is going to cause probler0s for her. Their bedrooms front Larpenteur Avenue. Recently MPA had a program at the school Thursday through Saturday night and people didn't leave until 11:00 p.m. The lights at MPAIs parking lot shine into her home. The traffic is awful. The school only has 4 to 6 buses for all of tlhese students. In the morning she has to leave her house before school starts or she has to leaVe her house after school has begun. In the late afternoon she has to either rearrange her schedule to come home before school lets out or way after school lets out. There are times she can't get to her home or get out of her driveway because of the traffic problems at MPA. Larpenteur Avenue is the main thoroughfare and there are traffic problems and during school the months that school is in session the traffic is horrendous. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 05-03-04 Ms. Hackseth said when kids are walking home from school either from Presentation or Hayden Heights School, she fears for them because nobody pays attention to the passing zones. The school made thing~s a little better lining the cars up but when the cars come out it's a mess. In the wintertime the sn~dwplows plow at 2:00 a.m. and the plows scrape the parking lot over and over and over again backwards and forwards. Saturday mornings at 6:30 a.m. Waiter's trash company comes and picks Up the garbage dumpsters at MPA and it goes bang, bang, bang. The security light on the school! comes on occasionally and is so bright when the light comes on that she can read a book in heriliving room. She is concerned about MPA removing those beautiful trees. Her issues are traffic, lighting, snowplowing and garbage. She believes it will be a very difficult exit where Ruth comeS out. She doesn't want all of the traffic to come out onto Larpenteur Avenue either. She said this is where she lives and pays taxes. She lives here 24 hours a day and the school operates in this location but they don't live there 24 hours a day. She is also concerned about the proposed preschool in this location. On top of the school traffic there will be additional traffic from people dropping kids off and picking the kids up at preschool. Ms. Hackseth said thank you for listening to her. Commissioner Mu parking lot shine affect her? Ms. Hackseth sale shine into her hoL eller said he heard Ms. Hackseth state the lights from Mounds Park Academy's ~to her home but he asked if the parking lot was relocated would the lights still yes because of the direction the parking spaces are lined up lights would still se, Commissioner M~Jeller asked what Ms. Hackseth would propose the school to do about the issues? The schopl exists and other than closing the school, the problems are going to be there. Commissioner B~Lrtol said he agrees with Commissioner Mueller that the school is not going away, the plowing of snow won't stop, and lights at the school are not going away. He believes the architects are attempting to improve the traffic situation on the site. If the commission approved this pla0 and they move forward he asked if this plan would help with the traffic flow in and out of the slate? It seems to him that this new plan is an improvement over the current situation. Ms. Hackseth sai( adding more busing would alleviate the traffic problem but because of the high cost she knows th at won't happen. The other option could be rerouting the traffic on the property out Beebe Road, which is the other entrance/exit on the property. Beebe Road is available but very few people u se that road because they prefer to use Larpenteur Avenue. She said she still has an issue with the lighting and the shining of the lights into her house. She understands the question the con,mission is asking regarding how to alleviate the problems that exist and understands the ~chool is not going away or closing. She doesn't know if the problems will ever go away but the problems can be less if things are changed. In the past 23 years that she has lived there the prc )lems have gone from okay to horrendous. She wished the commission could sit and watch the roblems that occur in the morning and in the afternoon. The traffic flow has to flow differently be :ause it is a constant problem. She also said the issue of lights shining into her house will still be a problem unless the direction of the parking spaces is rearranged. Planning Commiss Minutes of 05-03-0 Ms. Hackseth sai~ Larpenteur AvenL Avenue. The ligh' wall towards the s Commissioner M~, and then the parki Mr. Roberts said ti ponding area and Ms. Hackseth sai( Chairperson Fisc~ Ms. Jeanne Ewal( Ewald said she se dated April 21,191 they asked for the of the deal and sh The figures on th~ Price Street had 1 1992. Keeping in and there were le from her property property where th bumps by going ti' fair for the reside, distance from the ~on -11- 4 it's an improvement but it won't solve the problem of cars going out onto because no matter what, the majority of the people will use Larpenteur :s will be more of a problem for her when the parking is moved and the brick Ireet is going to be removed. eller asked if he understood correctly that first is the pond, then landscaping ng lot? ~e landscaping plan shows a double .row of spruce trees, which will screen the the parking lot from Larpenteur Avenue. she also has a problem with the pond not being kept clean. er asked if anybody else wanted to speak regarding this item? I, resident at 1744 Ruth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Ms. nt in a long e-mail, which is in the staff report. She has a traffic study that was )2, which was done before the Price Street exit was blocked off. As neighbors street to be blocked off and the previous resident that spoke got the worst end e got the best end of the deal because of the traffic route that had to change. report show the west drive had 304 cars, the east drive had 210 cars, and 134 cars over a period of time from 2:00 p.m. April 14th until 2:00 p.m. April 15, r~ind that the District Center was occupied at that time, the enrollment was less ss student drivers at that time. Her concern is moving that driveway 800 feet iine because she sits on the edge of the pond. Her home sits on the end of the e students do their car burnouts. The high school students avoid the speed rough the parking lot, which means the plan needs to be reworked. It's just not its who live there. There are cars parking up over the curb to within a short fence. They don't park in the parking spaces because it's closer to the entrance of the bqilding to park up on the curb. She would like to see a better buffer between that lane of traffic and the resident's homes besides just a fence. Granted the residents that live on Larpenteur Avenqe sit 11 feet above. Because her house sits that far above the parking lot when she stands outside she can look over the fence. So to her the fence is not a worthwhile buffer. The pond is also,3 concern of hers. Everything has gone from the parking lot into the pond. The pond will take a fern years to be cleaned up and back in good condition. Her child does patrolling at Presentation Sqhool and when she picks her up at 3:10 p.m. she cannot drive on Larpenteur Avenue and she has take the back streets because she cannot turn on Ruth Street at 3:20 p.m. There is no speed zone for school in that location. Last year when the school district would not bus her children because of budget cuts her daughter walked home from school on Larpenteur Avenue and it's really dangerous. There are many kids that bike to and from school and it is a fast and busy roa~d. The lights at the school have been a problem and are still a problem. She wonders what kinl of lighting is going to happen with this new addition and parking lot. She urges the commission t¢ really look at this plan. She knows this is a timing issue but if the plan has to be delayed to mal(e this a better plan it is better to change things now rather than later when the plan is done. Planning Commissiion Minutes of 05-03-0~4 -12- Commissioner ML compared to the p issue the school n care of. He thoug! of the traffic down trying to alleviate Ms. Ewald said wi dropping off and p was restricted to c has not been enf¢ past and this year is very annoying t, back of the homes forth and back ar restriction stated live with noise at school. The nois Chairperson Fisc[ commission. Mr. Steve Schell, he believes he is going to get muci' problem. He said we don't want tha' which would bloc~ which would mow trees and he look,, unkept abandone three neighbors a hauling has got tc containers down. Commissioner Ti Larpenteur AvenL that would be a p~ eller said it looks like the new parking lot plan has only 80 parking spaces arking lot on the fence side that has 125 spots. To him the parking issue is an eeds to police. He didn't believe that was something the city needed to take ~t if speed bumps were put on the parking lot maybe that would help slow some and eliminate any possible squealing of tires. He said it sounds like MPA is he traffic problem and doing their best to direct traffic out both directions. en the Ruth Street entrance/exit was closed it took two years for people to stop icking kids up at that location. It takes time to change patterns. Snowplowing ertain hours by the city when the conditional use permit was approved. That ,rced. She has called the school regarding the snowplowing problems in the she finally gave up. That condition was put in the CUP for a reason because it ) hear snowplows at that time of night or morning. The bedrooms are on the and the noise is incredible. It starts out having the snowplows going back and d forth and is very loud. The restrictions were made for a reason and the o noise between 11:00 p.m. until 5:30 a.m. The neighbors decided they could ;:30 a.m. as long as the school was plowed and ready for the kids to come to is happening at 2:30 a.m. and the noise can't continue. er asked if anybody else wanted to speak regarding this item to address the esident at 1694 Ruth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said about the only person that is "for" this plan. The traffic is incredible and isn't better. If you want to see really bad traffic you should see Hill Murray's traffic ~eople could be parking on Larpenteur Avenue like they do at Hill Murray but to happen. The plan shows pine trees proposed along the front of the pond, the headlights in the parking lot. There will be two lanes of traffic in and out, traffic along quicker. The trees in the two residential lots out front are junk at dead trees every time he looks out his window. He has been looking at an :1 house for two or three years now. This plan is an improvement. He and his re "in favor" of the plan. They say "clean it up and fix it up" and Waiter's trash go because at 5:00 a.m. the garbage company picks up trash and slams the ippler said his main concern is there would be a straight shot out onto e that will be within 50-60 feet of the resident's homes. He asked Mr. Schell if 'oblem for him? Mr. Schell said he has lived there for 19 years and he's never heard a squealing tire but he's almost been hit tl~ousands of times driving by Hill Murray. Mounds Park Academy drivers don't drive like maniacI. Commissioner Trlppler said he isn't saying the people drive like maniacs but he is saying there will be a lot of cals driving through the parking lot and he is looking out for the residents in the area. Mr. Schell said hE would assume there would be speed bumps in the parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 Chairperson Fisc[ item? Mr. Walter HacksE He said he doesn' lets out the kids s, turn sign on the Hayden Heights there is no sidewa turn from Larpent, walking on the str( into the parking Iol cars off the road. about the bright Ii! and floor their tru haulers but they n asked if they coul, said cleaning up t and is full of garb, more ponds are asked why the p~ school would look they couldn't add filter out onto Bee p.m. He counte¢ parking lot and th, Commissioner M~ and speed bump., Mr. Roberts said' permit. For exam: There could be a~ then cars park on and policing the= enforce those iss -13- ~er asked if anybody else wanted to address the commission regarding this ,th, resident 2040 Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. agree with the comments made by the last resident. When an athletic event lueal their tires when they are in the parking lot. He said there was a no left t. Paul side of Larpenteur Avenue when the kids had to walk to school for chool the children walk to school on Larpenteur Avenue. Mr. Hackseth said Ik and there are kids walking on the road. When people are trying to take a left .~ur Avenue into Mounds Park Academy it can be a safety issue for children ~et and a backup problem when the cars have to wait to turn into the drive aisle The school needs to use more buses for transportation this would take more l'he residents had a meeting with the school a few weeks ago and complained hts and about Waiter's trash hauling. Waiter's trash haulers come at 5:30 a.m. ;ks all the way to the driveway. They asked MPA to talk to Waiter's trash .~ver did. They complained about the one bright light in front of the school and have it shut off which they never did. He said MPA has no credibility. Staff ~e pond on the property is MPA's financially responsibility. He said it smells ~ge and no money is being spent to improve the condition of the pond. Now ,eing added to the site and MPA won't take care of those ponds either. He .rking lot couldn't be in the back of the property instead of in the front. The better without a parking lot in the front. In his opinion there is no reason why more fill for a parking lot in the back. He disagrees that half of the traffic will be Road. Saturday night MPA had a program, which didn't let out until 11:00 175 cars exiting onto Larpenteur Avenue. Phase I of the plan will be the .~refore nobody can access Beebe Road. ~eller asked what authority the city has regarding trash, lighting, traffic, parking, What area can the commission police and what area will the city police? :hose conditions could be recommended as conditions of the conditional use lple, the hours snowplowing and trash hauling could occur could be listed. ~ign posted to indicate where cars can and cannot park rather than no sign and the curb or grassy area. The problem is trying to enforce the parking situation snowplow and trash-hauling problem. The city can't send the police out to wes. it would be the responsibility of MPA. If MPA doesn't take care of the problems the city .can enforce that the problems be taken care of. Chairperson Fiscler asked what the procedure would be for trash hauling and snowplowing problems? Mr. Roberts said iI staff could not resolve it to the city's satisfaction MPA could be brought before the city council to!discuss the problems if those were things listed as conditions of the CUP. Chairperson Fischer asked if the residents did not get the problems resolved could they call into the planners at tlc city and they would take it from there? Mr. Roberts said yes. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-0¢ Commissioner BE Larpenteur Avenu, with the children Mr. Roberts said Commissioner Di the commission's have had their en¢ u nfortu nate M PA j hold in the past. If should send their mitigation rules. Larpenteur. The~ commission has g street. She woul, coming in on Larl: and you should bE totals between th6 is higher than wha should be addres,, reason. If you ha~ along the school ~ out and have a se~ Beebe Road and neighbors and ha~ at all other than s with cars turning Holloway without separate votes. Commissioner ML going to be compl the traffic probler~ Commissioner Di~ parking lot and a directions of traffi -14- .rtol asked why there wasn't a posted school zone speed limit sign on The residents seem to have a lot of safety concerns with Larpenteur Avenue ,alking. ,e was not sure and would have to clarify that with Ramsey County. ,rich said she has a number of issues. The timing of MPA's application is not issue. If MPA wanted to get this project completed this summer they should ineers working on this project last fall in order to get the permit this spring. It is Jst got their plans but the commission has asked people to put their projects on there is a pond that the city doesn't know whether it is spring fed or not the city )eople out to find out. If it's a wetland then the city needs to look at the wetland ~he won't be voting vote yes on this proposal unless there was an "in" only on is 150 feet between Ruth Street and the Larpenteur Avenue entrance. The )ne through this with other developments with entrances too close to another vote for the entire west entrance to be eliminated and to have the traffic ,nteur Avenue and exiting on Beebe Road. It should be done in one phase able to park in the lot at one time. There is a serious discrepancy in the traffic staff report and what the residents are saying. By simple calculation the traffic t is in the staff report and the issue needs to be addressed. The wasted space ; by this traffic flow pattern. There is a lot of asphalt in the lot for absolutely no e a one way in from Larpenteur Avenue you should direct the traffic all the way nd out onto Beebe Road. The cars can park along the school and let the kids ~ond lane of traffic along the lane of traffic that is parked going straight out onto into the parking lots. That would alleviate the traffic driving along next to the ~ing that big area right in front with the turn around which is no use for anything owing traffic down. Then you eliminate the problems on Larpenteur Avenue ~nto Larpenteur Avenue and you can get cars onto Beebe Road and out to much of a problem. She asked permission to have the vote split into two ~eller said if you send all the traffic onto Beebe Road all those residents are aining to the commission just like the residents that spoke tonight have about rich said if you leave the plan the way it is you would have people leaving the so have people trying to make a left turn into the parking lot tying up both ,-. But if you have a one way in and direct the traffic out onto Beebe Road it would keep the fl¢)w of traffic in and out. The neighbors are correct that the traffic is backed up both directions on Larpenteur Avenue for several blocks. The same problem occurs at Hill Murray and they have about 400 more students than MPA does. Ideally she would like to see a right in only into tle parking lot at MPA but she does not think you could do that. Commissioner M~eller said if you direct traffic out onto Beebe Road the people will still take a left or a right hand tuln onto Larpenteur Avenue. Planning Commiss Minutes of 05-03-0 Chairperson Fisch on Beebe Road ar The senior housin, they have visitor,~ sidewalks for peol Commissioner DiE parking lot at MP/~ area and the resi¢ entrances so clos, Chairperson Fiscl' ~on -15- 4 er said she thinks Commissioner Dierich was saying the people could go north ~d then take a right onto Holloway depending on if they are going east or west. off Beebe Road was not required to have a lot of extra parking and now when they park on Beebe Road and walk across the street and there are no le to walk on. ,rich said she is trying to think of the fastest way to get people in and out of the with 85% of the people in cars. She realizes that Beebe Road is a residential lents would not be happy with the additional traffic. It isn't safe to have two to Ruth Street. ,~r said another option might be to have the students take a right onto Beebe Road and turn int~the MPA parking lot from the back area where there new parking lot will be added and enter t~e school from the back end and exit onto Larpenteur Avenue. / Commissioner Bartol said he's not sure how you can force people to turn into Beebe Road instead of entering, on Larpenteur Avenue? People will find the most efficient way to enter and exit and that will I: e the way they go. If you take away entrances and exits you start to create congestion. He bglieves the proposed plan, although not perfect, is superior to what currently exists. Commissioner Tri He thinks it's not and take green sp for buses and par area including the as a parking lot school children to like the configural going to cause pre going to provide Commissioner Pe under a different z the building and in of the CUP? Mr. Roberts said He has a conditio~ covered under th( Chairperson Fiscl something that do spilling over? ~pler said he has a problem with having the west entrance where it is located. n efficient use of resources to take a blacktop area and turn it to green space ace and turn it to blacktop. He was envisioning having a loop in the parking lot ants to drop off and pick up children that might encompass 50% of the front parking lot that currently exists and a 1/4 of what they are proposing to develop ith parking lot in the middle of a loop. That may address the need for grade have a play area and still not have to cross through the parking lot. He doesn't ion the way it is. Having the entrances and exits so close to Ruth Street is blems. Exiting and entering on the west side adjacent to peoples backyards is noise problem that people will not be happy with once the project is done. arson said even though some of the lighting on the building at MPA went in aning standard or requirement could the commission require that all lighting on the parking lot meet current requirements for remaining on the property as part ~nless there is a direct glare onto an adjoining property that would be difficult. in the staff report on page 10 regarding the lighting plan. The new lighting is new ordinance and the CDRB will review that at their May 11th meeting. ~er asked when a plan is changed doesn't the city have the ability to require 9sn't meet the present code to be brought up to code such as the lighting that is Mr. Roberts said cause. Ie would guess that MPA would be willing to cooperate if it would help their Planning Commiss~ion Minutes of 05-03-04 Commissioner Pearson into her home tha': was homeowners request. Commissioner Ba The proposal is b~ the integrity and ti Commissioner Pe problem with the Commissioner PE resolution change properties at 202~ Academy at 2051 1. It would be con~ a. Provide b. Minimiz~ c. Whenew on the d. Transitio econorr -16- said regarding the resident that spoke about a particular light that shined very offensive to her, it would be nice if the school was sensitive to the Iol said the school is proposing to add more pending area than parking area. ;tter than what they currently have in place today. The ponds compensate for ~e sanctity of the existing ponds. arson said the Watershed District reviewed this plan and they didn't have a dan. arson moved to adopt the resolution on page 40 of the staff report. This s the land use plan designation from R-1 (single dwellings) to S (school) for the 2027 Larpenteur Avenue. This change is for the expansion of Mounds Park Larpenteur Avenue. The city is making this change because: ;istent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan including: or orderly development. conflicts between land uses. .~r possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front ;ame street or at borders separated by major man-made or natural barriers. ms between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative ~ic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. e. The city f. Protect r adequa 2. This area woulc was between 3. This site is pro~ a. It is on a b. Minimizi~ traffic fr :oordinates land use changes with the character or each neighborhood. ~eighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by Ie buffering and separation. eliminate the planned residential area that was on a minor arterial street and residential area and the existing school. ,er for and consistent with the city's policies for a school. This includes: minor arterial street and is near a collector street. ~g any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no om this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. Commissioner MUeller seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, i Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 05-03-04 Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 41-43. This resolution approves a revision for the qonditional use permit for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Maplewood bases this permit revision on the findings required by the code and it is subject to the following conditiohs: (the additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction '"'~'"'" The city may approve a. Revising remova must comply with the site plan, date-stamped April 81 2004. ~ council may approve major changes. The director of community development 3inor changes. Such chanqes shall include: the qrading and site plans to show the contractor minimizinq the loss or of natural vegetation and to meet all the conditions of the city engineer. 2. The city council!shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval, based on the procedure i~ the city code. 3. The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the tennis court lights. 4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot line as a track or route !for running during fall and spring cross-country meets. 5. The school shall not allow any snowplowing or trash removal between the hours of 11:00 p.m. an~d 5:30 a.m. 6. The city council requires that the school remove ~ the westerly access at Price Avenue 7. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair. 8. The school, the~ire marshal and the city building official shall agree on a plan for the school to make the required life safety and buildinq improvements to the existinq building. This plan shall include the installation of: ! a. The reqL b. An early c. Addition; d. The nec~ e. A propel f. Any othE 9. The proposed ¢ the permit shall ~ired fire protection (sprinkler) systems. warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitorinq). ti emergency lights and exit siqns (if necessary). .~ssary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. address on the building. ,r changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. onstruction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 10. Have the city engineer approve final construction and enqineerinq plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes that the engineer noted in the memo dated April 26, 2004. Planning Commission -18- Minutes of 05-03-04 11. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. Commtsstoner MUeller asked to add some friendly amendments. They include: a. The school Shall not allow any snowplowing or trash removal between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:$0 a.m. (maybe inserted in old number 5.) Commissioner Pearson said he would agree to the trash hauling amendment but not the snowplowing· b. The school Shall maintain all pending areas in relationship to garbage and unkept grounds. (put it unde~ tl~e old number 5.) c. There shall ~)e no parking in the undesignated parking areas and shall be designated as to w-a way zones. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Nays- Desai, Dierich, Trippler The motion passed. This item §oes to.the city council on May 24, 2004. VI. NEW BUSINESS, a. ChesapeakeProperties Retail Center (Maplewood I Movie Site- 3091 White Bear Avenue) Ms. Finwall said Chesapeake Companies has purchased the Maplewood Movie I theater site located at 3091 White Bear Avenue. Chesapeake Companies proposes to demolish the theater and redevelop the 4.98-acre site with four new restaurant/retail buildings including TGI Fridays, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jared Jewelers, and a future multi-tenant retail center. The proposed name for the center s Chesapeake Retail Center. Chesapeake Companies is requesting that the city approve the request to develop the Chesapeake Retail Center for a preliminary plat to divide the site into four lots and a planned unit development (PUD). Commissioner Pearson asked if the 8-foot parking spaces are they the same length as the 9-foot parking spaces? Ms. Finwall said the 8-foot parking spaces have reduced lengths, which is allowable in the city's code when adjacent landscaping or a sidewalk area. Commissioner Pearson asked what the aisle width between the parking spaces would be? Ms. Finwall said the aisle width would be maintained with 24-foot widths. Commissioner Mueller asked how many parking spaces were at the old movie theater site? Ms. Finwall said the applicant could answer that. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 -19- Commissioner Trippler asked for clarification regarding page 5 of the staff report under Signs it states "within this zoning district, the city's sign code allows each business with two street frontages, such as the Chesapeake Retail Center, to have five signs". He said staff stated this signage is excessive and he asked for clarification on those statements. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB will be looking at this at their next meeting May 11,2004, and they will be taking a closer look at the sign requirements for this proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he did not see any sidewalks in the plans and he asked if there were plans for sidewalks? Ms. Finwall said sidewalks are shown on the site plan along County Road D. The applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide sidewalk however, after the engineering department reviewed the plans they recommended the sidewalk be widened to 8-foot wide because it is on a future sidewalk extension. They also are proposing a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the mall Ring Road and they are working with Simon Companies, the owner of Maplewood Mall on installing the sidewalk right-of- way. Commissioner Pearson asked when BP did their pipeline survey were they able to determine the depth of the line? Ms. Finwall said she hopes the applicant has more information on the results of the pipeline survey this evening. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city is concerned where the sanitary sewer is going? Ms. Laberee, Maplewood City Engineer, said currently the sanitary sewer service for the Maplewood Theater is going to the ring road and the applicant is proposing to redirect the sewer to County Road D, She said the city would like to keep the sanitary sewer going to the ring road. The city did not want to open up County Road D for the construction of the sewer service because of the high volume of traffic on that road. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jeffrey Wurst, Development Manager, Chesapeake Companies, 11100 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 766, Minnetonka, addressed the commission. The existing theater site has a total of 377 parking spaces ve~rses a proposed parking space count of 342 and a city requirement of 315. BP has completed their survey of the pipeline and has identified both locations on the property. Relative to building D, which is the Jared Jewelry store, they are currently at a setback from the pipeline as proposed at 82.8 feet. With an additional movement of the building to the south if it were 10 feet that would reduce the setback to 72.8 feet however, they don't believe a shift of 10 feet is required. They have taken a closer look at the Arby's site and believe with a five-foot building shift to the south they are able to accommodate a driveway. He wanted it made clear they are not proposing an excessive amount of signage and he understands that the sign proposal would be reviewed at the CDRB meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 -20- Mr. Wurst said regarding the sanitary sewer line they have been working with the engineering department. They are faced with tying into the existing sewer line or tying in with new uses to a very complex private system run by Simon Properties. Secondly they cross two properties to the south. The sewer line doesn't tie directly into the ring road but rather it travels south across the Wedding Day Jewelers property and Acapulco Restaurant. He also said that as of this date Chesapeake Companies has not gotten permission from the owner of the Acapulco Restaurant to enter into a written easement agreement thereby providing access from the south. He said there are still some issues to discuss with the engineering department but they wanted the commission to know they are working on it. Commissioner Bartol asked if Chesapeake Companies has an agreement with Arby's as far as a shared entrance? Mr. Wurst said no they have not. The plan for Arby's looks very official but it is very preliminary. This is a very complex situation as Arby's is part of a franchise, there is also the property owner of Arby's and there are lenders behind both of these entities as well. They are committed to trying to get this to happen, however, there are many obstacles to cover before this driveway can happen. Commissioner Bartol asked if the driveway proposal fell through would they see that as a problem and would they attempt to make changes so they would have an entrance directly off of White Bear Avenue? Mr. Wurst said there are no plans to do that at this point. The idea of including a shared driveway with Arby's was an after thought, which was also prompted with discussions with city staff. They are satisfied that the existing locations off the ring road could adequately serve the development without a direct access off of White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Trippler asked what the rationale was to request a variance on the width of the parking spaces to go from 9~ feet to 9 feet? Mr. Wurst said they wanted to make sure there would be adequate parking for all the retail tenants. One of the items that supports that is the neighboring property owner to the south had written in a letter a concern of what the parking requirement would be for this location and that they would not be able to sustain overflow parking. Chesapeake Companies doesn't think they have that problem they think what they have proposed will adequately serve the sites that are at this location. The number of parking spots proposed were not based on the minimum city requirement but what the tenants needs are for this location. Basically Chesapeake Companies has to provide enough parking spaces for the tenants to be interested in staying at this location. Commissioner Desai said he really likes the proposed plan and thinks these tenants would be a nice addition to the area. However, he is concerned about the traffic levels especially during the holidays when County Road D and White Bear Avenue are clogged up around the mall. He asked if there had been any type of traffic study done in the area? Mr. Wurst said no there hadn't been any type of traffic study done that he was aware of. In relation to the mall area they believe these tenants will be a very small traffic generator and should not cause any more traffic delay in the area. He believes people will stop at these restaurants on their way to the Maplewood Mall. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 -21 - Commissioner Mueller asked compared to the movie theater would that generate more or less traffic in the area? Mr. Wurst said he was not sure how to answer that. He said if parking space was a good gauge the movie theater site has 377 parking spaces and they have proposed 317 parking spaces for the new space. Commissioner Dierich asked if they had a multi-tenant proposed for the multi-tenant area yet? Mr. Wurst said they haven't made an attempt to market the building at this time. He estimates 1/3 of the tenant space would occupy a "fast casual" restaurant similar to a Chipotle restaurant otherwise the rest of the tenant space is unknown at time. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to address the commission regarding this item? Nobody came forward. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the overall plan and concept. He said there are about five different variances that have to be granted in order for this proposal to pass. He doesn't like granting variances when it doesn't seem necessary. With a little bit of tweaking and helping the applicant out with understanding the city's ordinances most of these variances could have been avoided. He would like to see staff try to avoid these types of variances in the future. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve Chesapeake Companies' preliminary plat for the Chesapeake Retail Center at 3091 White Bear Avenue date stamped March 30, 2004. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review. b. Revise the plat to show: 1)The dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along White Bear Avenue. 2)The dedication of 17 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road D. c. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff approval: 1) Easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 2) Easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. 3) Owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 -22- d. Record all easement and owners association agreements with the final plat. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on pages 34 through 36. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the development of four restaurant/retail buildings at 3091 White Bear Avenue (Chesapeake Retail Center). Approval is subject to the following conditions: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review as well as the following: 1)A westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). The retaining wall height must be sufficient to create a prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a potential flow from a pipeline leak. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer must complete the following: 1)Obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing Maplewood Movie I Theatre building. 2)Submit a revised site plan showing Building C (TGI Fridays) and Building D (Jared Jewelers) shifted approximately ten feet to the south in order to accommodate a future driveway located to the north of Building C which may be installed onto White Bear Avenue. 3) Pending continued cooperation with the adjacent property owner, submit a revised site plan showing the location of a driveway and pedestrian cross-access on the south side of the property, to accommodate entrance and egress to and from the southerly property (3065 White Bear Avenue). 4)Submit a revised site plan showing the extension of the sidewalk in front of Building A (future retail/restaurant) onto the County Road D trail. 5) Submit a revised site plan showing a pedestrian access extending from the White Bear Avenue sidewalk. 6)Obtain the required Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District permits. 7)Submit payment for all required Park Access Charges (PAC fees) as specified in the Park Director's April 14, 2004, correspondence to Chesapeake Companies. 8) Submit an easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 9) Submit an easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 -23- 10) Submit an owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). c. All 8-foot-wide parking spaces must be signed as either "employees" or"compact" car parking only. Pending the community design review board recommendation and city council approval, each building is allowed one freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area, except for the multi-tenant building which would be allowed a freestanding sign up to 150 square feet in area. All freestanding signs must maintain a 10-foot setback to a right-of-way. Each building is allowed three wall signs to be attached to a separate elevations, except for the multi-tenant building which could have two wall signs for each tenant. Wall sign size is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. All construction shall follow the plans date stamped March 30, 2004, with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans, including a change to the site plan for the proposed future driveway access onto White Bear Avenue, pending Ramsey County engineer and city engineer approval. f. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. g. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Desai was the planning commission representative at the April 26, 2004, city council meeting. Items discussed were the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map changes for the DQ Grill and Chill off West of 1760 Beam Avenue, which was denied and the Alley Vacation East of English Street, which passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-03-04 -24- b. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the May 10, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Kennard Street right-of-way vacation north of Sextant Avenue, Conditional Use Permits for Peltier at 1236 Kohlman Avenue, and Toenjes Hills Estates on McMenemy Street. c. Mr. Bartol will be the planning commission representative at the May 24, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Mounds Park Academy Expansion at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue, for a Land Use Plan Change and CUP, and Chesapeake Properties Retail Center 3091 White Bear Avenue for a PUD and Preliminary Plat. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts said it is that time of year to start planning the annual tour and he asked planning commissioners to think about what they would like to see. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Capital Improvement Plan May 3, 2004 INTRODUCTION I have enclosed the proposed 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan. The city updates this report each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan. kr/p:miscell/cipmemo.mem Enclosure (PC only): Capital Improvement Program MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Olivia Gardens 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road May 7, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing to build 14 townhouses (in seven twinhomes) in a development called Olivia Gardens. It would be on a 2.79-acre site on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 13 and the maps on pages 14-23. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The design of the buildings is not finalized, but I expect that each building would have horizontal- lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Conlin is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the land use map on page 16.) 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 15. 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a private driveway. 4. A preliminary plat for 14 lots for the 14 housing units. (See the map on page 19.) The applicant has not applied for design approval for the development at this time. They told me that they would proceed with the design approval process, including the approval of the plans for the site, landscaping and buildings, after the city approves the above-listed requests. BACKGROUND These two properties have a long history of land use and zoning activities. They include: On August 26, 1976, the city council approved a request to rezone from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple-family residential) the property at 2335 Stiliwater Road. On February 7, 1980, the city council approved a plan amendment from RH (high density residential), to SC (service commercial) and a rezoning from R-1 and R-3 (multiple family residential) to BC(M) (business commercial modified) for the property at 2335 Stillwater Road. The council made this change to allow the Johns to start a construction business in this location. On October 21, 1980, the city approved plans for a 70-foot by 40-foot storage building for Mr. John (the previous property owner), subject to conditions. On February 14, 1983, the city council amended the land use plan from SC back to RH and rezoned the property from BC(M) back to R-3. The city made these changes to prevent the expansion of the construction business. On January 14, 1991, the city council again amended the land use plan for this area, including the subject properties. This change was from RH to RL (residential Iow density). The council also changed the zoning of the property at 2335 Stillwater Road from R-3 to R-1. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed plat, Mr. Conlin wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. These changes would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). (See the property line/zoning map on page 15 and the land use plan map on page 16.) The city intends R-2 areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings. For R-1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. They include: · Provide for orderly development. · Minimize conflicts between land uses. · Provide a wide vadety of housing types. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. Include a vadety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. · Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. · Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffedng and separation. An advantage of this proposal is that an area that the city once approved for and that the owner used for commercial development would become residential. This is especially beneficial to the existing nearby residential properties. Having twinhomes near existing residences should be better neighbors than the commercial use that was on the property. 2 Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be near Stillwater Road and an existing apartment complex and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Alton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Density As proposed, the 14 units on the 2.79-acre site means there would be 5.02 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT {'PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code '1o 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 general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 14-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because of the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the pdvate driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In other words, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. It is the contention of the applicant, as they note in their project statement, that the proposed code 3 deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. In this case, the proposal would have 14 townhouse units in seven buildings. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development, with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having a pdvate driveway with reduced town house setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and used a public street, such a plan would require more tree removal and grading because of the right-of-way requirements and the larger setbacks. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the number of lots or the density of the housing in the development. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road and for the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Ddve. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $250,000. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the landscaping, the ponding area and retaining walls. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 14 units on the 2.79-acre site means there would be 5.02 units per acre (an average of 8,680 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. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Stillwater Road to serve the proposed development. In addition, the applicant is proposing to build a new storm water pond on the southeast comer of the site. As designed, the storm water from this development would go into the new pond and then discharge to the existing ponding area north of the site. The city designed and built the storm water pond north of the site to accommodate drainage from a large area west of Stillwater Road. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage Concems Several neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. Specifically, there are properties that have Iow areas that tend to collect storm water and this water does not drain off quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm-water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from Edn Laberee starting on page 24.) As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the pdvate driveways, going first into a new storm water pond on the southeast comer of the site before it discharges into the existing ponding area to the north of the site. 4 Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading or the developer would have to plant trees to replace those that the contractor would remove. For this 2.79-acre site, the applicant's plans show a total of 96 large trees on the site and that they would save three of the existing trees on the property. The plans show the removal of 81 large trees (ash, oak, maple, pine, spruce, cedar and elm), but they would preserve 15 existing trees (primarily on the perimeter of the site and on the neighboring properties). As proposed on the preliminary screening plan (page 23), the developer would plant 35 trees on the site. These include 27 black-hills spruce along the west property line and eight maple trees on the site, primarily at the front comer of each unit near the driveway. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 2.79-acre site, the code requires there be at least 28 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed screening plan would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the development proposal and has issued Mr. Conlin a permit. (See their comments in the memo on page 26.) Design Review The developer has not yet submitted an application to the city for design approval for the proposed development. If the city approves these initial requests, the developer will need to have all the design plans for the development approved by the city. These would include the building elevations, building materials and the final landscape and tree plans. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department did not note any public safety concerns with this proposal. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the read is back far enough for proper snow removal and that the developer installs at least a 20-foot-wide driveway to maintain proper access to all the units. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 28. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Olivia Estates plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R- 1 (single dwelllings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 5 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that was between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a minor arterial street and is near a collector street. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Approve the resolution on page 29. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Olivia Gardens plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. Approve the resolution starting on page 30. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Olivia Gardens development on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main ddve (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) The ddveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible while still accommodating the required screening and tree planting. 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. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Edn Laberee's memo dated Apdl 26, 2004. 6 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Olivia Garden shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a pdvate driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Olivia Garden preliminary plat (received by the city on Apd121, 2004). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Stillwater Road and the proposed private driveway (Olivia Court). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 26, 2004 and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. 7 (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: (a) Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (b) Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. c. The street, ddveway and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Stillwater Road (street, trail and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the pdvate driveways. (3) Ddveway in front of Lots I and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible to accommodate the required screening and trees. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the pdvate ddveway as Olivia Court and label Stillwater Road on all plans. c. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct for grading. 8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one 8 responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 9. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, equipment building and the other structures from the two properties. 13. The property owner shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of the public improvements. 14. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 9 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 34 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the five replies, two were for the proposal, one was against and three had comments. For 1. We think it is a good use of the land. It will improve the appearance and bdng up the property values. We would be interested in living in of the new homes. (Margaret Boege, 756 McKnight Road North.) 2. I am glad to have this project go forward. It seems good for the area. However, I am concemed about my property line because I have many flowedng bushes in the area and I hope I don't have to move. (^ileen Fritsch, 812 McKnight Road North.) Objections 1. I am concemed about the density of the housing as proposed. (Michael Green - 2321 Stillwater Road) Comments/Questions 1. I'm concerned about the disruption/noise in a now quiet neighborhood due to building and construction as well as future noise. With 14 units we would have rather had single-family dwellings. I am concemed mostly about the noise and disruption this well cause. Please note there is an existing hole in the fence behind my property and I'm worded about people cutting thru my yard. Can the fence be repaired by the city during this project? Can the area back there be cleaned up and tree removal be done as well? (Angela Ogle, 840 McKnight Road North.) 2. I am concerned about additional traffic on Stillwater. It's already a busy street and many speeders. Concem on the entrance and on the property. Headlights will go right into 2322's front windows. (Brad & Kory Kesnick, 2316 Stillwater Road East.) 3. Also, see the e-mail from Jim and Kathy Mosner on page 27. 10 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.79 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Vacant city-owned property Houses on Stillwater Road Houses on McKnight Road Houses across Stillwater Road PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 30 and 31 .) Application Date The city initially received all the application materials for this request on Apdl 1, 2004. The applicant submitted revised plans to the city on April 21, 2004. State law requires the city to take action on this request by June 19, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 11 p:sec 25\Olivia Gardens - 2004.mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Property Une/Zoning Map 4. Land Use Plan Map 5. Existing Site Survey 6. Site Plan 7. Proposed Preliminary Plat 8. Proposed Grading Plan 9. Erosion Control Plan 10. Proposed Utility Plan 11. Preliminary Screening Plan 12. Engineering Comments from Edn L. dated Apdl 26, 2004 13. Watershed Distdct Comments dated Apd114, 2004 14. E-mail from Kathy and Jim Mosner 15. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-1 to R-2) 16. Rezoning Resolution (R-1 to R-2) 17. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 18. Project Plans (separate attachments) 12 Attachment 1 MEMO DATE: March 30, 2004 TO: City of Maplewood FROM: Homesites LLC, Kelly Conlin/Keith Koecher Members SUBJECT: Olivia's Garden Twin home Site The proposed sub-division listed above, previously owned by Donald John, is currently zoned R1. Homesites recently purchased the properties and are requesting to sub-divide to a PUD. It is our understanding that this property at one time was approved for a 14-unit apartment building and at another time was zoned for commercial/high density. The current zone of R1 allows for four units per acre/single family dwellings. This property is four acres (plus or minus) which allows for 16 building sites. Homesites proposed development would be a PUD which would have seven buildings (14 units) which would allow for more green space and less tree removal. The planned unit development Would have a private drive and utilities which the City of Maplewood would not be responsible for. Homesites held a neighborhood meeting at city hall and discussed the proposed development with the neighbors. All in a~endance agreed that they would support our proposed development. Concerns/questions presented by the neighbors were 1) value of properties, 2) grading, 3) headlights to east side, and 4) tree replacement. All issues were addressed to their satisfaction. Positive feedback included, 1) debris and tracking on property would be removed, 2) old commercial building would be removed, 3) removal of excess fill, 4) value of the new units would be higher and thus increase their property value, 5) twin homes would be one level/more appealing to seniors, 6) association for maintenance of the property, and 7) removal of dead trees. Attached please find a list of the neighborhood meeting attendees. It is known that this piece of property and it's owner have been somewhat troublesome in years past to the city and neighborhood and we feel our proposed development would enhance the neighborhood, lif~ a burden from the city, increase tax revenue, and create a more peaceful surrounding for all. Homesites looks forward to working with the City of Maplewood. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. (612-875-3226) APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 13 Attachment 2 LOCATION MAP 14 2280 R1 Attachment 3 F2410 Gethsemane Park 834 ~¢ %o 812 798 796 I~ 7~4 REANEY AVE R1 I ' I ~ ~38 SEVENTH ST 23~ E~ 2304 2302 23~] 234,.~1~52 2360 E~366 ,'":~ 2334 2335 [] / ~ ,,,~_~--~. I ~ I~ 2322 2321 ~ 2315[~ 2314 .... BUS.H AVE ~o~ 308 R1 822 m m 23~j 2372 ,a PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 15 Attachment 4 ~ 830 --I 812 796 R1 2327 2321 ~ 2335 SITE 2315 754 23O8 2304 LAND USE PLAN MAP 16 2338 2328 2322 2314 BUSH AVE 2338 (---Lq Attachment 5 / / I / 2321 / ,'Ct' / /::::;" / /// / / '::' / // EXISTING SITE SURVEY 17 Attachment 6 L_F- PRIVATE DRIVE / 2321 / / / / / ! / / / / / / / / / / .;~:, z ./,::.:.:"/' / ! / ! / / / ! I I I SIT~ DA~'A : Total Site Area = 119,988 Sq. FL = 2.754~ Acres Total Lot Area Total Ouflot Area - 76,160 = 1.75 Acree:~ Total Number of Lots Total No. Units Net Density - 5.1 U/A Existing Zoning la R-1 (Single Family) Proposed Zoning Is R-2 (0ouble 0welllncj Residential) SITE PLAN 18 Attachment 7 INDEX: PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 19 t 1 Attachment 8 ! ! ! . 4;/ ~! / / / / / / / / / I I t Attachment 9 ] \ \ / t I \ ~/ / 'x / / / / / / / / /' 2321 / /// ,q- / :// ,-'t;' / /, .,..7' / / / :?' / / ,3': I / / ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTig.4NCE TYPE A SEDIMENT FILTER SZLT FENCE TYPICAL Attachment 10 / / / / / / 2321 / / / / / / / / / / / / :~,'.- // / ,,?.-' / ,::,' / / / ! / / / ! ! PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 22 Attachment ll / / / / /'~ // Attachment 12 En~_ineerin~ Plan Review PROJECT: Olivia Gardens PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: April 26, 2004 Homesites, L.L.C. is proposing to redevelop the properties at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road E. They are proposing to build 7 double unit townhomes (14 total units) along a private street. The developer shall address the following issues. Drainage The proposed pond is shown as a NURP pond. If the pond is to function as a NURP pond it must be designed to meet NURP standards and include a 1 O-foot bench. Removal rates must meet NURP requirements. The engineer shall provide removal rate calculations. The other alternative to a NURP pond is to design the pond as an infiltration basin. Rock sumps would be required in the basin to promote infiltration. The city would require the basin to store and infiltrate a 1.5" rainfall event. Rainwater gardens typically include a rock sump. The sumps consist of 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor places the top of the rock infiltration sumps about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. If developer uses rock sumps within the proposed development, the project engineer shall provide a detail and description of how the contractor is to construct the sumps. 2. Provide drainage calculations showing pre and post development conditions. 3. Submit plans to the watershed district for their review and approval. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The project engineer shall provide more detailed information for the retaining wall between units 3 and 4 including top and bottom of wall elevations. Streets 1. Submit the plans to Mn/Dot for curb cut and access approval. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. 2. Abandon all existing private utilities such as water and sewer services. 24 3. Remove the existing flared end section and 15" storm sewer pipe at the north end of the site. Landscaping 1. The developer shall provide landscaping around the pond area. Include a native- grass seed mixture for upland and lowland areas in and around the pond. Attachment 13 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: Subject: Clifton Aichinger [cliff~rwmwd.org] Wednesday, Apdl 14, 2004 1:57 PM Ken Roberts Review of Olivia Gardens project. Ken- Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We have the following comments: 1. The project will require a District permit. 2. We need the hydrologic modeling and the stormwater calculations to confirm that the pond immediately north of this site was designed to handle this new development density and resulting runoff rates and volumes. This are is tributary to Beaver Lake and does require stormwater treatment prior to discharge to the lake. We need to also confirm that the increased flow will not cause any flooding concerns for / ECEIVED this site or sites to the north. 3. There will need to be a defined overflow swale graded from the catch basin on the new road to the pond outlet structure to the north. the swale will need to lined with a permanent soil stabilization material prior to seeding or sodding. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Cliff Clifton J. Aichinger Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District 2346 Helen St. Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-704-2089 fax: 651-704-2092 cell: 651-238-4448 26 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 14 Ken Roberts From: Jim Mosner [j.mosner~comcast. net] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:19 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Neighborhood Survey: Proposed Olivia Gardens Town House Development - Sflllwater Road, Maplewood I am responding to the letter and enclosures dated April 5, 20CH for the subject project. Overall, I view the proposed development in a mostly favorable light; however I have a few concerns. My property is the center lot in Auditors lot 8 which is immediately west of unit 2 in building 7 of the proposed development. As I and most of the other neighbors told the two gentlemen from Home Sites LLC at prior meeting at the Maplewood City Hall, the concept of single level twin homes is much preferred over other alternatives that would be possible. However, I and several other neighbors felt that they were trying to pack too many units into the site. The current neighborhood is characterized by tong, open lots and is of fairly tow density. I acknowledge that maintaining such low density is probably not in the developer's or City of Maplewood's best interest; but perhaps a density level somewhat less than they presently plan would be more suitable to the neighborhood. At the very least, I think one less building in the row of six building should be built. If only five building were constructed in that row, they could be spaced out a little further and more buffer space could be had at the back (west) of the development which abuts Tina David's and Eileen Fritch's properties. Another concern that I have is that the back side (west) of building 7 appears to be about 20-feet from my property tine. Presently there are numerous trees and brushy shrubs in this area that provide nice screening and add a lot of ambience to the area. Virtually att the trees would need to be removed for the development. I would like to see a substantial re-vegetation plan, especially for the areas that abut the properties on the west side of the development. Please inform me of the date for the city council meeting when this topic will be discussed. Jim E Kathy Mosner 798 N. McKnight Rd. Maptewood, MN 55119 651-735-0973 j.mosner~comcast.net 4/19/2004 27 Attachment 15 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, proposed a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-14 of the proposed Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On May 17, 2004, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a headng notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendment. 2. On June 14, 2004, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that was between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a minor artedal street and is near a collector street. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 28 Attachment 16 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, proposed a change to the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: 1. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway and except the South 50 feet lying Easterly of the West 243 feet, the following; Lot 7. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0071) 2. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway, Lot 6. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0070) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 17, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this change. 2. On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public heating. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng an opportunity to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this property for double dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 29 Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Olivia Gardens residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Olivia Gardens development plan the city received on Apdl 21, 2004. The legal descriptions of these properties are: 1. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway and except the South 50 feet lying Eastedy of the West 243 feet, the following; Lot 7. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0071) 2. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway, Lot 6. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0070) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 17, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council 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. 30 The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) The driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible while still accommodating the required screening and tree planting. 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. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated April 26, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Olivia Garden shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line e. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2004. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Trout Land Planned Unit Development West Side of Highway 61-North and West of Gulden's Roadhouse May 12, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Deveopment, is proposing a multi-use development west and north of Gulden's Roadhouse. This property is an assemblage of lots totaling 23.3 acres and would be bisected by the proposed County Road D extension. The proposed residential portion of this development would consist of 78 town homes and a 55-unit apartment building. The proposed commercial portion would include an automobile dealership, a gas station/convenience store and neighborhood-service- related retail. Refer to the maps and letter on pages 15-20. The applicant does not have any residential or commercial developers at this time. He is proposing this PUD (planned unit development) in conceptual form as requests for land- use approval and residential density approval. The applicant is requesting a density of 78 townhomes. There are 63 townhomes shown on the site plan, but the note at the bottom of the site plan indicates a request for 78. The applicant explained that the units shown were intended to depict the type of units that would later be proposed, not the actual number. As mentioned, the applicant does not presently have builders for the proposed commercial sites, but anticipates the sort of uses shown on the plan. As part of this proposal, the owners of the northerly 5.67 acres, Joe and Mary June Prokosch, would continue living in their residence at 1272 County Road D. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to deed a .2-acre parcel to Sparkle Auto to the north. Sparkle Auto's parking lot is presently encroaching onto the applicant's land. This deeding will eliminate disruption to Sparkle Auto's operation. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: A comprehensive land use plan amendment from R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3H (high density residential). This change is needed to develop townhomes and apartments on property currently designated for single dwellings or commercial/industrial uses. Staff is also requesting that the Major Street System & Potential Transit Plan of the comprehensive plan be amended to show the County Road D extension as a Collector street. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a PUD for this multi-use development. 3. A preliminary plat to create lots for sale. The developer of the townhomes will propose the further subdivision of that property to create the individual unit sites. Future Approvals Required The following requests must also be made once the developers of each parcel submits their plans for review: 1. A conditional use permit request for the future auto dealership to have a repair garage and outdoor auto-sales within 350 feet of a residential district. 2. A design-approval request for all of the proposed development sites. These include, but are not limited to, architectural, site lighting, landscaping, grading, drainage and erosion control plans. 3. A preliminary plat and design application requests for the townhomes. Staff mentions these future reviews to inform the applicant, planning commission and city council. BACKGROUND Mining Permit: Much of the subject property had been mined for sand and aggregate since 1982 by Frattalone Excavating. This operation ended in 2001. Apartment Proposal Denied: On August 14, 2000, the city council approved the Highpoint Ridge development west of the subject property. This approval included 29 single dwelling home sites on Duluth Street and Carey Heights Drive as well as 36 town houses on Highridge Court. This proposal had also included a request for 122 apartment units on the proposed Trout Land property. The city council did not approve the apartments. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Amendment Request The major concern expressed by neighbors is that the proposed apartments are not compatible with the adjacent townhomes and single dwellings. Some adjacent residents also feel the townhomes are not compatible as well. In considering this matter, staff reviewed the development guidelines in the comprehensive land use plan. The plan states two guidelines that apply to this proposal. Although the goals established in the plan support the city providing a wide variety of housing types, many of the development policies stated stress preserving or creating compatibility within the neighborhood. The guidelines that apply state that land use plan changes should: · Minimize conflicts between land uses. · Coordinate land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. Density The applicant is proposing to nearly maximize the multi-family density in this development. The proposed town houses would be on 8.53 acres of land. The proposed apartments would be on 3.33 acres. At the proposed high-density ratio, the town house site would actually support 89 townhomes (at 10.4 units per acre) and the apartment site would support 54 units (at 16.3 units per acre) according to city density guidelines. These numbers do not take into account physically fitting buildings on the site while meeting all setback requirements. Staff's Opinion In light of the comprehensive plans goal for achieving compatibility of uses within neighborhoods, staff feels that the proposed apartments would not be compatible with the adjacent townhomes. Even though there is a substantial grade difference between this site and the neighboring townhomes, the extension of the proposed town house site, into the apartment site, would be a better fit with the surrounding residential development. Also, in consideration of the current guided use for this land as single dwelling residential, town houses would not be as much of a divergence from the plan as would apartments. The planning commission and city council should be aware, though, that if the change to R3H is approved, that this land use classification would allow high-density apartments. With the approval of the PUD, however, only town houses would be allowed to be built on this portion of the site. One final consideration with the apartments is whether they can actually fit on this site. The building is shown to have a 50-foot side yard setback from the west lot line. If the west-facing wall of the apartments had a surface area of between 2000 square feet and 2999 square feet, this building would need a 75-foot setback to comply with the city code. Collector Street When the city council approved the Highpoint Ridge development in 2000, they amended the comprehensive plan to delete the collector-street designation from this neighborhood. Refer to the map on page 21. The previous collector-street location was a connection to County Road D closely following the proposed County Road D extension alignment. Unfortunately, the County Road D extension study had not yet occurred and it was unknown the city would be constructing this roadway in 2004. Staff is recommending that the transportation element of the comprehensive plan be amended to again show a collector street in this area. Refer to the map on page 22. The new collector designation would follow the proposed location of the County Road D extension. Planned Unit Development Request For the reasons as stated above, staff feels that the apartments are not a compatible use with the existing surrounding residential development. Another element of this project warranting consideration is the proximity of the commercial uses to the proposed residential properties. 350-foot Spacing Requirement The city code requires that commercial buildings in M1 districts be at least 350 feet from residential lot lines. As shown on the site-concept plan, the proposed commercial buildings would be set back distances ranging from 130 feet from the fuel-station canopy to 250 feet from the auto dealership to the nearby residential property. This reduction of the 350-foot spacing requirement was a serious concern of the planning commission when they reviewed the Venburg Tire proposal in March. The owners of Venburg Tire had requested a CUP to build their new facility 220 feet from the applicant's proposed town house site. The planning commission recommended approval since it did not affect the existing single-family homeowners to the west. The planning commission stated, however, that they would have serious concerns over a reduction of the 350-foot spacing requirement when the Trout Land development is proposed. PUD Zoning vs M1 Zoning A technicality with this proposal is that if the PUD is approved, and the zoning is consequently changed from M1 to PUD, the requirement for a 350-foot commercial- building separation from a residential property would not apply. For all intents and purposes, though, the planning commission and city council should consider the appropriateness of the proximity of the proposed commercial-uses to the residential homes. At the time of the Venburg Tire review, staff explained that Mr. Kellison, the Trout Land applicant, had no objection to the proximity of the Venburg Tire building from the future townhomes. That is still the case. Mr. Kellison feels that his proposed development would not cause a conflict of commercial vs. residential uses. Staff can understand the planning commissions position since it will be future homeowners, not Mr. Kellison, that will be living in the proposed townhomes. The reasons for approving a CUP for this spacing reduction remain as follows: The future town house owners would know up front that they are buying into a development that has a car lot, fuel station and a retail store across the street in the same development as theirs. The applicant and property owner are in favor of this mixed-development concept. They are the ones that must market the property and sell lots. They are confident that they have a marketable development plan. Landscaping and Design Considerations Staff [eels that if the city council approves this proposal, there should be strict and sedous consideration given to requiring substantial landscaping and improved building design for the commercial segment of this project. For example, staff has observed a new mixed-use development presently being built in the City of Stillwater called Pine Hollow at Liberty on Manning Avenue. This town house development has a fuel station and other associated commercial uses incorporated into it in close proximity to the town houses. The architectural design of this development is excellent in terms of aesthetic appeal. The fuel-island canopy, as well, is designed to be compatible with the buildings with a gable roof and decorative design elements. It is important to note that in Maplewood, we have examples of fuel stations next door to townhomes. For example, the Afton Ridge Townhomes next to the Holiday Station at Lower Afton Road and McKnight Road. Another is Amoco and the Emma Norton Residence on County Road B between White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street. Another is the Tom Thumb Station next to the Maplewoods Apartments/Townhomes at McKnight Road and Larpenteur Avenue. These also have single dwellings across the street. Auto Dealership The proposed auto dealership poses some potential nuisance concerns. Site lights on the display lot have a nuisance potential as does noise from the repair garage. If approved, staff recommends that the M1 zoning standards apply to this site for control of potential nuisance-causing activities. Since, at this time, we have nothing more than a conceptual site plan to review, staff feels the city should reserve the authority to review the specific plans for the dealership when it is proposed. The applicant would like to have a blanket approval to market his sites with as few encumbrances as possible. At this time, though, there has been no data provided for the city to comfortably approve conceptual plans without considerably more detail. Staff, therefore, recommends that the auto dealership be required to apply for a CUP as it would in every other instance. Fuel Station and Retail Building The fuel station and retail building are compatible businesses in a mixed-use development. Staff feels, though, that the fuel station/convenience store should be placed in the northwest comer of the County Road D extension and Highway 61 to be as far from the townhomes as possible. Compatibility also relates to the application of proper building design and architectural appeal. This approval should require improved architectural design similar in quality to that at Pine Hollow at Liberty in the City of Stillwater as an example. Preliminary Plat Chds Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the proposal and has wdtten his comments in the report on pages 23-25. In summary, Mr. Cavett has addressed issues such as: · The council actions that have taken place regarding the unused/excess Highway 61 right-of-way property to be exchanged with the applicant for the dedication of County Road D right-of-way. · Right-of-way, stormwater, utility and pedestrian easement-dedication requirements. · Grading and retaining wall concerns. · The developer shall sign a developer's agreement prior to final plat approval. · Outlot B should be labeled as "lot" instead of as an "outlot." Site ConsiderationslConcems Retaining Walls Mr. Cavett addressed the extensive amount and substantial height of the retaining walls that are proposed. With walls of this length and height, their design, appearance and safety are major concerns. Mr. Cavett suggested a requirement for a six-foot-tall, black- colored, vinyl-coated chain fencing an top of all walls that exceed four feet in height. Staff will recommend this as a condition of approval. Appearance is another important factor. The city council should require that the applicant submit a design plan for the retaining walls before obtaining a. grading permit to ensure an attractive design and quality materials. Staff will make this determination. The applicant may appeal staff's decision to the community design review board for their review if they chose. Pedestrian Trails Staff is suggesting that the applicant dedicate two trail easements. One, as noted in Mr. Cavett's memo, would be a 50-foot-wide pedestrian easement in the same location as a utility easement along the south 50 feet of Lot 3. This would eventually serve as part of the regional Lake-Links Trail system. Part of this trail is already in place south of the Highpoint Ridge Townhomes beneath the power lines abutting the westerly half of that site. The second one would be a pedestrian-trail connection along the old Lydia Avenue alignment. In July 2001, the city council vacated Lydia Avenue north of 2986 Duluth Street in the single-family neighborhood to the west. The city retained a pedestrian easement over the northerly 25 feet of vacated right-of-way for future trail purposes. The owner of 2986 has stated that they do not want a trail constructed in this vacated right-of-way. They feel the trail would pose a secudty dsk to the neighborhood. Refer to the comments from Ms. Lambert in Citizen Comments on page 12. Wetland Mitigation Some neighbors responded that the wetland on the south side of existing County Road D should be preserved. They expected this wetland to remain when they built their homes on Highddge Court. This Class 5 wetland was allowed to be mitigated by the watershed distdct as part of the County Road D extension project. The mitigation will occur with the establishment of a wetland on the north side of the proposed apartment site and also across the highway on the Countryview Golf Course property as part of the County Road D extension east of Highway 61. Noise from Highway 61 One neighbor commented that they felt that a noise study should be performed as part of this proposal. Staff will consider the need for this when we receive specific development proposals for the housing elements of this PUD. Neighborhood Park Some neighboring residents questioned the need for a neighborhood park on part of the development site. Bruce Anderson, the Park and Recreation Director, commented on this. Mr. Anderson stated that this area is served by Sunset Ridge Park and there is no need for an additional park in the proposed development. The developer should be required, however, to make sure there is a trail connection from the neighborhood to the west down to Highway 61. Landscaping and Screening A buffer between the existing neighborhood and the preposed development should be paramount in the city's reviews when the specific site-development preposals are submitted. Architectural Design and Building Materials As mentioned earlier, the city should ensure that a very high quality of building design is applied in the commercial portions of this development. The commercial elements should also be compatible with the townhome site architectural design to create a compatible and cohesive project. This will take coordination between the individual developers and the city. Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District Eric Korte, of the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District, commented that their major concern is to make sure there is adequate erosion and sediment control along with TSS and phosphorus removal according to normal standards. The developer must also obtain a permit from the watershed district. Building Official's Comments Building Official, David Fisher, had the following comments: · The developer should verify the screening of roof-top units. · Provide fire department access. · Buildings are required to be sprinklered. · Buildings must meet 2000 IBC, 2000 IFC and state building codes. 7 Police Department Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett commented that there are no significant public safety concerns. However, there may be a nuisance issue regarding noise with the southern end of the town houses being so close to the Gulden's parking lot. Also, I am not able to find in the document the total number of new units/residents that the project will generate. This would be helpful in assessing the need for any required increased police personnel. SUMMARY Over all, staff recommends appreval of this development plan. The element that does not fit is the preposed apartment building. Staff feels that townhomes in this area would be compatible with the existing neighborhood to the west and, therefore, would be more apprepriate. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 37-38 amending the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan frem R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3H (high density residential). This amendment also reestablishes the collector street designation on the Major Street System & Potential Transit Plan in the comprehensive plan along the new County Road D extension alignment. Appreval of this amendment is based on the following reasons: 1. The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The preposed town houses would be consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential uses, since they would create a transitional land use between commercial preperty and single dwelling preperty. 3. The preposed town houses would be on a collector street that would serve the higher number of homes preposed. 4. Town houses would be compatible with the abutting town house development. The difference in grade between the preposed high-density multi-family housing and the existing single-family and town house development to the west will create a natural buffer between developments. 6. There would be no significant impact on the existing neighborhood streets to the west. Adoption of the resolution on pages 39-41 approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Trout Land multi-use PUD. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: Development shall follow the plans date stamped April 15, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall submit any plan revisions noted by Chds Cavett in his memo dated May 11, 2004 as included in the staff report. The city council shall be responsible for reviewing any major changes that may be proposed. The director of community development may review minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. This planned unit development shall allow townhomes at a maximum of a high-density ratio on the residential portion of the development. Apartments are not allowed without an amendment to this approval. The commercial segment of this development may include the following uses as proposed: retail, a fuel station with convenience store and an auto dealership. Other similar uses may be permitted if found to be of the same character and approved by city staff. The city council may make this determination if the applicant disagrees with staff's decision. The developer of the auto dealership shall submit a request for a conditional use permit for the planning commission and city council's review. Any automotive use that may be proposed must comply with the requirements outlined in the BC (business commercial) and M1 (light manufacturing) zoning requirements. 5. The development plan shall be revised to place the fuel station next to Highway 61 to keep it further from the homes. 6. All individual development proposals must meet all city development requirements. No variances have been included in this PUD approval. 7. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall comply with the following site and design requirements: Screening from the townhomes is paramount. All commercial properties shall provide considerable landscaping to buffer and screen their sites from the proposed townhomes. b. Building design throughout this development shall be of an improved quality and should strive for a compatibility of design. The design of the retaining walls shall be submitted to staff for approval of design and materials before the issuance of a grading permit. Retaining walls over four-feet-tall shall have a black-colored, vinyl-covered chain link fence on top. The fence height shall be six feet. Retaining walls over four feet in height must have a building permit. Appeals of staff's wall-design approval shall be submitted to the community design review board. d. The master developer shall construct the retaining walls that span across lot lines as part of the mass grading of the site. o The applicant shall dedicate all easements noted in the memo dated May 11, 2004 by Chds Cavett. These shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. Approval of the Trout Land preliminary plat date-stamped Apdl 15, 2004. The developer shall complete the following before the city approves the final plat. 1. Meet all requirements in the memo by Chds Cavett dated May 11, 2004. 2. Rename Outlot B with a lot number. ]0 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 42 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the 21 replies, one was in favor (except for the apartment element), 17 were opposed and three took no clear position but offered comments. In favor · I support this proposal with the exception of the apartments. (Turner, 1251 Highddge Court) Opposed · This is stupid. (no name or address given) · NO APARTMENTS. We have too many in area already. Town homes are fine. (no name or address given) We are opposed particularly to the apartment building in this plan and would like to see Maplewood officials pay closer attention to density issues. In our opinion, the Countryview Summit Neighborhood has already been developed beyond what one may consider to be ideal. An additional housing project along the highway will only add to the traffic problems we currently encounter in the north part of Maplewood. Thank you. (Herold, 1247 Countryview Circle) The development seems extremely dense-especially with the apartments. I have strong reservations regarding the appropriateness of the apartments. It seems like a rather small area for that many townhouses. (Redin, 1229 Highddge Court) Too high density development. No need for apartments so close to Highridge. Town house too dense. 30 + good number not 65. Back up to % million dollar homes. City is selling out to developers for high density tax base. Lookout 20 years down the line. Will there be adequate drainage pond and landscaping between Highridge and Trout Land? Like the overall development and access off of County Road D. Good extension of bike path etc. Good landscape would make this nice. If not, don't vote it in! (Edkson, 1241 Highddge Court) Totally inappropriate intrusion!! The road destroys the wetlands and now the developers want to take the peace and quite from the neighborhood. I am seriously opposed. We are strongly opposed to any zoning change. The classification should remain RI. When we bought, we were protected by wetlands and by R1 zoning to the east. Pdces where higher for our lots because of this advantage. We paid top dollar for our place because of the quite of other seniors and the protection of intrusion from all edges of the property. This change in zoning would change all that. Not Good! We Oppose. Please take all of us in Highddge seriously. If you do not we will certainly take what you do seriously in future elections. (Bunkowske, 1249 Highddge Court) ]! We are strongly opposed to any change to present zoning regulation. One reason for purchasing our present lot was the R1 zoning to our east. (Trelander, 1256 Highddge Court) I would prefer to have lower density residential rather than the 55 unit apartment building. Townhouses would be a better option if single family homes aren't a possibility. (Whalin, 1224 Highridge Court) We OPPOSE this development!! When we built our home-we were told that the property was zoned commercial-therefore the closest a property (commercial) that could be was 600 feet from our property line. This proposal does not fit into the neighborhood, especially the apartments! We live in an excutive development, townhomes and esp. apartments would bring down our home values. I know everyone on our block is not in agreement with this development. (no name or address given) · Refer to the letter on page 26 from Robert J. Kranz. · Refer to the letter on page 27 from John R. Naughter. · Refer to the letter on page 28 from Kenneth Halverson. · Refer to the letter on page 29 from Hal Tetzlaff. · Refer to the letter on page 30 from Joe and Jane Gerard, 1248 Highddge Court. · Refer to the letter on page 31 from Ed and Darline Trolander. · Refer to the letter on page 32 from Edward V. Franzmeier. · Refer to the letter on page 33 from Kelly Lenz, 3027 Duluth Street. · Refer to the letter and petition from the Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association on pages 34-36. Comments (no clear position for or against) How high of a structure is being planned? What is the traffic plan for Beam/61? Already there is a 4-6 minutes between lights. Would this help reduce our tax base? (no name or address given) I think an earlier MnDOT study indicated that noise levels in that area may exceed residential standards. That should be tested. (no name or address given) Do not want a "trail" or "walking path" going into/through my neighborhood. Secudty is my main concern. People from County Road D and Gulden's having direct access to a family community of expensive homes that pay high property taxes. (Lambert, 2986 Duluth Street) REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 23.2 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped, except for an old barn and trailer SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and single dwellings in the City of Vadnais Heights South: Undeveloped M1 property East: Highway 61, Gulden's Restaurant and the approved site for Venburg Tire West: Single dwellings and town homes PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: R1 and M1 Zoning: R1 and M1 Cdteda for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP for a PUD subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution on pages 39-41. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on Apdl 15, 2004. 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 June 14, 2004 unless the applicants agree to a time extension. p:sec 4\Trout Land. PUD Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's Letter of Project Description/Request dated Apdl 7, 2004 6. Previous Collector-Street Location 7. Proposed Collector-Street Location 8. Chris Cavett's memo dated May 11, 2004 9. Letter from Robert J. Kranz 10. Letter from John R. Naughter 11. Letter from Kenneth Halverson 12. Letter from Hal Tetzlaff 13. Letter from Joe and Jane Gerard 14. Letter from Ed and Darline Trolander 15. Letter from Edward V. Franzmeier 16. Letter from Kelly Lenz 17. Letter and petition from the Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association 18. Land Use Plan Resolution 19. PUD Resolution 20. Plans date-stamped April 15, 2004 (separate attachment) ]4 Attachment 1 OR Sunset Ridge Park C PROPOSED TROUT LAND DEVELOPMENT SITE IVENBURG TIRE GULDEN'S ROADHOUSE BEAM AVE LOCATION MAP' Attachment 2 D COUNT"/~O,~TM~ D Mi Ri R1 ~ Sunset Ridge [51 ..-q M1 M1 M1 F BEAM AVE Attachment 3 .... ! Sunset Rid 3 R1 Mi Mi - C,I II',IT ~ P'SAD c c M1 M1 I :ou,~M1 BEAM AVE OS H LAND USEii MAP 17¸ Attachment 4 COUNTY ROAD D ..... PROPOSED -1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / - PROPOSED COMMERCI,~ ~,~ -" r-' I I I APPROVED VENBURG GULDEN'S DUSE I I / SITE PLAN 18 KELCO Real Estate Development Services Attachment 5 7300 Hudson Blvd. ©akdale, MN 55128 APR 0 $ 200 office: [651] 730-2020 Fax: [651] 730-2055 April7,2004 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Trout Land, LLC Dear Mr. Ekstand: Please accept this letter along with the other information submitted as our applications to the City for approval of the above referenced project for the preliminary plat, the comprehensive plan amendment and the preliminary PUD. Please contact me directly if there is any additional information that has not been submitted that you require for processing of these applications. As you are aware, the applications cover three pieces of property that will be owned by Trout Land, LLC for development purposes. The primary lot is approximately 15.5 acres comprised of the old Frattalone site and the excess property along Highway 61. The second site is approximately 2.03 acres which will be purchased from LMcD Property which is currently zoned residential. The third piece of property is approximately 5.67 acres that is currently owned by Joe and Mary June Prokosch and is zoned residential. It is our intent, with cooperation from the City, to develop this land as a Planned Unit Development in conjunction with the extension of the new alignment of County Road D from Highway 61 to its existing east/west location adjacent to the northerly property line of the Prokosch property. This PUD, in conjunction with the new alignment of County Road D, will be of significant benefit to the City and the surrounding neighborhood in many ways. First, it allows for multi- family housing along the western portion of County Road D inclusive of the 2.03 acres at the southern end as a buffer from the single-family and other multi-family residential properties to the west. Incorporated into this plan is the 50' setback requirement from the multi-family residential to the west property line allowing for a significant potential landscape buffer and the ability to provide necessary retaining walls to accommodate the grade differentials across the property. Also this allows for the extension of the water main from the new Country Road D to connect to Country View Summit and concurrently, allows for the continuation of the trail down to the new road. Although a portion of this land is currently zoned residential, the largest piece of it is currently zoned manufacturing. The reduction in the intensity of the use of this property is a significant enhancement to the City and, the residential units will have a significantly higher tax base for the City than the prospects of a light-manufacturing industrial park in this same location. 19 Mr. Tom Ekstrand April 8, 2004 Page 2 As a consideration in assisting Trout Land and the City in having County Road D cross their property, the Prokosch's as a part of their sale are being allowed a life estate to continue living in their existing residence. Their ability to remain in their residence has been of paramount importance to them and we are happy to be able to accommodate them and to help the City with the extension of new County Road D at the same time. Trout Land also has worked in conjunction with the City to provide for access from new County Road D for a frontage road that will provide all-way access to the Gulden's Restaurant and the new Venberg Tire store. The land identified as Lot 1 on the PUD plan (sheet C2 of the Passe Engineering drawings) is being held for development of retail and auto sales uses. This land will be developed by Trout Land either in actual construction and development or will be sold after the land is properly prepared and developed for the users. As an accommodation to the Sparkle Auto Sales facility to the north of the property a small parcel identified as Outlot B (consisting of.2 acres) will be transferred to Sparkle so that they do not have to disrupt their existing auto display parking lot. As a part of Lot 1, there would be a retail development and a potential gas and convenience store which would be complimentary to the Gulden Restaurant and Venberg Tire store on the south side of County Road D both in size and usage. The retail uses would be neighborhood service related which are currently not available to the immediate surrounding neighborhood. The balance of Lot 1 would be sold for an auto sales facility and would consist of approximately 6 acres. This use is also very compatible with other uses that are occurring along Highway 61 in the City of Maplewood as well as its neighboring cities to the north. Obviously all of the uses on this combined project would have to be reviewed and approved through the standard City approval process. Trout Land is working in close conjunction with several potential buyers of property within this PUD at the present time. Hopefully we will be able to identify them and they will be able to meet with the City shortly to discuss their intended usages of the property. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Please contact me directly should you have any questions or required additional information. Respectfully yours, JEK/jjv Enclosures C: Gonzalo Medina/Trout Land 20 Attachment 6 County Rd. D Vadnais 694 his 13rir. ciDal interchange Little Canada OS PREVIOUS LOCATIONOF MINOR COLLECTOR ROADWAY IN THE minor collector COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN DELETED BY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 14, 2004 Rd. C OS PROJECT SITE R-3(M).; R1 R-i = SINGLE DWELLINGS R,3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OS = OPEN SPACE M;I'= LIGHT MANUFACTURING Gervais LAND USE MAP FIGURE 22 =-- Attachment 7 PROPOSED REDESIGNATION OF A COLLECTOR STREET N St. Paul Major Street System & Potential Transit Plan Station location Potential Transit Corridor ~: Water · ~", ~ Stream Principal Arterial Interstate Highway Minor Arterial Collector City Limits 0.5~ ~0 0,5 I 1,5 Miles ~ map isforplartningpurposes only and should not be used where precise meizsurement is required 22 Attachment 8 En~-ineerin~ Plan Review PROJECT: Trout Land Development, (Kelco Real Estate) Project No.: 04-11 Reviewed by: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Date: May 11, 2004 Background: The Maplewood Engineering Department and the city's engineering consultants have been working very closely with the developer, as their site and the County Road D west realignment are directly dependent on each other. In addition to working with Kelco, city staff has facilitated the inter-cooperation of multiple property owners in the immediate area to bring together the logistics of the County Road D west realignment, Project 02-08. On February 9, 2004 the city council ordered the construction of the County Road D Improvement (west of T.H. 61 to Highridge Court). On February 23, 2004, the city council approved two additional actions directly related to this property and the subsequent development. The first action was the authorization to initiate the proceeding subsequent action in Ramsey County District Court which was required to obtain fee title to the old unused Highway 61 property. The second action was the approval of an exchange agreement between the city and Trout Land Development for the purpose of exchanging property for the acquisition of right-of- way for the County Road D west realignment project. Inclusion of Parcels 1 & 2, into the proposed plat are contingent on the city's completion of the Proceeding Subsequent. The Proceeding Subsequent has been filed in district court and is expected to be complet by early-June. The current engineering review is mostly related to the plat, easement conditions and land dedication requirements. Drainage for the overall development is governed by an overall storm water master plan for the area. There is a class 5 wetland at the northerly end of County Road D that will be impacted as part of the city's street construction and subsequently will be mitigated as part of the city's project. Most of the engineering details related to the plat, and localized drainage will be reviewed in depth when individual proposals are submitted for each of the lots. Engineering Review Comments: Easement/Right-of-Way requirements: 1. The developer shall coordinate the final alignment with the city engineer and shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the County Road D realignment. 2. The developer shall dedicate Outlot A and Outlot C to the city, (fee title). (Outlot A in mm, will be dedicated to Venburg Tire as part of an exchange agreement for right-of- way). 23 o o A storm pipe will need to be installed across lot 2, between the pond on the adjacent Highridge development and new County Road D. The developer shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easement over lot 2. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. Dedicate a 30-foot utility easement across lot 2 for a proposed water main between the water mare stub east of Duluth St. and the proposed new main on the new County Road D. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. Dedicate a drainage and utility easement for ponding purposes on that portion of lot 3 as required by the city engineer. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. Dedicate by separate document a pedestrian and trail easement across Lot 2, between the new County Road D and the existing trail easement east of Duluth Street. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. Dedicate by separate document a minimum 50-foot-wide pedestrian and trail corridor easement located in the utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 & 3. The easement should extend from the County Road D fight-of-way on the east to the west property line. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. Include on the plat, 10-foot drainage and utility easements along all internal and external lot lines. Grading: Before a grading permit will be issued for the site, the apphcant shall submit a more detailed erosion control plan. The plan shall include: a. additional silt fence and/or wattles in areas that slope toward the proposed County Road D and T.H. right-of-way. b. interim silt fence on long continuous slopes. c. Indicate locations of erosion control blanket for slopes 3:1 or greater or areas of concentrated flow. d. Location of rock entrance pads. e. Plan for temporary turf establishment for erosion control. 2. Grading of County Road D shall be the requirement of the Developer. The grading of the roadway shall be done within a 0.5-foot tolerance of the bottom of the road subgrade. o The developer shall grade both trail casements. The graded areas shall be 12-feet wide and The preliminary plan states: "Future trail and retaining wall by city"- This is not necessarily the case. It should be noted that the developer of the site shall grade the site to accommodate the trail. If retaining walls are required for the site to fit the trail, then the retaining walls shah be the responsibility of the developer. The developer shah 24 provide an open, 12-feet-wide corridor, shall be graded to accommodate the construction of a 1 O-foot gravel base and an 8-foot trail. Grading and contours along the west property line seem questionable. What is the source of the contour information? Has grading taken place during the High Point Ridge Development that is not reflected on the current plan? 5. The developer shall construct the retaining wall along Lot 4 during the mass grading of the site. 6. Any retaining walls that span across lot lines shall be constructed by the developer as part of the mass grading of the site. Any walls located exclusively on their own lot and where grading and wall construction will not impact adjacent properties or the road construction, may be built with the development of the respective lots. The slopes at these locations shall be graded out at 3:1 slopes and be blanketed and seeded for erosion protection. The retaining walls as shown on the plan seem somewhat extensive and unrealistic. The walls in a number of areas are in excess of 16', 20' and 26-feet, while being shown 20- feet from the property line. 9. There is approximately an 18-foot difference in elevation at the location where the trail is presumed to pass by the wall. How is this elevation difference to be managed? 10. All retaining walls in excess of 4-feet require a building permit. 11. Submit detailed retaining wall plans certified by a structural engineer. Retaining walls as high as are shown on the plan will not a '~ypical" wall design and will require extra measures. 12. A permanent 6-foot-high Chain Link fence, (Coated, Black-vinyl) shall be installed along the top of all walls of excess height. Exact locations shall be approved by the engineer and building official. 13. Obtain grading/construction permits from: a. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District b. MPC& {NPDES Construction Permit) 14. Obtain a grading permit from the Maplewood Engineering Department. An application for grading permit is available on the city's website. Go to the Public Works - Engineering Division section. Miscellaneous: 1. The developer shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. 2. Consider including ivy in the landscaping above and below the wall and along the fence to break the monolith appearance of the wall. 25 Attachment 9 ROBERT J. KRANZ CYNTHIA J. KRANZ 1264 HIGHRIDGE COURT MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 April 29, 2004 City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Trout Land Development Proposal This letter is in response to your letter of April 21 and the planned unit development being proposed by Kelco. We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of the residential property owned by Joe and Mary June Prokosch to accommodate a proposed 55 unit apartment building. The proposal appears to allocate at least one half of the proposed residential density of the total development on less than 3 acres of the Prokosch property. The 50 foot setback buffer appears to be totally inadequate for this level of density. Our townhouse overlooks the subject property which has always been zoned residential R-1. We understand that the 55 unit apartment building will consist of one and two bedroom apartments that will be rented at market rates. There will be at least 55 parking spaces underground in the building and probably about 55 spaces in an open parking lot adjacent to the building. There are no artist renderings of the proposed apartment building but it will probably be three stories high. This size structure will surely have a negative esthetic impact for the Highridge Court townhouses and the expensive single family dwellings on Duluth Street above. We respectfully request you and your staff, as well as the Maplewood Planning Commission, to carefully review the Kelco proposal and determine appropriate levels of density which will not have such a negative impact on the residential properties to the West of the proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, . 26 Attachment 10 April 29, 2004 Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner '~ Office of Community Development 1830 East County Road B . Maplewood, Minnesota, 55109 Re: Proposed Development behind Duluth Street in Maplewood Dear Mr. Ekstrand: I am in the process of building a new home at 2994 Duluth Street, Maplewood, Minnesota, abutting the proposed development of town homes and apartments. I want to be informed of all future meetings, notices, etc., concerning this matter. Please contact me at my current address: 1955 West Kenwood Drive, Maplewood, Minnesota, 55117. The following constitutes my objections to the proposed townhouse and apartment development as requested: THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED TOWN HOUSE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE REDUCED AS IT WILL OVER POPULATE AND CONGEST THE AREA AND THE BURM AREA SHOULD BE INCREASED. e THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD CONSIST OF LUXURY TOWNHOMES AND LUXURY APARTMENTS TO SUPPORT THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE FORCED TO PLANT MATURE TREES, LANDSCAPE AND CONTINUALLY MAINTAIN THE BURM AREA TO ACHIEVE AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING PRIVACY BARRIER BETWEEN THE EXISTING LUXURY HOMES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Thank you for your time and attention to these matters. Youvgtnd~, , ~ , ~ //John R. N/dughter 27 Attachment ll Tom Ekstrand From: KennethHalverson@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:44 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Trout Land Development Proposal Dear Mr. Ekstrand: I have reviewed the information you sent regarding the proposed development and must oppose the proposed use of the R1 parcel just south of the current Co. Rd. D. When this development was created, it was with the understanding that the area to the east of the High Ridge Court development was a wetland. We were told by the city that it was not a high quality wetland, apparently a collector basin that restores ground water is not as good as a wetland that serves to filter surface water. That is acceptable, rules are rules. The city is now seeking comment on the proposal to turn the large area zoned R1, into an R3 zoning for apartments. This is not in keeping with the land use in this part of Maplewood. The area to the south of this is townhomes and single family homes on the Ridge and to the west is an area of twin homes and beyond those are single family residences. In keeping with the surrounding area the zoning should stay the same as it is currently. If there is a need for R3 housing in Maplewood, then it should be a change in zoning for the M1 area of the proposed development. Respectfully, Ken 5/4/2004 28 Attachment 12 Tom Ekstrand From: Sent: To: Subject: Hal [htetzlaf@ties2.net] Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:50 AM Tom Ekstrand Trout Land Development Tom, My name is Hal Tetzlaff at 1260 Highridge Court E. and I'm just following up on our telephone conversation on Wednesday morning, April 28. As I said over the phone, my objection to the 55-unit apartment proposal is that it is completely out of character with the development in the surrounding area in that it is very high density use. If the city wants to see the land used for residential use, why not more in keeping with the rest of the area, i.e. single-family units or more townhouses? I assume that when the Planning Commission meets on May the 17th people like ourselves may attend. Could you please inform me what your recommendation will be before this meeting so as to help me prepare my self better? My email is >htetzlaf@ties2.net< or call me at 651-429-6932. Thank you. Hal Tetzlaff 29 Tom Ekstrand Attachment 13 From: Joe Gerard [jgerard@nationwidewash.com] Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:26 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Trout Land Development Proposal My wife and I would like to respond to your memo and the application letter from Kelco Real Estate Development Services for the new proposed Trout Land project along the new County Road D. We have a few concerns regarding this project, one of particular concern. In looking at the planned prdiject we are somewhat confused as it was our initial thought that the purpose of the newly realigned County Road D was to relieve some of the massive congestion occurring at the intersection of Hwy 61 and Beam Avenue and eliminate the very difficult existing lett hand turn off Hwy 61 for those of us that need to go west on D to go home. It seems as though the relief that will be achieved will be quickly eliminated with the full development of this project. We would be interested in an explanation for that. Living in a town home and experiencing the life style one enjoys in this environment we have no problem with an additional town home development, as generally people having a personal investment in a residence seem to take on responsibility for their properties and immediate communities. We also have no objection to the retail possibilities as it would seem to benefit all of us a great deal, however, our biggest concern, and something we are extremely opposed to is the apartment complex proposed. This apartment building will butt right up to the east end of High Point Ridge. Apartments have a way of attracting a vadety of families and individuals that have a history of showing far less responsibility for upkeep and care for their dwelling than owners of homes, generally are not very committed to the community they live in and some families and individuals are a soume of various problems for the immediate area around them. Something city staff, as well as the city council, needs to consider is there is no lack of apartments in this general area. One only needs to drive west from Hwy 61 on County Road D and, although it is the City of Vadnais Heights, realize there is an abundance of apartments lining County Road D from the beginning of the eastern edge of the High Point Ridge area to Labore Road. Vacancies are a constant in those apartments. It is not unusual to see, at least twice to three times a week, the Ramsey County Sheriff patrol vehicles on site at one of the complexes to address domestic disputes, drug issues and gang related activities that seem to go on and on. This is the very last thing any of us High Point Ridge residents need to have is an additional apartment building. Again, we realize this is Vadnais Heights, but we're only talking across the street from Maplewood. Additional rows of apartment complexes continue west of Labore Road to Edgerton St., and they, too, have vacancies and similar problems. We are also concerned about the construction of this apartment building that, as it becomes occupied, our values of our homes will reduce in value. It is a known fact that if you are in a close proximity to an apartment building your value will go down $15,000 - $20,000. We are absolutely opposed to this portion of the development. If they want to extend the development of the town home project that would be fine with us, just don't subject us to "apartment-like" issues with new apartment buildings. My wife and I have resided in Maplewood for eighteen years, fifteen of those years in a single family home east of Maplewood Mall. At the time we considered selling our home it was our hope to continue to reside in Maplewood for our remaining years. What we currently have in this NW corner of Maplewood is a quiet area of upscale single family homes and our town home development. We would like to keep it like that. Should the proposed apartment complex be approved at the Trout Land project we will consider an alternative area for residing as while we have enjoyed living in Maplewood we have also seen the city make some poor decisions on behalf of existing residents. We ask you to exert any influence you have in discouraging this proposed apartment building. There are certainly other ideas that could benefit the immediate residents, as well as the City of Maplewood, other than this. We are sure you Will likely hear from others and I suspect your public hearing will be well attended when this issue comes up. Thank you for asldng for our opinion and I hope the city makes the correct choice for its residents. Joe and Jane Gerard 1248 Highridge COurt E. Maplewood, MN 55109 651/494-3785 !qerard~nafionwidewash.com 3O Attachment 14 Tom Ekstrand From: ed trolander [etrolander~mindspdng.com] Sent: Monday, Apdl 26, 2004 8:14 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Cc: Ed Franzmeier Subject: Proposed Development April 27,2004 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, I have your letter dated April 21.2004 regarding a proposal from Kelco Real Estate for development of property to the east of my home. I live at 1256 Highridge Crt.. We ask that the you consider and evaluate our concerns; 1. Nearly all homeowners in our community paid a premium for our lots and those of us in the east end paid more than the others as these were considered more valuable. One reason was that the land directly to our east would remain zoned R1. Had we any idea a zoning change might be granted or even requested we would not have purchased the lot we did. Not to mention our dismay when we learned Cty Rd D was to be realigned. 2. Does our area need more apartments when we already have "half a mile" or more spread along Cty Rd D to our north and west? Maplewood will have many apartments when the land west of the mall is developed. 3. It appears to me the townhomes proposed are what I would call the cluster type. The townhome community we live in has plenty of open space and separation. Should not the new townhomes be likewise? 4.If the apartment building is approved, over our objections, then we expect some accommodation to the existing nationhood be made--at least a highend structure of no more than two stories and a setback from our property line of at least 100 ft The apartments be ora value in keeping with the surrounding area. Lastly. Can nothing be done to preserve the small "greenbelt" we now have to our east? Must every square foot of this property be torn up and paved over merely for the sake of few more tax dollars? We appreciate your time know you will consider what we have written. Your truly, Ed and Dafline Trolander 4/28/2OO4 31 Attachment 15 Tom Ekstrand From: GolfEd14~aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:35 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: TROUT LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL I am the President of the Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association. Out property joins the Proposed development. I wish to first let it be known that I object to the short period of time that we homeowners have been allocated to reply. Your letter is dated April 21, 2004, and we were asked to reply by May 1, 2004. While I believe we will be allowed input after May 1st, your letter does not state that fact. Unfortunately, I returned from out of town on Monday, April 26th. My mail box was full of letters from Angry and concerned homeowners, my voicemail was full of messages from concerned homeowners and within 20 minutes of my return from out of town, I had a few visitors who were outraged by the proposed development. Suffice to say, opposition to this development as presented in the letter from Mr. Kellison from Kelco is going to be very strong. While I have not had time to Poll the association as a group to determine their feelings, I get the impression from the many who have contacted me that we will have a near universal position on this proposal. We will have someone from our association at every meeting that will have anything to do with this development. Because of this, please notify me at this e mail address of the date and time of the meetings. You may also contact me in the following manner: Office telephone Home Telephone Cell Telephone Fax num bar e-mail address 651-738-9600 651-770-0200 651-398-8526 651-738-2421 golfed!4@aol.com You may also contact our association Vice President, Mr. Ed Trolander 651494-3704. Please keep in mind that not all development is good development if the proposal will negatively effect neighbors. We at Highpoint Ridge feel that the County Rd D changes will detrimentally effect our property value, and approving the proposed development as proposed will have a very very negative impact on out property values for a second time. Sincere regards, Edward V. Franzmeier Highpoint Ridge Towrdaome Association 4/28/2004 32 Attachment 16 Tom Ekstrand From: Kelly Lenz [kellylenz@comcast. net] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:39 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Trout Land Development Proposal Comments Mr. Ekstrand- We received a letter dated April 21, 2004 regarding our opinion on the application the city received for the Trout Land Development being proposed by Kelco Real Estate Development Services. Here are our opinions on the matter: · Why are we building so many town homes - I believe 63 in total? Why don't we build have as many and make them nicer· We live in the Highpoint Ridge development where the lowest home value is $375,000 and they go up from there. This just doesn't make any sense to us. We didn't build in this wonderful neighborhood to have Iow value town homes and an apartment building built dght across the street. I would think it would be in the city's interest to have higher value homes be built to increase the tax basis in the area. · I haven't seen the plans for the town homes, but do we need to ruin our entire view? Couldn't they be one story?? Why do we have to populate this tiny area with 63 town homes and apartments? What will the city require the developer to do with the landscape between the Trout Land Development and the Highpoint Ridge development? I sure hope the town homes will have to be set back from the property lines up here and be landscaped accordingly. · Why an apartment building? Do we really need additional rental space in this area? Aren't we adding a bunch dght by Maplewood Mall for the future Legacy Village? Isn't there a better use for this space than housing? Legacy Village seems to have a great concept in blending the area with community areas and open spaces? I don~t see a park for the kids in the development? Where are they going to play? I'm sure I have more and will present them at future public meetings. Sincerely, Kelly Lenz 3027 Duluth St 651.771.5453 5~/2004 33 Attachment H pointt 'dge TowahomeAssocia on 17 May 4, 2004 City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood MN 55109-2797 RE: Trout Land Development Proposal Dear Sir: The High Point Ridge Townhome Association which represents the residents of the townhomes located along Highridge Court, just to the west of a portion of the development held an emergency meeting on the evening of May 3, 2004 for the express purpose of developing a corporate response to your letter of April 21, 2004 and to the attached planned unit development proposed by Kelco. The carefully considered concerns of the association members are formally expressed by the attached signatures of the association members and their leadership. This letter is the High Point Ridge Townhome Association's corporate response to your letter of April 21 and the planned unit development being proposed by Kelco. The association and the undersigned residents are strongly opposed to the zoning change of the northernmost parcel of land (away from the R1 designation) called for by this proposal. Many of the residents purchased the land based on the current R1, single-family zoning of the adjacent area. There are a significant number of apartment complexes to the north and west of High Ridge Court, albeit located in Vadnais Heights and Little Canada; we do not see the need for any additional multi-family units in the immediate area. The High Point Ridge development is comprised largely of residents who are retired or are approaching retirement age. Most of us deliberately chose to locate in this neighborhood because it was surrounded on three sides by land zoned for Iow-density development and would remain relatively quiet. We feel that the zoning change and the proposed apartment complex will only be detrimental to our quality of life. The residents whose property is adjacent to the proposed development purchased the land at a premium based on the proximity to the woods and on the builder's assertions that it was a wetland and was not buildable. Due to the County Road D reroute, those residents have already had the unpleasant discovery that the land is not considered a high-quality wetland and is therefore eligible for development. Reducing the zoning on the land from the single-family RI zoning to the multi-unit designation, and allowing the proposed apartment complex in addition to having a negative effect on the quality of life could also have a significant negative effect on the property values for these residents. Sincerely, (Attached Signatures) Residents of High Point Ridge Townhomes ~dent of High Point Ridge Townhomes H~a~ 651-770-0200 Work 651-738-9600 34 To: .....M _ap_l.ew_o_. _o__d _ c_ !t.y_ ~c o_ ?~_ci~l ~Maplewood Planning Development Committee ,Maplewood Senior Planner- Tom Ekstrand I Fr°m: Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association am an owner of Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association. I completely support the efforts of the Association Board of Directors and their efforts to implement positive change involving the p~'~posed TROUT LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. Street Date Number Signed Printed Name ...... HighridgeCourt _ .__21J~ ,-~ iHighridge Court ...... ~ .... !_~.~7 iHighridge Court .... 4_i__/_~__~_._'7 !Highridge Court J 2~ Highr dge Court .... _~.~/~ ~ J Highridge Court ~ .... ~_~ ~ ~Highridge Court 8' ! ~0 ~HighridgeCourt -- gl / ~ ~ ~ ~i~hridg~ Court 10~ )~ ~ ~Highridge Court ~.1 ~? Highridge Court .. ~.2._/(_~_ Highridge Court~ .13;/~~ ~ ~ Highridge Court ~ ~ 4 ./_.~ _~ ~, Highridge Court j ~ 5/~ ~_ Highridge Coud _. !_6 J~_~ ~_ ~ Highridge Court ~ __ ! ~_/~ ~7 'Highridge Court~ __)_~_./~ ~ Highridge Court ~ 20: t~ Highridge Court .2~ :~.~~ Highridge Court ~ . Highridge Court _2~ ~_/L~_ ~ j Highridge Court~ _26__/_._,~ _.-~-_~/ !Highridge Court ,,~ 27 /~ ~Highridge Court. ......................28 .Highridge Court I 35 _3_3_~__~/_~..~ Highridge Court _ 3_4_.i___/_(_7__.~. ~__i_Highridge Court ..... .3_5~__/_,,~' zt/-_~__ iHighridge Court 36 I ~ --~ / ,; Highridge Court . 371 1'~,.~1 iHighridge Court _ .3_8_~ i~.~ ;~ ~'_ iHighridge Court 39 I'~'~.¢/ !Highridge 40' 2- ~- ~" i Highridge ..... 41i __]/_~_~___.' Highridge Court . .4_2~_. _j. ]_ ~__~_ Highridge Court _. _4_3.~__/_ .~, ~ g/Highridge Court .... 44, /,.~t~r_~' Highridge Court 4_5' /~' :~ Highr dge Court _ 46 / ~ 5 '~. i Highridge Court .... 4__7~_~/ ~ !Highridge Court ~8_j /.2/,.~ !Highridge Court Court Highridge $- "/'- 0 Court! Court! Highridge Courti 51 ' ; Highridge Court 52' Highridge Court 53' i Highridge Court _ 541 'Highridge Court 55 !Highridge Court 56' ; Highridge Court i 57 : Highridge Court I 58 ' Highridge Court 59 Highridge Court ~ 601 : Highridge Court 61 Highridge Court ~ 62 ................ ~ Hi_g b_.d_dge cour_tI 6_3. ......... :_Hi~g_hri~dge. _C_9_u_r t; 64 Highridge Court i 65 : Highridge Court' 66 Highridge Court, 67' Highridge Court i 681 i Highridge Court i 69, i Highridge Court ~ 70' J Highridge Courtl 71' i Highridge Court I 72, ,Hi( Court I 36 Attachment 18 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, applied for a change to the City's land use plan from R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3H (high density residential). WHEREAS, City Staff further requested a revision to the land use plan to redesignate a collector street which would align with the city's proposed County Road D extension on the west side of Highway 61. WHEREAS, these changes apply to the property located generally on the west side of Highway 61 south of County Road D. Refer to the attached map. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On May 17, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public headng. The City staff published a headng notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council the land use plan change. On ,2004, the City Council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above described changes, including the redesignation of the County Road D extension collector, for the following reasons: 1. The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The proposed town houses would be consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential uses, since they would create a transitional land use between commercial property and single dwelling property. 3. The proposed town houses would be on a collector street that would serve the higher number of homes proposed. 4. Town houses would be compatible with the abutting town house development. The difference in grade between the proposed high-density multi- family housing and the existing single-family and town house development to the west will create a natural buffer between developments. 37 6. Them would be no significant impact on the existing neighborhood streets to the west. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2004. 38 Attachment 19 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, applied for a conditional use permit to develop a multi-use planned development called Trout Land PUD. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located on the west side of Highway 61 and south of County Road D. The legal description is: WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 17, 2004 the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The city council held a public headng on City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 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 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. 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. 39 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. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 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: Development shall follow the plans date stamped Apdl 15, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall submit any plan revisions noted by Chris Cavett in his memo dated May 11, 2004 as included in the staff report. The city council shall be responsible for reviewing any major changes that may be proposed. The director of community development may review minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. This planned unit development shall allow townhomes at a maximum of a high-density ratio on the residential portion of the development. Apartments are not allowed without an amendment to this approval. The commercial segment of this development may include the following uses as proposed: retail, a fuel station with convenience store and an auto dealership. Other similar uses may be permitted if found to be of the same character and approved by city staff. The city council may make this determination if the applicant disagrees with staff's decision. The developer of the auto dealership shall submit a request for a conditional use permit for the planning commission and city council's review. Any automotive use that may be proposed must comply with the requirements outlined in the BC (business commercial) and M1 (light manufacturing) zoning requirements. 5. The development plan shall be revised to place the fuel station next to Highway 61 to keep it further from the homes. All individual development proposals must meet all city development requirements. No variances have been included in this PUD approval. 7. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall comply with the following site and design requirements: 4O ao Screening from the townhomes is paramount. All commercial properties shall provide considerable landscaping to buffer and screen their sites from the proposed townhomes. b. Building design throughout this development shall be of an improved quality and should strive for a compatibility of design. The design of the retaining walls shall be submitted to staff for approval of design and materials before the issuance of a grading permit. Retaining walls over four-feet-tall shall have a black-colored, vinyl-covered chain link fence on top° The fence height shall be six feet. Retaining walls over four feet in height must have a building permit. Appeals of staff's wall-design approval shall be submitted to the community design review board. d. The master developer shall construct the retaining walls that span across lot lines as part of the mass grading of the site. The applicant shall dedicate all easements noted in the memo dated May 11, 2004 by Chds Cavett. These shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2004. 41 ] TO: FROM: APPLICANT: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Planner Ronald Rygwalski Conditional Use Permit/Rezoning 2086 Edgerton Street May 11, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ronald Rygwalski owns the property at 2086 Edgerton Street. This property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Mr. Rygwalski operates a motor vehicle repair service business (Ron's Service) out of a garage on the front of the property, and has two single-family houses on the back of the property. Mr. Rygwalski occupies the larger, front house and his son and grandchildren occupy the smaller, back house. Mr. Rygwalski proposes to build an addition to the smaller, back house to make the house more livable for his son and grandchildren. (Refer to the narrative and maps on pages 10 through 14.) Request To build an addition to the smaller house on the property, Mr. Rygwalski is requesting a conditional use permit to expand the legal nonconforming single-family structure. BACKGROUND 1985 Rezoning Both the single-family houses and the business were in place when Mr. Rygwalski purchased the property 27 years ago. Prior to his purchase, the business was in operation as both a motor vehicle repair and a gasoline fuel station since 1930. The oldest zoning map on record is dated 1959 and reflects the zoning on this property as Business Commercial (BC). In 1984 city staff proposed to downzone the property from its original zoning of BC to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). (Refer to the 1984 staff report on page 15.) The downzoning was part of a city-wide program to give a clear signal as to how the city desired properties to be used, in this case to guide the land toward a residential use to reflect the predominance of residential properties in the neighborhood. The rezoning would have created the houses as conforming uses and the business as a nonconforming use, thereby ensuring controls over the expansion of the business. Because of the city council's concerns regarding the creation of a nonconforming business and what that would mean for the business owner, the city council decided to rezone and reguide the property from BC to NC. (Refer to the February 11, 1985, city council minutes on page 16.) The intent of the NC zoning district is to preserve land for the use of businesses that are compatible with adjacent residential land uses. No residential uses or motor vehicle repair businesses are allowed within the NC zoning district. However, the code does allow uses that the city council finds compatible with the neighborhood as a conditional use. In 1985, the city council may have felt that the motor vehicle repair use was compatible with the surrounding residential property because it was and still is a small business. 2004 Conditional Use Permit In March 2004, Mr. Rygwalski discussed the proposed addition to the small house with city staff. Mr. Rygwalski was informed that the city council would need to approve a CUP for the expansion of a nonconforming structure prior to the city issuing a building permit. On April 19, 2004, Mr. Rygwalski applied for a CUP. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The small house is 480 square feet in area. The proposed addition is 624 square feet in area and will be constructed on the west side of the house, away from the lake. The addition meets all of the required setbacks of the zoning code and impervious surface coverage maximums allowed by the Shoreland Overlay District for Oehrlein Lake. Since the house is a legal nonconforming structure within the NC zoning district, a CUP is required to expand, regardless of the size of expansion. Rezoning After reviewing the proposal carefully, rather than process the addition as a CUP, city staff is recommending that the city change the land use plan and zoning of the property to R-2 (Single and Double Dwelling). With the current zoning of NC, both the business and the single-family houses would require a CUP to expand. Processing a CUP every time Mr. Rygwalski or a future owner proposes to build an addition, deck, or garage onto the residential portion of the property seems unnecessary considering the predominance of single-family houses in the neighborhood. Requiring a CUP for the expansion of a nonconforming business as the zoning change would require, however, would allow the city controls on that expansion to ensure adequate protection to the surrounding single- family houses. Permitted uses within the R-2 zoning district include single and double dwellings. The minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district for double dwellings is 12,000 square feet in area and 85 feet in width. Mr. Rygwalski's lot exceeds these dimensions. With the rezoning and reguiding of the property to R-2, both single-family houses could be expanded without a CUP and only with the required building permits. Mr. Rygwalski plans to turn his business over to his son once he retires. He indicated that he would be supportive of the rezoning as long as he can retain the business. Rezoning the property to R-2 would cause the business to be nonconforming. However, since a motor vehicle repair business is not permitted within the NC zoning district, the business is already a nonconforming use. Therefore, rezoning the property will not Ronald Rygwalski 2 May 11, 2004 change the status of the business as a nonconforming use, but will bring the single- family houses into conformity. State law allows nonconforming uses to remain until such time as the business is no longer in operation for one year, or has been destroyed up to 50 percent of its fair market value. Patrick Kelly, city attorney, has indicated that it would be up to the city to determine the definition of "fair market value," leaving some leniency in this regard. City code would also allow a nonconforming business to expand with a CUP. Therefore, Mr. Rygwalski can be assured that the nonconforming business can remain, and the city can be assured that if it expands city controls can be put in place to protect surrounding residential properties. City code requires that the planning commission hold a public hearing for comprehensive land use plan amendments and that the city council hold a public hearing for rezoning. Because of city staffs recent decision to recommend a land use plan amendment in this instance, public hearing notices were not mailed for the May 17, 2004, planning commission meeting. If the planning commission recommends the rezoning and comprehensive land use plan amendment, the public hearing for both will be scheduled for the city council meeting. OTHER COMMENTS Dave Fisher, Building Official: The building code needs to be met for the expansion of the single-family house. Chuck Vermeersch, Engineer: Mr. Vermeersch states that there is no engineering basis to deny Mr. Rygwalski's proposal. If the proposal is approved, the city engineering department recommends that a sewer and water access charge (SAC and WAC) be included in the building permit fees for the expansion of the smaller house, since the property has never paid for this service in the past. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan change resolution on page 17. This resolution changes the Land Use Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because the proposal will meet the following city comprehensive plan goals and policies: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Ronald Rygwalski 3 May 11, 2004 Adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18. This resolution changes the zoning map from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because: ao The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b° The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring properties or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. Co The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. do The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and sch'°ols. Ronald Rygwalski 4 May 11, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 69 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the 12 replies received, all were supportive of Mr. Rygwalski's proposal to build an addition to the small house. Patricia and Thomas Galligher, 1989 Payne Avenue North: We think it's fine for Mr. Rygwalski to add on to the small house as long as it doesn't affect the lake, i.e. changing the shoreline, water, sewer. Marilyn and Dr. Joe Norquist, 2087 Greenbrier Street: Expansion of a nonconforming single-family house at 2086 Edgerton Street. We think that, in a residential neighborhood on Lake Oehrlein, it is a reasonable request for enlarging their home. It would seem appropriate also to ensure in some way that the two homes on that plot (rated commercial) will not in the future be used for commercial business. It is appropriate to have the commercial business on Edgerton Street, but on the lakeside of that long plot, it would be most detrimental to have a commercial business located there. o Ricci J. & Marlys A. Casadecalvo, 2167 Edgerton Street N.: I see no problem at all with the addition described. It shouldn't affect anyone in the neighborhood, as the smaller house is not visible from the street. The Rygwalskis keep their property in immaculate condition. Myron Bjornstad, 2074 Edgerton Street: I do not have a problem with Ron and Bill adding onto their home. Martha B. Oviatt, 2032 Edgerton Street N.: Ron and family have been good neighbors and responsible property owners. Please approve this request. Robed D. & Donna R. Clemens, 2177 Edgerton Street N.: Ron has been a good neighbor - the addition to the home will be a positive addition to our neighborhood. Judith A. Southwick, 547 Skillman Avenue E.: I have no objection to his building expansion. 8. Dianne M. Delgiorno, 655 Belmont Lane E.: I have no objections to the request. George A. & Marian A. Toren, 678 Eldridge Avenue E.: The request will in no way affect my property value - the addition goes to Edgerton Street rather than towards the lake. It is also completely hidden.from my view by many mature trees. Ron is a very good neighbor - I recommend a vote for the permit. 10. Candy Staples, 2045 Edgerton Street N.: My name is Candy Staples. I live at 2045 Edgerton. I have lived here for 17 years. Mr. Rygwalski's business and house are just kitty-corner from me. The only thing that prevents me from seeing his property is the hill in front of our townhouse building. Until receiving this survey, I did not know the small house existed. I cannot believe its expansion would be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. I hope Mr. Rygwalski is given the permit to expand as he has requested. Thank you. Ronald Rygwalski 5 May 11, 2004 11. Robert W. Skowronek, 2180 Edgerton Street: Let him do it. Colleen Oftedahl, 567 Skillman Avenue E.: That's fine with me. He doesn't use the property as commercial much anyway. Let him do it. Ronald Rygwalski 6 May 11, 2004 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing Use: 1.4 Acres as Platted (Approximately I Acre Above Water Level) Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Business and Two Single- Family Houses SURROUNDING LANDUSES North: South: East: West: Single-Family Houses Single-Family Houses Oehrlein Lake Edgerton Street, Single-Family Houses, Townhouses, and Apartments PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Criteria for Rezoning Section 44-1165 requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. Two specific goals apply to this proposal: 1. Provide for orderly development. Ronald Rygwalski 7 May 11, 2004 2. Minimize conflicts between land uses. In addition, two specific residential development policies apply to this proposal: Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Criteria for Expansion of a Legal Nonconforming Use Section 44-12 (nonconforming buildings or uses) states that no existing building devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which such building is located shall be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless: 1. Required by law or government order; or There would not be a significant effect, as determined by the city through a conditional use permit, on the development of the parcel as zoned. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Section 44-1097 states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval: 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 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 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. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Ronald Rygwalski 8 May 11, 2004 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. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on April 19, 2004. 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 June 18, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:Com-Dev\Sec17~2086 edgerton (Rygwalski) Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Conditional Use Permit Narrative Zoning/Location Map Existing Conditions Proposed Addition Building Footprint November 7, 1984, Staff Report February 11, 1985, City Council Minutes Comprehensive Land Use Plan Change Resolution Zoning Map Change Resolution Ronald Rygwalski 9 May 11, 2004 Attachment Ronald Rygwalski 2086 Edgerton St. Maplewood, Mn 55117 April 2, 2004 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, Mn 55109 Dear City County: We would like to add an addition to our home to make living conditions more Suitable. From a one bedroom to a two bedroom home. So my Son and his family can have more comfortable living conditions. Sincerely, Ronald Rygwalski 10 2136 2155 2185r I 2130 2124 2177 ..... 2167 2118 R121~i 211~ 2106~ , 2096 2088 2139~ :. 2D75 2074 i 2072 SKILLMAN AVE N L. -~190 Attachment 2 2170 2166 2160 2094 2044 636 65O 66'1 670 2 673 650 66 660 2010 2001 Zoning/Location Map 11 Attachment 3 CO, RD. B I I 1 I / I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and' that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11561 Date ~ ¢ ~ / ~C~ ~ Reg. No. N Existing Conditions $ 12 Attachment 4 5TATIO~ q- ~ s~Ctk _. BIG ~iOLLR£ N Proposed Addition 13 Attachment 5 24' N Building Footprint (Small House) 14 Attachment 6 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Associate Planner, Johnson Zone Change (BC to R-2) 2086 Edgerton Street City of Maplewood Ronald S Rygwalski November 7, 1984 SUMMARY Request Downzone this property from BC, business commercial to R-2, double dwelling. Reason for this Request This site is part of the city-wide down-zoning program. The RL, residential lower density land use plan and BC, business commercial zoning designations are incompatible. The proposed change is to give a clear signal as to how the city desires the property to be used. Comments This is predominantly a lower density residential neighborhood. The BC zoning on this site should be changed to a residential designation to control any expansion of the existing use. This action would be consistent with the land use plan policy of "maintaining and, where possible, strengthening the character of individual neighborhoods." As a legal nonconforming, use the business use of the site could not be expanded or changed to a more intensive use without council approval. Downzoning the Site would also move toward eventually bringing the property into conformance with another land use plan policy of having dissimilar uses abut along rear property lines where possible so that like uses front one another. Expansion of the single dwellings would continue to require council approval until one of the dwellings is removed. When downzoning a property, council should grant the property owner a zoning classification that permits the most flexibility for using the site consistent with the land use plan and the location of the site. In this case, this would be the R-2, double dwelling district. The site's frontage on an arterial roadway and proximity to land planned for residential medium density use make this a suitable site for the R-2 classification. Single dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 district. The property owner would prefer to retain the BC zoning but as long as the business use of the property can be continued, he will not object to this proposal. Recommendation Approve the enclosed resolution (page 8), approving a downzoning from BC, business commercial to R-2 double dwelling for 2086 Edgerton Street. 15 Attachment 7 7:20 P.M. Rezoning : 2086 Edgerton (4 Votes) ~_ //-~ a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning of 2086 Edgerton from BC business commercial to NC neighborhood commercial. b. Manager Evans presented the staff report. c. Mr. Ronald Rygwalski, owner of 2086 Edgerton, spoke on behalf of the proposal. d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard. e. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard. f. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. g. Councilmember Maida introduced the followinq resolution and moved its adoption: 85- 2 - 17 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from BC, busineSs com- mercial to NC, neighborhood commercial for the following-described property: Lot 12, Thiede's Edgerton Villas, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22. This property is also known as 2086 Edgerton Street, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. This rezoning was initiated by the City of Maplewood, pursuant to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. 2. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on November 19, 1984. The planning commission recommended to the city council that said property be rezoned to R-2, residence district (double dwelling). 3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February 11, 1985,. to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and ~resent written statements. The council also considered reports and recom- mendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that'the-~b~~ described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent't~ the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Adopted this llth day of February, 1985. 16 Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all. Attachment 8 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood proposes to change the city's land use plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for a property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. WHEREAS, the legal description for the property located at 2086 Edgerton Street is Lot 12, Thiede's Edgerton Villas, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On May 17, 2004, the planning commission discussed the land use plan changes and recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described land use plan change because the proposal will meet the following city comprehensive plan goals and policies: 1. Provide for orderly development. 2. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 17 Attachment 9 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). WHEREAS, the change is proposed for a property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. WHEREAS, the legal description'for the property located at 2086 Edgerton Street is Lot 12, Thiede's Edgerton Villas, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On May 17, 2004, the planning commission discussed the land use plan changes and recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. o The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 18