Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/20041. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 7, 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. May 17, 2004 Public Hearings 7:00 Hedtage Square Second Addition (Legacy Village - Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) Land Use Plan Change (BC to R-3(H)) Planned Unit Development Revision Preliminary Plat New Business a. Cahanes Estates Preliminary Plat (2415 Minnehaha Avenue) b. Code Amendment - Public Hearings c. Code Amendment - Planning Commission and CDRB 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. May 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Bartol b. June 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich c. June 28 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour b. Rescheduling of July 5, 2004 Meeting 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 3, 2004. Commissioner Dierich had some corrections on page 14, on the fifth line it should be changed to: If the city doesn't know whether the pond is sprin.q fed, the city should send their people out to find out. And in the eleventh line after the words Beebe Road, the sentence should be changed to The parkin.q lot should be done in one phase, deleting the remainder of the sentence. Commissioner Dierich had a word addition on page 15, second paragraph, adding the word However, at the beginning of the sentence. Chairperson Fischer had a point of clarification on page 15, in the first paragraph. The first paragraph, second sentence, should read: The senior housing on Beebe Road was given a parking variance so visitors could park on the street. There is also parking on both sides of the street when school events occur. There are no sidewalks on Beebe road, which is now a MTC bus route. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -2- Chairperson Fischer had another correction on page 15, in the third paragraph, changing the word there to the. Commissioner Trippler had an addition to page 18, in the fifth paragraph from the bottom, inserting the word to after the word adjacent so it reads adjacent t._~o landscaping. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 3, 2004, with changes. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 2005 - 2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Mr. Roberts enclosed the proposed 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan for the commission to review. 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. Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager for the City of Maplewood, addressed commission members and visitors. Mr. Fursman said the Capital Improvement Plan is a 170-page document, which include ideas and plans for the city for the years 2005-2009 regarding how the city is going to treat streets and facilities. The 2005-2009 (CIP) coordinates the financing and timing for equipment purchases and construction projects. The (CIP) Capital Improvement Plan is based on goals established by the City Council over the past few years on retreats held on July 30, 2002, February 2003, and March 3, 2004. Many of the projects scheduled for 2005-2009 will result in accomplishing a portion of those goals established at those retreats. There was no levy for the CIP. The city is going to require a levy of $335,000 for 2005 to finance redevelopment. The housing and redevelopment program requires $130,000, for replacement of trucks $55,000 is needed, for the Tartan Ice Arena improvements $80,000 and sidewalk improvements require $50,000. If the City Council adopts the (CIP), there will be a need for a strong commitment to follow the construction and financing schedule for the public improvement projects for 2005. This will also facilitate the Finance Department's planning for the 2005 bond issue, which becomes a critical tool for the city. The CIP by design is a planning tool that is used by the City Council, staff and commissions. Due to the uncertainties of government, the City Council retains the flexibility to proceed with projects based on the economics of the times and there may be changes ahead of us. Provided the CIP is adopted by the City Council then it will be scheduled into the 2005 budget. That will give the city another opportunity to review the capital improvement project as the city goes through the budget process this summer and into the fall. City staff condensed this 170-page document into a videotape, which is easier to understand. Commissioner Desai asked why the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan that the city has worked on for a short time is going to take priority over the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan that the city has been working on for several years? ~ Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -3- Mr. Fursman said he believes the city can have a greater impact on the Gladstone area now and the Hillcrest area is not quite ready for redevelopment and is a smaller area to redevelop. He would invite the Assistant City Manager, Melinda Coleman to discuss this matter further. Ms. Melinda Coleman, Maplewood Assistant City Manager, said there are quite a few property owners in the Gladstone neighborhood that have approached staff stating that they are interested in either selling or expanding their business. There seems to be a lot of interest for the property owners in the Gladstone area to move forward to do something with the area. The city has spent quite a bit of time putting a Mixed-Use Ordinance together for the Hillcrest area and that happened because the Met Council along with the City of St. Paul was pushing for the redevelopment of that area. The zoning is in place now so if a development request comes forward, the city will be ready for it in the Hillcrest area. For the Gladstone area, the city is trying to do the Land Use Plan first. The city has been meeting with the Gladstone Coalition and there are two more meetings scheduled. The Gladstone Coalition and the city plan on bringing the community, the commission and board together to finalize what that plan would look like. Next would be the zoning for the Land Use. The people in the Hillcrest area were not quite ready to move forward with changes at this point. The City Council felt there was more of a community interest in the Gladstone area for redevelopment and the council decided to move forward with that area first. Chairperson Fischer said there are really only a few blocks of the Hillcrest area in the City of Maplewood and the remainder of the Hillcrest area is in St. Paul. There is significantly more acreage in the Gladstone area and as the city moves forward there would be a continued emphasis placed on the Hillcrest area. Ms. Coleman said the City Council had mentioned the city may be able to relocate some of the businesses in the Gladstone area to the Hillcrest area or relocating businesses from the Hillcrest area to the Gladstone area and try to work with the businesses. The city has to keep the planning process going. The enthusiasm by the Gladstone property owners is much greater and the residents have shown more interest than the residents of the Hillcrest area. The Hillcrest area is more compact and commercial oriented and the Gladstone area will be more residential developments and some businesses will be moving to residential. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city couldn't move the 800 megahertz system request for the police and fire departments along sooner rather than later? Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla, addressed the commission. He said the timeline that has been set out for the 800-megahertz system is geared towards the Ramsey County project, which is currently projecting through several meetings. When the city spread the cost out over 2 years they tried to spread the dollar amount out evenly. This is a joint project between the police and fire departments and the amount of money budgeted for 2005 is for the in-house portion that is required plus some of the subscriber equipment in the form of hand held and portable radios that are needed to get this project going. In 2006 the allotment will bring them up to the level with user equipment. Mr. Dan Faust ran the 1/2 hour video of the proposed 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Trippler asked if it was a fair statement that the street improvements were focused on completion in the year 2009? Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -4- Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said that is incorrect. The city tried to balance out various street reconstruction neighborhood programs annually so there should be a major project costing $2.5 - $3.5 million dollars done every year. There are some major projects scheduled out for 2008-2009 so in his mind the projects are spread out. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't see anything in the plan regarding additional soccer fields. With the continued growth of children in the city he thought the city should move towards the future and not in the past. Mr. Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director, addressed the commission. The City of Maplewood has 2,500 children playing soccer and 600 children playing baseball. In 1972 Hazelwood Park was constructed with nine soccer fields so you won't find another community other than Blaine that has this many soccer fields. Lacrosse is the biggest growing sport and they use the same type of fields as the soccer field. Afton Heights Park is currently under reconstruction and they had five baseball fields. After completion those will be reduced to three baseball fields and there will be two soccer fields. Commissioner Dierich asked, as part of the Century Avenue area improvements is the city going to purchase property to expand the width of the street or will that happen on the Woodbury side of the street? Mr. Ahl said the Century Avenue project is currently going through those discussions and the improvements will be done on both sides of Century Avenue. This improvement could take place in 2008-2009. Both counties received a federal funding grant for 2008-2009 to help fund the Century Avenue project, otherwise the cost would higher. Because of the federal funding and because the state provided funding to the counties the turn back looks Iow at this time. They have a long way to go to determine the final dollar amount but it looks very good at this time. Commissioner Trippler asked what the term alternative funding represents? Mr. Dan Faust, Maplewood Finance Director, addressed the commission. He said the letter of transmittal from the City Manager, in item number 6 briefly describes tax abatement bonds, electric franchise fees, and the environmental utility fees. At the June 14, 2004, city council meeting they will be discussing the possibility of an electric franchise fee. The city is looking at a 1% franchise fee on electric bills in lieu of a property tax increase. This would finance the bearing of overhead power lines and finance the Gladstone and Hillcrest areas. Commissioner Trippler asked if the bonding bill at the state for the Bruentrup Farm passed? Mr. Faust said the bonding bill did not pass so that money will not be available. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -5- This item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004. b. Olivia Gardens (Stillwater Road) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing to build 14 town houses (in seven twin homes) 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. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The applicant has not applied for design approval for the development at this time. They told Mr. Roberts 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. Commissioner Trippler said after looking at the map on page 15 of the staff report he realized that over the past year it's as if every development the commission has been reviewing has been for townhomes, twin homes, and multi-family buildings. It seems the city is packing people into neighborhoods with multi-family buildings where single-family homes used to exist. In a few years developers will be buying out single-family homes in order to build new townhomes and twin homes. He asked why staff thought it was better to change the zoning to R-2 rather than pressing the developer to build R-1 zoning? Mr. Roberts said he felt it was the city's responsibility to respond to what was presented in the application. The application seemed to be a much better plan than what had been occurring on that parcel for the past 15 years. The economics of buying and redeveloping this property probably wouldn't be feasible if the developer built four or five single-family homes compared to the proposed seven twin homes. Having more units and spreading out their cost, the developer has a better chance to make the project work and maybe make a profit. The city has had a lot of townhome developments and most of that is market driven. The Beaver Lake townhomes located up the street from this proposed development are selling for $300,000-$400,000 and the market has changed. As people are getting older people and are looking for townhomes there seem to be less of a demand for single-family homes. Commissioner Dierich said her daughter recently wrote a report for her Master's thesis regarding the demand for this type of housing and that seems to be the way the market is moving. This proposal is a nice choice especially if these are single-level townhomes and the applicant is planning these units for seniors. She said she doesn't have a problem with the number of units as much as she does the layout of the development. This type of layout is exactly what the commission turned down in the south end of Maplewood with the long narrowness of the property and now this plan comes to the commission. She would like to see a hammerhead or turnaround at the end of this development, which would also make this development visually more interesting. Mr. Roberts said to have a hammerhead turnaround most likely would involve the removal of the end unit. Mr. Roberts had asked the Fire Marshal, Butch Gervais if the fire department was concerned about not having a turnaround, he said it wasn't. His only concern was that an emergency vehicle would be able to use the driveway to turn around to exit the area. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -6- Commissioner Bartol said everything around this piece of property is zoned R-1 and he's not sure the commission is convinced they should allow this property to change the zoning to R-2. He asked why the city should deviate from the comprehensive plan? Mr. Roberts said it was staff's opinion that having the assurance the commercial property would no longer be there was a strong enough trade off to move forward with this plan. He doesn't know that a single-family development plan would work in this proposed location. With a public street and a 10,000 square foot lot minimum they could only build four or five homes. It may not be financially feasible for the developer. Commissioner Bartol asked if the developer looked into building single-family homes to match the surrounding area? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure if the developer had checked into that, or if any developer had ever checked into that. If the city used an R-2 zoning with no PUD each lot would have to be 6,000 square feet or 12,000 square feet per double unit. By having the PUD each individual lot under each half of the building is less than that, but the overall density with the open space on the south side of the proposed driveway averages out to be the density standards in the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Mueller asked what the vacant parcel was and who owned it? Mr. Roberts said the vacant parcel between this proposed development and the apartment building is a tax-forfeited property, which is owned by the city. The parcel is zoned R-1 and has a ponding area. Commissioner Mueller asked if that parcel could be developed or if it was just open space? Mr. Roberts said part of the frontage near Stillwater Road may be developable but Mr. Ahl may have more information on that parcel. Mr. Ahl said the ponding area has no need for expansion to meet the drainage needs of the area. There may be a small portion in the front parcel that could be sold off to be developed. The city uses the parcel as a green space to protect the ponding area. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kelly Conlin, with Homesites, LLC, residing at 11855 Isleton Avenue, Stillwater, addressed the commission. He said they did some comprehensive sketches on single-family lots and the lots don't meet the size requirements and also you can't get a road in that location. Mr. Conlin said because of the apartment building they thought having twin homes would be a nice transition with the single family homes in the area. They had a neighborhood meeting and most of the neighbors were in favor of this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -7- Mr. Conlin said these units will be single level and senior housing so there will not be as many cars. Because this development would be a PUD it wouldn't affect the city. They are requesting the change in zoning for the city, the road, to get rid of the existing business and for the economics of the project. A lot of cleanup needs to occur on this site. They have built a site in Oakdale with a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles and made it a no parking zone. With the cost of the lot and the building, these twin homes are going to be upwards of $300,000, and will add to the value of the neighborhood. Commissioner Desai asked where they propose the snow removal to go in the winter months? Mr. Conlin said many times the snow will have to be hauled off the site but that will be addressed in the homeowners association in the bylaws and covenants, which will be attached to the property. Commissioner Desai asked why units 3 & 5 are longer than the other units? Mr. Conlin said units 3 & 5 are narrower and deeper. Commissioner Trippler asked if one unit was removed would this project be economically feasible? Mr. Conlin said not really because of the cost to remove all of the concrete on the site. Some of the concrete is six feet thick so there is a lot of demolition and clean up. They have already hauled a contaminated tank off the site but there is a lot more work. Commissioner Bartol asked if they had considered acquiring the city owned lot and building a less restricted development, adding a turnaround and some curvature to the road? Mr. Conlin said they were not aware the city owned that space. He knows the site has been filled with soil but he thought the site was used for proper drainage. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody would like to address the commission regarding this item? Mr. Jim Mosner, residing at 798 North McKnight Road, addressed the commission. He came to the neighborhood meeting and was pleased the developer wanted to do well by the neighbors. His main concern is how tightly packed the site is. He would like to see the density less than what it is. One of the homes is 25 feet from his backyard. The homes are packed in like sardines and he would like to see at least one unit less in this development. He suggested having 11 units making one of the units a tri-plex and leaving the density zoned R-1. Ms. Julie LaFleur, residing at 2322 Stillwater Road East, addressed the commission. She is concerned about the proposed property decreasing the property values of the surrounding properties. She is also concerned about the pedestrian safety because there is a lot of foot traffic along the sidewalk on Stillwater Road. There is a park, softball fields across the street at the church and the bus stops in that location. The cars in this development will drive across the only sidewalk in the area as well. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -8- Ms. LaFleur said there is a potential of 28 or more cars with the proposal of the 14 homes. There is no guarantee that seniors will be living there. If children live in these twin homes there is no green space for them to play on and they will probably go across the street to play. There is no street light in the area and it's very dark there, which is another safety issue. It was unpleasant living across the street from the commercial site so it has gotten better. She is concerned about the headlights shining into her home as well. She wasn't notified about the neighborhood meetings so this was the first time she was able to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. Conlin said seniors typically drive less than single-family homeowners. As far as the traffic concern regarding cars driving over the sidewalk, the commercial cement trucks were more of a hazard than the senior residents driving across the sidewalk would be. As he stated before they really require the approval of the 14 units in order to do the cleanup and economics of this site. Commissioner Trippler said one of the residents suggested taking one of the twin homes out and turning one of the twin homes into a tri-plex. He asked what the developer thought of that idea? Mr. Conlin said he thought maybe there was a mistake in the report, which shows they have 2.79 acres and he believed it was 4 acres, however, he would have to verify that. That would mean they could have16 units on the property instead of the 14 units that they have proposed, which means they have proposed less units than what they could have built on the property. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city agreed to change the zoning to R-2 would it be possible to turn unit 7 north and south and make it into a three unit? Could they take unit 6 out, and space units 1 and 5 out more so it doesn't look so packed? Mr. Conlin said he would rather they have a four unit complex there instead. Those backyards bud up to Mike Green's backyard, which is very deep. The reason they are pushing for the 14 twin homes is because of the economics and the clean up. There is over $100,000 worth of clean up that they have to finish and pay for before they can build. Commissioner Mueller asked what the density would be if this proposed development goes R-2 without a PUD? In his opinion to eliminate one twin home wouldn't change the traffic issue. Mr. Roberts said the zoning would not change the density. The land use plan designation sets the density in the comprehensive plan for double dwellings in the Iow range at 5.4 units per gross acre, the medium range is 6 units per gross acre. The PUD doesn't change the density, it only changes things like setbacks, street design and driveways. Commissioner Dierich asked if it was even feasible to sell the city owned space? Mr. Ahl said the parcel is under the city's jurisdiction, which is different from city ownership. The city acquired the parcel through a tax forfeiture, which means somebody didn't pay their taxes so the property was offered to government agencies. The city put a claim in for drainage purposes so the property is listed in the state records as a lot that is needed for drainage purposes. If the city chooses to sever that agreement there is a very lengthy and expensive process to go through. The city typically doesn't do this unless they see a development in the area. They do an analysis and look at what drainage is necessary and what the final use for the land is. They would also look at future drainage needs for the roadway. T ] Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -9- Commissioner Dierich asked if the city owned property wasn't for sale would the property be available to use as a park area? Mr. Ahl said drainage and those types of open space uses are certainly appropriate for tax forfeiture projects. Commissioner Bartol said currently the city owned property is overgrown and an eyesore. He asked if there was some way to put in the PUD association who is in charge of the land and turn it into a green space or park area? That way everybody would benefit. Mr. Ahl said staff would agree. Commissioner Desai asked for clarification regarding the actual acreage for this area. He asked if it was 4 acres as the developer said or 2.79 acres as in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said staff would have to doubl,e check and they would have that information available for the city council. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution on page 28 of the staff report. 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 dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 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. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution on page 29 of the staff report. 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. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution starting on page 30 of the staff report. 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: Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 5-17-04 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. 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. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the Olivia Garden preliminary plat (received by the city on April 21,2004). 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. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 5-17-04 c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. 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. f. Have Xcel Energy install a streetlight 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. (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, driveway 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 private driveways. Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 5-17-04 (3) Driveway in front of Lots 1 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 private driveway 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 District 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 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 District 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -13- 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. With two added conditions: a. The developer install a hammerhead turnaround by the south unit. b. Recommend that the applicant investigate developing the open space as green space next to the pond with the association being responsible for maintaining the space. Mr. Conlin said they don't have a problem maintaining the open space property although he would have to check with his attorney. There may be legal issues dealing with the green space and the liability issues. Also he would not want to hold this development up to add this space to the association agreement. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Nay - Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the fact that the commercial property is going away. He likes the development concept but he thinks it's setting a precedence for this neighborhood by packing in this many parcels. c. Trout Lane (west of Highway 61 and new County Road D) Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development, 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 townhomes 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. 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. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -14- Commissioner Trippler asked what the staff's input would be if the commission recommended R- 3M zoning instead of R-3H? He looked in the comp plan under table 7 and R-3M fits the best. Mr. Ekstrand said in going over the various densities with the elimination of the apartment complex and if all of the proposed R-3H property was used for townhomes they could have 123 units, if it was designated R-3M they could have 71 units. Commissioner Trippler said about a year ago he was looking at townhome properties in the Liberty development in Stillwater and both of the units he looked at would have been next door to a gas station. He's sure the reason they didn't disclose that information is because it wouldn't have been a good selling point to live next door to gas fumes, car radios, screeching tires and doors slamming. He brings that fact up because of this proposal and the location of the gas station/convenience store. To assume the developer would inform potential buyers that a gas station would be built next door he wouldn't rely on that being passed onto the consumer. He also thinks the gas station should be moved from its location to where the auto dealership is proposed to be located. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if these commercial proposals were only suggestions at this point? Mr. Ekstrand said he asked the applicant if there was any certainty that these would be the types of uses and he said yes this is the use they are seeking, although they don't have any strong commitments yet. Commissioner Mueller asked if those commercial uses would have to come before the planning commission before it was developed? Mr. Ekstrand said if this is approved the commission would be approving the convenience store with the gas station as well as the retail. In his recommendation he stated the auto dealership would have to come before the planning commission because of the potential nuisances such as lighting, speaker systems, the orientation of the building, and garage door facing. Commissioner Mueller said he's always thought gas stations were more of a problem than a car dealership would be and he would prefer to have the gas station come back before the planning commission as well. Mr. Ekstrand said he only recommended the auto dealership come before the planning commission. Commissioner Mueller asked if 78 townhomes was a realistic number or was it just a number estimated by the developer? Mr. Ekstrand said the developer's goal is to propose as many units as the high density could allow. Commissioner Desai asked if there was a possibility of requiring the commercial development to build before the townhomes were built so potential buyers would know what they would be purchasing and what would surround their home? T Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -15- Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't believe so. The city doesn't have control over the order the development is built. The city would have to trust that the developer would inform potential buyers that a gas station and car dealership would be built in the area. However, after hearing Mr. Trippler's comment regarding looking at property and not being told there was going to be a gas station built next door, that may not happen. Commissioner Dierich asked if there would be sidewalks along County Road D so people could safely walk to the commercial areas? Mr. Ekstrand said there would be sidewalks in that area. He welcomed Mr. Ahl to speak regarding the sidewalks since he is more aware of the construction of the County Road D realignment. Mr. Ahl said the construction plans have sidewalks planned along the south and west side of County Road D. Commissioner Dierich asked what the city code was regarding the distance a gas station or car dealership could be from residential areas without a PUD? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has different categories for motor fuel stations. Minor motor fuel stations can be next door to residential, major motor fuel stations with up to 6 pumps have to be 350 feet away from residential. Commissioner Bartol asked if the gas station has to be a part of this development? In his experience the fumes from a gas station are more offensive than a car dealership. Mr. Ekstrand said from a city standpoint the gas station is not essential but it's a use in the neighborhood that would be appreciated. Commissioner Bartol said there are so many car dealerships along Highway 61 why can't a gas station be next door to one of the existing car dealerships and leave the concept for a gas station out of this development? In his opinion the proposed gas station is too close to the townhome development. Mr. Ekstrand said the city code requires a 200-foot setback from the residential lot line from fuel vents. Commissioner Trippler asked if the developer could switch the location of the car dealership and the gas station/convenience store? Mr. Ekstrand said he is recommending the gas station be moved over to the corner where the retail building is shown on the plans. Commissioner Trippler asked if that would make it 350 feet from residential? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -16- Mr. Jim Kellison, President, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Boulevard, Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the commission. Mr. Kellison said they have been working with the city for 11~ years on this project area. There are 5.67 acres here and the Prokosch's will have 3A of an acre where they can stay for life. By the time they take the right-of-way, the pond, and the easement they have about 1.2 acres of developable property and it is very difficult to make something work economically on this size of property. They want to move forward and they see some economic gain to move forward. They have some extreme grading issues to deal with. They will have about 140,000 yards of dirt to move around on the site and about 110,000 yards of dirt to move off the site. From a density standpoint with the R-3H zoning they would be at 80% of what they could build on that property based on the density. They wouldn't be as Iow as the R- 3M zoning but they can't physically put more units on the property with the requirements for the trail, the 50 foot setback on the west side of the property, the gas line, and the high tension lines on the property. Their architect drew 68 units on the plans but wrote on the plans there is a potential for 78 units, which is the maximum number of units they can put on the property. It is up to the company that decides to build these units as to how many units they put on the property not Kelco Real Estate. They want the city to agree that would be zoned R-3H. As far as the apartment complex goes he understands from reading the neighborhood comments they don't want an apartment complex here. They are willing to eliminate the plan for apartments but they would request to build high-end condominiums for sale and the values would be around $250,000. This would be up to the purchaser of the property and they would have to come back to the planning commission and get approval. He is looking for approval of the use and that the use is acceptable to the neighborhood. Regarding the commercial project, they would like to have the gas station where it's shown on the plan. They think they have a potential use for that corner and it would be an extreme benefit to the community. They believe that having a gas station and convenience store is going to fill a neighborhood requirement because there isn't another gas/convenient store any closer than 1~ miles north or south of this area. There are other dealerships along Highway 61 so this auto dealership would fit right in. They are looking for approval from the commission to have the dealership in this location. The owners would be required to come back to the commission for approval. In Oakdale when they had a potential development they would post signs stating this is commercial or industrial property and these are the types of uses that could occupy this parcel. They would be willing to do the same thing in this location. The developer could also put that clause in the sales agreement for the buyer to acknowledge they were told what commercial developments would be built. Commissioner Mueller asked how many units would be in the condominium complex that was mentioned in place of the apartments? Mr. Kellison said it would probably be a 3 story building with about 32 units around 1200 square feet in size with subterranean parking below grade on the west and south side and partially below grade on the north side by the pond. The apartment building was proposed to be 3-story building with 52 units and about 900 square feet in size. Commissioner Mueller asked if it would be roughly 10 condominium units per level? Mr. Kellison said that sounds correct. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing and the following residents spoke at the public hearing: Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -17- Ed Franzmeier, 1259 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. In the 30 years he has lived in Maplewood he has lived in three different locations. Currently he lives in the Highridge townhomes next door to where the proposed apartment building would be. He thanked the commissioners for serving on the planning commission. He pointed out that he had provided a list of residents in the townhome association that do not want the apartment building built. There were 49 names on the list and an additional 11 people that were not home when they came around with the petition. Those residents later called him so potentially there would have been 60 people on the list. Any three-story building next to their townhomes would be equally opposed whether it was an apartment building or condominium building. The residents that bought units on the cul-de-sac paid bonus prices for bonus lots for the woods between their development and the Prokosch property. Now most of the woods are going to be removed due to the realignment of County Road D. Cindy Kranz, 1264 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. She said the developer lied to them when they purchased their property and told them the land was on a wetland and could not be developed and the property was zoned R-I. She is happy the apartment building idea has been removed. Another issue is the R-3H verses the R-3M zoning. Whoever Mr. Kellison has develop this land under the R-3H zoning they could have 78 units and 71 units could be built under the R-3M zoning. This would force the developer to have more open space between the buildings. The Highridge townhomes were planned out very well leaving open space between the units. They want this to be medium density. She said if economics is an issue for Mr. Kellison and he has to be able to develop a certain number of units than maybe somebody paid too much for the Prokosch property. 3. Eugene Bunkowske, 1249 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. He's happy an apartment building will not be built here. What they are really saying is that they are opposed to any zoning change from R-1 to any other designation and they would like to see the property as single-family units. The developer told the buyers that this area would be a wetland, green space and Iow density. Changing the density would totally change the neighborhood. He and his wife lived in Africa for over 20 years and when he moved back he wanted to see green space. Hal Tetzloff, 1260 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. He thanked Mr. Ekstrand for speaking to him on the telephone and for the work he did on this proposal. He believes their point has been made regarding their opposition of the apartment building. He wants the zoning to stay R-I. The land should be kept as close to what it is already. He would suggest the city buy the 1.2 acres on the Prokosch property from Mr. Kellison and develop it into a park and call it Prokosch Park. 5. Jennifer Bouthilet, Owner of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, 1320 County Road D East, Maplewood. She said she was horrified when she heard an apartment building was proposed to be built on the property, mainly because of safety reasons on her property. With MnDot changing County Road D into a cul-de-sac with no turn off of Highway 61 it leaves her property on the end of the cul-de-sac. She is concerned her parking lot is going to be a gathering place for less savory members of the community. If you had to have the property high density she would rather have it be condominiums for sale rather than rental property. She would prefer to see medium density in this area. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -18- Jo¥ce Lambert, 2986 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She was at one of these meetings in the past when the neighborhood fought an apartment building in this same area and now she returned along with the other neighbors. Her concern is that the density is too crowded. The landscaping and grading is also a problem. This development removes their view and adds high density behind them and creates a different atmosphere from what they are used to. She agrees that things change and she can live with some change. She is unhappy as a Maplewood resident about how the change has came about. First Venburg Tire is moving across the street, then the realignment of County Road D, and now this proposal. The whole thing is not concrete because nobody knows who is going to be building these townhomes, who is going to build the gas station or the other commercial property, and you might not find anything out for another 6 months. There's no big picture, only bits and pieces of information. It's frustrating to live in a very expensive neighborhood with very high taxes and not have a say about what is going on in our neighborhood. She is the person who opposed the trail, which will go by Gulden's, past her house, and into a half a million-dollar neighborhood. This makes her neighborhood accessible especially by the people that visit Gulden's Restaurant. She has lived her for 10 years and Gulden's has had their share of problems. The police have been at Gulden's, there's been a helicopter circling around looking for people that have been disorderly. The walking path would be from County Road D, through the townhomes and through her neighborhood and past her house. Bob Kranz, 1264 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. The public hearing they heard previously regarding Olivia Gardens had a neighborhood meeting where the developers had the specifics all finalized, they knew who would actually be building the units and they were available for questions and discussion. This plan is very incomplete and he doesn't see the reason for this meeting. Kelco Real Estate Development is trying to put the pieces together and then find developers to develop each parcel after the zoning gets changed. To him this is like a blank check. You come to the meeting and there is no drawing or plans of what this is going to look like. The developer says he has to have R-3H high density to make it economically feasible. We should be protectors of the environment and the residential communities that we live in. This proposal is not prepared properly. Why can't the city say we can't approve this proposal until you have descriptive plans and drawings of what this is going to look at and therefore, nobody can move forward or approve only sections of this plan. This isn't understandable without clear and concise information. A person couldn't operate a business like this and these decisions have a huge impact on the people that live in this community. This zoning needs to be no higher than medium density. Let the developer come back and talk to the planning commission again. He doesn't understand why this proposal has to be rushed through. Elena Makhonina, 3042 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She lives in one of the eleven homes that will be looking into the back of 78 townhouses. These are $500,000 homes and across the pond was a sign that said this property is zoned M1, which means light industrial. The problem is they did not know what light industrial included. They were told that could mean a small warehouse building, an office building, or something of that nature but nothing over one story tall and nothing that would block the view. Now they find out with this proposal there could be high-density zoning and they thought they would be looking at a view of large trees. This area should improve, not worsen. 78 townhomes against 11 single family homes sounds ridiculous and too high of density. She likes the idea for a park for the whole city to enjoy rather than this plan. '! T Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -19- g Dawn Keenan, 3010 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She lives in one of the 11 single-family homes near the site. The zoning should be R-1 and the realignment of County Road D to alleviate the traffic seems incorrect. If you are going to build this much additional housing you are going to increase the traffic, not make it better. She was also told a huge townhome development was going to be built on the Country View Golf Course property. She moved here 6 months ago and was told it was zoned commercial and that nothing could be built 600 feet from her property line. When a person is told that and then presented with this plan you are going to have a lot of unhappy people about the development of this property. She said they were also not informed about the realignment of County Road D coming through their backyards. 10. John Jaskulske, 3019 Duluth Street, Maplewood. He too is one of the eleven homeowners above the proposed development. This is an expensive neighborhood and these residents pay high taxes, and we are not talking about Iow income housing in this area. If there is high density residential going into this area, has the city thought of what effect that would do to Weaver Elementary where his children attend school? He asked if the kids that came from Beaver Lake when the school closed are going to get shifted to another school to make room for these children who would have to attend Weaver Elementary? Currently Weaver Elementary is over crowded. There is already a water pressure problem and depending on what time of day it is there is no water pressure depending on how many people are showering or flushing the toilet. He said he also opposes the gas station in this development. Mr. Jaskulske said when the compost site was open they could smell it two miles away, therefore, you can count on smelling gas fumes especially living on top of the hill. His suggestion is to get rid of the industrial proposal and put townhomes in. This way it would make for a nice neighborhood that flows with what already exits in the area. He too would recommend putting in a park. Mr. Ahl said as part of the overall improvements the city is going to be extending the water main in the area and that will improve the water pressure. 11. Ed Westerdahl, 1183 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. He lives in the Highridge townhomes and he thinks the density should be R-3M and not R-3H. He is opposed to the gas station proposal unless it is moved onto Highway 61. If it is on County Road D it's too close to residential homes and it will cause noise and problems with fumes. Mr. Kellison, Kelco Real Estate said he would like to comment on some of the items that have been brought up. He said he goes before people, commissions and councils all the time because it's part of his job and people don't like what is happening in the neighborhood. At one time this whole area was farmland and now there are houses. It's the demand, it's what happens, and it's progress. Having County Road D realigned through the area changes the whole complexion of the area. That is a collector street and a collector street is generally meant for commercial types of uses. There will be crosswalks at Highway 61 and County Road D. M-1 zoning can have a multiple of uses that could go into the area. Light manufacturing, warehouse, office building, commercial, even sex oriented shops. There are a lot of things that could go into that piece of property. There is a 350-foot setback to one of the buildings. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -20- What they are proposing is a far better buffer from single family residential than what could be there. He doesn't think residents want a metal stamping shop in this location. There are a lot of uses that people would find far more objectionable than this proposal. There is a sand mine on that property so there is no environment there to be concerned about. It is an unfortunate situation, however, the trees that are on the property will be taken down when County Road D is realigned. They need to do this project as part of the County Road D approval now. They can't wait until they have the four or five landowners who would have to come to the city with their projects. As part of their agreement with the city they have to mass grade the site for County Road D and as part of the grading they have to start by June 15, 2004, in order to finish grading by July 27 when the city wants to start their part for County Road D. As part of the building process in Maplewood the city will require trees and more trees and the residents that live there can plant trees on their property to screen this development as well. Nothing says the residents can't plant trees on their own property to screen the view of the development if they don't want to look at it. The grade is such that after the vegetation has grown the residents won't see the development. If it works out that the gas station/retail doesn't work in that location they would be willing to relocate it to Highway 61. With respect to the apartment building, that idea is over but they are moving forward with the idea of for sale condominiums. 12. Dou.q Huntley, 3020 Edward Street, Maplewood. He didn't get notified about this public hearing and he happened to be watching cable at home and saw the discussion and decided to come down to speak. Four years ago the neighborhood was put in this same situation and they petitioned to the city and they got a great response from the city. The staff went forward to the city council against the recommendations of the neighborhood and the neighbors went back to the city council and voiced their concern. The vote ended up split and Mayor Bob Cardinal withheld his vote because he had a financial stake in the property. If he has a financial stake in this property again he should withhold his vote again. The neighborhood is asking what do they get out of this development? He's not affected with this development but he cares enough about the area to come to the meeting to say this is an important issue for the neighborhood. In terms of the school district he has three kids in the Maplewood school district and his kids are at Weaver Elementary with 27 kids in a classroom. The school is not looking for more kids to fill more classrooms. Every new development in the city will add kids to the schools. He is only asking the city to look at how developments affect the city and neighborhoods and what does that do to the schools? Chairperson Fischer closed this portion of the public hearing. Commissioner Dierich said Mr. Kellison told everyone what his group has to do for the city for the County Road D realignment, she asked what the city had to promise the applicant? Mr. Ahl said the obligation of the city is for road construction. The city is acquiring right-of-way and making agreements with the developer to do the grading. That parcel of land is land that the city has an easement over that nobody owns and that has been that way since about 1934. There have been survey problems. That area is part of the old trunk highway 61 alignment. As part of this agreement with the developer, if they get approval for a development, the city has agreed to exchange the land and the city's interest in it, and vacate the underlying. The legal process is then underway to establish them as the adjacent property owner. In exchange for that the applicant will then dedicate the right-of-way for County Road D at no expense. The city cannot sell it but they can exchange their interest for right of way they would normally have had to purchase. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -21- Commissioner Dierich asked if the city can dictate whether a developer builds an owned or rented development? Mr. Ekstrand said that the city may not Commissioner Dierich asked what's stopping the city from requiring a hearing on everything that goes into this development, whether it is R-l, R-2, R-3, or M-l? Can the city make this a requirement of this particular proposal? Mr. Ekstrand said if you were to approve a concept plan or a PUD such as what was done for Legacy Village he would answer no. However, he would have to check with the City Attorney regarding that. For approving land use and zoning the city is making an agreement with the developer and the city should hold them to it. Commissioner Dierich said she believes the people in the audience have a legitimate concern. There is no way you can approve something sight unseen. She thinks this is lower density than what the developer is requesting. The design review board has no venue over density just as the commission does not have venue over design issues. The zoning is changing and it's not fair for the neighbors without being careful of their rights as well as landowner's rights. Commissioner Desai said in the time he has served on the planning commission he has not seen a proposal like this where the zone change is brought about without any details of what exactly is going to be put in and who is developing this. He asked if this was a normal procedure? Mr. Ekstrand said often times the city wants to see the details. In this case, the details are concepts only. We are looking at this land use plan and should we have high-density residential verses Iow density and M-I. Staff sees it both ways and often times the development comes in as more of a package. Legacy Village did not come in that way and it was more in the concept stage. Then all of those uses have to come before the city for approval. Chairperson Fischer said she believes the reason commissioners are uncertain about this plan is because of the Conditional Use Permit for a PUD. When the commissioners envision a PUD they envision seeing a plan with the development very clearly laid out. Once you say PUD and there is no planned unit development plans to look at that has many commissioners confused. She asked staff if we have seen anything like this in the past? Mr. Ekstrand said none that he can recall. The plat will also come through the planning commission for the townhomes so that is another item to consider. Commissioner Dierich said it seems that over the past year staff has been adamant that the commission not change zoning until they have the plat in front of them. Commissioner Mueller asked if this was all townhomes being built including where the proposed apartment/condominium would be, how many units could be built including all of the Prokosch property? Mr. Ekstrand said if the western portion of the property was R-3H the number of units would be 123 and medium density would be 71 units. T Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -22- Commissioner Pearson said he would not support the apartment building. The city is redesigning County Road D partially because of the traffic problems and an apartment building would add to the traffic. He cannot support the R-3H zoning and the R-3M would be a continuation of the zoning of the present neighborhood and is only a few units less that they could build. The service station could be further from the roadway and with a service station especially with a car wash this creates more of a noise problem as well as a fume problem. He wouldn't have a problem with everything on the west side of this development that is not M-1 being R-3M but short of that, he would not support this. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 37-38 of the staff report amending the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan from R-1 (single dwelling residential) and M-1 and (light manufacturing) to R-3H-M (high medium 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. Approval of this amendment is based on the following reasons: (changes to the conditions are in bold and deletions are stricken) 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-medium- 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 medium-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. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve adoption of the resolution on pages 39-41 in the staff report, 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: (changes to the conditions are in bold and deletions are stricken) 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 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. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -23- This planned unit development shall allow townhomes at a maximum of a high medium- 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 M-1 (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. Building design throughout this development shall be of an improved quality and should strive for a compatibility of design. Co 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. The master developer shall construct the retaining walls that span across lot lines as part of the mass grading of the site. 8. The applicant shall dedicate all easements noted in the memo dated May 11,2004, by Chris 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. Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the Trout Land preliminary plat date-stamped April 15, 2004. The developer shall complete the following before the city approves the final plat. 1. Meet all requirements in the memo by Chris Cavett dated May 11,2004. 2. Rename Outlot B with a lot number. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 Commissioner Pearson seconded. -24- Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit- 2086 Edgerton Street (Rygwalski) Mr. Roberts said 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. My 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. To build an addition to the smaller house on the property, Mr. Rygwalski is requesting a conditional use permit to expand the legal non-conforming single-family structure. Mr. Roberts said instead of the CUP, staff is recommending that the city change the Land Use Plan and zoning of the site to R-2. This change would make the business non-conforming but would make the residential uses conforming with the zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Rygwalski, 2086 Edgerton Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said it's a family operation and they have operated it for 27 years. They have put a lot of time and effort into the property and they want to continue living there and keep the family together. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan change resolution on page 17 of the staff report. 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. c. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. d. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -25- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18 of the staff report. 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: a. 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 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. c. 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. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Mueller was the planning commission representative at the May 10, 2004, city council meeting. Items that were discussed were the Kennard Street Right-of-Way Vacation north of Sextant Avenue and the CUP for Steven Peltier at 1236 Kohlman Avenue, which passed ayes all. The Toenjes Hills Estates on McMenemy Street was tabled. b. Mr. Bartol will be the planning commission representative at the May 24, 2004, city council meeting. Planning Commission Interviews will be held at 6:00 p.m. Following the interviews items to discuss include the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Mounds Park Academy Expansion at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue Land Use Plan Change & CUP, and the Chesapeake Properties Retail Center at 3091 White Bear Avenue for a PUD & Preliminary Plat. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -26- c. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the June 14, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road for the Comprehensive Plan Change, Zoning Map Change, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat. Also Trout Land West of Highway 61 and new County Road D Comprehensive Plan Change, Land Use Plan Change, Collector Street Designation, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planning Commission Interviews - May 24, 2004 City Council Mr. Roberts said the planning commission interviews will be held Monday, May 24, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and as Chairperson, Lorraine Fischer is invited to attend. b, Annual Tour Mr. Roberts asked the commissioners for ideas for places the commission wanted to visit for the Annual Tour. Ideas included: Legacy Village, County Road D realignment area, MnDot site north of the Priory, and the Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course, Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 '18 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Heritage Square Phase II County Road D and Kennard Street June 2, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Town and Country Homes is proposing to build for-sale townhomes on the portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) that was previously approved for rental townhomes and an executive office site. The applicant is proposing to build 178 townhomes. This site was previously approved for 198 rental townhomes and the office building. Refer to the maps and narrative on pages 12-25. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: A comprehensive plan amendment to build townhomes where the executive offices were previously approved. The applicant is, therefore, requesting a change from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). 2. A revision of the Legacy Village PUD for the change in ownership/rental status as well as the change from the office site to townhomes. 3. A preliminary and final plat for the new lot line configuration. 4. Site, building and landscape plans. The community design review board (CDRB) already reviewed these plans on May 25, 2004. The planning commission should review and take action on items 1 through 3. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. This plan included the site for the proposed Town & Country townhomes. Refer to the council minutes on pages 27-40. December 8, 2003: The city council approved the applicant's PUD, preliminary plat and design plans for Hedtage Square. December 16, 2003: The CDRB reviewed and approved the applicant's revised architectural plans for Heritage Square. February 9, 2004: The city council approved the final plat for Heritage Square. Apd126, 2004: The city council approved a revision to the development agreement for Legacy Village to permit the construction of "for sale" townhomes instead of "rental" townhomes in Hedtage Square Phase I1. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change The proposed land use plan change from BC to R3H is not a major revision. The area previously planned for the office building is 1.5 acres in size within this 20-acre site. The office, furthermore, would have been an accessory use to the townhomes if they were rentals. It would have served as a rental office. Although this office site also fit the "mixed-use" concept of the Legacy Village PUD, development of this parcel would be better suited as townhomes. Townhomes would certainly be compatible with the surrounding townhomes that were approved one year ago. Whereas the office, though acceptable in this "mixed-use" development, would not be as compatible as would the same type of development. Density Density is not an issue since the number of units is decreasing by 20. PUD Revision For the same reason stated above, staff finds no problem with the PUD revision to substitute the office site with an extension of the townhome complex. For-sale units vs. rentals, likewise, would not pose any problem. The city, in fact, cannot regulate whether housing units are sold or rented. Nothing prevents a homeowner from renting their house, townhome or any form of housing unit, if they choose. Visitor Parking A major issue with the review of the rental townhomes last year was to require the provision of a sufficient amount of visitor parking spaces. In this review, staff applied the same visitor-parking ratio that the city applied during the odginal review. This requirement is that the applicant provide one visitor parking space for each two units, or one-half space for each unit. This totals 89 visitor parking spaces in addition to the ddveway spaces in front of garage doom. Another requirement is that there be a group of at least five visitor parking spaces no more than a 200-foot distance from the front door of each unit. Revision of PUD Conditions Many of the odginal PUD conditions do not apply with this proposal. The applicant has complied with many of the previous requirements, so staff has deleted any that no longer apply. 2 Preliminary Plat/Final Plat The applicant is requesting approval of the subdivision to sell the individual townhome lots. This is typical of such developments and staff does not find any unusual concerns with doing so beyond the usual requirements for platting which include the signing of a developer's agreement, the approval of final grading/drainage/erosion-control/utility plans and the dedication of any drainage and utility easements that the city engineer may require. Chris Cavett and Erin Laberee, of the city's engineering department, reviewed this proposal and had several comments. Refer to the memo on pages 42-43. Staff recommends that the city council require that the applicant comply with the statements in this memo as conditions of plat approval. In order to assist the applicant in expediting their closing on their purchase of this property, Town & Country Homes is requesting that the city council approve the final plat along with the preliminary plat. Normally, the final plat is considered after the applicant has complied with the requirements of the preliminary plat. In this case, staff is comfortable with combining the preliminary and final plats in one review because of our familiarity with this development. The proposed townhouse development is conceptually the same as the plan approved by the city last year. Design Review Site and Landscaping Considerations As stated above, there must be adequate visitor parking provided. The recommended conditions of approval should satisfy this need. The landscape plan is attractive and has been improved over the plan submitted last year. Staff's only suggestion is that the boulevard plantings along Kennard Street follow the Kennard Street planting plan that the city council has approved. Architectural The building design is attractive and the color scheme proposed would provide an appealing color variation. Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before starting construction. Building Official's Comments All applicable codes must be met. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett noted there are no significant public safety concerns in the reduction in the number of the townhomes and a change to a ~for sale" designation. ¥ ! COMMITTEE ACTIONS May 25, 2004: The CDRB reviewed the applicant's design plans and recommended approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 44 approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) for a 1.5-acre parcel previously planned for an office building in Legacy Village at Maplewood. Approval of this change is because the proposed townhomes would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development than the previously approved commercial building. Adopt the resolution on pages 45-49 approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously approved rental- townhomes and executive-office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): The development shall follow the plans date-stamped Apdl 30, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the Assistant City Engineer's report dated May 28, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the issuance of a grading permit. 6. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. 7. Rental-Townhomes and O~".~.~/Cl'cbhc'-'s~: The project will be constructed according to the plans from Town and Country Homes date-stamped Apdl 30, 2004 from u~,.~.,,.~ ~ .... ,, .~o+~.~ ~/.~n-~ .'., ~, det3!!s, except as specifically modified by these conditions. 1 Co Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Village Trail East (west of Kennard Street) e,r,~,,* A ......'i,, i ..... ~,,,,-,,,~ ~,, ,;,d.',~,~o A ,_,,,d ..= in at least four locations and connecting the power line trail to the curb of Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) in at least three locations to be approved by staff. Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) Street-B and Flandrau Street East Street-C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east. Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways a_~s shown on the plans and wherever else they may fit ~ I,~dldl~,e. 4 O ~ eP~d A 4~.14~t ~IQIO(~ 04100 ~ O~10~ ~ A six-foot-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Street DI~ve to Southlawn Drive;, lhr,~,.'~h ~',~nfin,,6d die,.-,,e.e.;6n hz~ka~z~,~r~ *hz~ ~',;It, end The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. The landscape plan is approved as proposed with the exception that the boulevard trees alonfl Kennard Street shall be planted according to the approved Kennard Street Boulevard-Tree Planting Plan. The curve in the middle of Village Trail East (west of Kennard Street) ~*-~'~* ~ ..... ;,,~ r,,,~,,~.-,,,,o ~n ~,,,,~ ~,~ ,.,;,, shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight glare on aimed Lnto the front of the units. All setbacks are approved as shown. Front building ~;-;~u~ cf 5' for thc clubhcuce =nd 15' for thc tcwnhcme and Visitor-parking spaces for the rep4al townhomes will be added or modified as follows: 1) ~ In mddition to the pe~infl spe~s in [ro~t o[ oath flamflo door, ~ applimnt shall pmvido addi~o~l visitor-pa~infl space~ at tho minimum quanti~ of on.half ,pa~ pot townhom~ unit. lhi, wo~s out to a minimum of 89 visitor parking spaces required. Fu. rthermore, the visitor-parking spaces must be placed such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least five spaces. 6 3) An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Approve the preliminary and final plat for Hedtage Square Phase Il, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the assistant city engineer's report dated May 28, 2004. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. Do The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. Approve the plans date-stamped Apdl 30, 2004, for the Heritage Square Second Addition, the second phase of Hedtage Square TownHomes at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the previously approved office site. 2. Obtaining city council approval of a revision to the previously approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary and final plat for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. 8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance. 10. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 11. The applicant shall: · Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street, County Road D and Kennard Street. · Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. · Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. · Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. 12. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for staff approval before getting the first building permit. 13. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 14. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the extedor landscaping and site improvements pdor to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 15. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 16. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 17. No end units facing County Road D or Hazelwood Street shall have utility rooms or exposed utility meters on that elevation. 18. The community design review board expressed concern that there should be some handicap-accessible units available in this complex. They referred this to the building official for compliance in case there are any applicable codes to this effect. 19. The applicant shall work with staff to propose suitable screening for outside utility meters. 20. The rock-face concrete block on the buildings shall be tan, not gray. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 20 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D, apartments and townhomes South: Hedtage Square Town Homes under construction and a corporate office site East: Commercial and apartment sites West: Hazelwood Street PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Existing R3H and BC; Proposed all R3H Zoning: PUD Findings for PUD Approval City code requires that, to approve a planned unit development, the city council must base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the resolution on pages 45-49. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on April 30, 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 29, 2004 unless the applicants agree to a time extension. ]0 p:sec 3~eritage Square II PUD Review June '04 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Legacy Village PUD 4. Existing Land Use Plan Map 5. Proposed Land Use Plan Map 6. Proposed Subdivision 7. Proposed Landscaping 8. Building Elevations 9. Applicant's Narrative 10. Previous Legacy Village Rental Town House/office Plan 11. July 14, 2003 City Council Conditions of Approval 12. Approved Kennard Street/Legacy Parkway Boulevard Planting Plan 13. Memo from Chris Cavett and Erin Laberee dated May 28, 2004 14. Land Use Plan Resolution 15. Planned Unit Development Resolution 16. Plans date-stamped April 30, 2004 (separate attachment) 17. Preliminary/Final Plat date-stamped April 30, 2004 (separate attachment) 18. Colored Plan Booklet date-stamped May 25, 2004 (separate attachment) ]! Attachment 1 PROPOSED HERITAGE SQUARE SECOND ADDITION LOCATION MAP 12 Attachment 2 = R3 BC County R~ .p~ I> BC Beam Avenue 1711 PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP 13 T Attachment 3 ~ 0 > 0 < >-- LLI 14 Attachment 4 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA R-3H R-3H STORE 44,080 ~F 4.0:~ AC. 137 PKG ~P OUTLOT H R-3H H TRA/L ,' .......... ~ O.Oll~G./" POND ~ ¥-.-,..L~...A..; ....... R~STAURANT SiTE t.50 AC. OUTL. OT LAND USE MAP EXISTING 15 i I Attachment 5 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 'R-3H ELIMINATION OF .... BC DESIG NATION -,,=,.,.~.~ .................. i' STORE R 3Hi "'"'°" ..... -- 4.02 AC. 137 PKo qP 2.34 AC. ~ OUTLOT H R-3H TRAIL ,' ........ 10.OIl;AC././ POND ~.A..~ ..... RESTAURANT SITE 1 .'~O AC. OUTI. OT LAND USE MAP PROPOSED 16 Attachment 6 17 Attachment 7 ST~ET 19 ZO Attachment 8 21 T I [] 0 i! t t Ii' 23 Attachment 9 INTRODUCTION Town & Country Homes is requesting the following reviews for a new multiple-family community in Legacy Village called Heritage Square II: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application We are requesting that the northeast comer of Lot 1 Block 1 of the property be reguided from a Business Commercial land use (BC), to a High-Density Residential land use (R- 3H) to accommodate for a an attractive multi-family residential plan. PUD Application We are requesting to rezone the northeast comer of Lot 1 Block 1 from Business Commercial (BC) to High-Density Residential (R-3H), and request that the entire Heritage Square II community be zoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Community Design Review Board Application Heritage Square II has many nco-traditional elements creating a unique community and emphasizing pedestrian traffic and the streetscape. The layout and product design naturally encourages residents to walk and socialize in common green space areas. The community is interconnected by a series of sidewalks, trails, wetlands, special green spaces and complimenting rain gardens. Front door entrances face the streets, making for a charming streetscape. The most substantial entrance is on the north central side of the community off County Road D, where it intersects with Kennard Street. Kennard Street is well dressed with decorative landscaping, street lighting, and a large roundabout located next to the entrance to our Heritage Square community currently under construction. The entrance on Kennard Street into Heritage Square II will have monuments similar to the stylish monuments planned for Heritage Square. All this makes for a very welcoming and eye- catching sense of arrival into the community, and into Legacy Village as an exemplary and sophisticated mixed-use development. HOUSING STYLES · The Majestic Collection All 176 homes in Heritage Square II will be of our ground breaking Majestic Collection, a brand new row-style townhome that would make its debut in the Heritage Square II community. Conceptually, this Collection is similar in to our Hometown Collection that will be built in Heritage Square. The difference being that the Majestic Collection is a 3- level townhome with rear-loaded, tuck-under garages, front balconies, and evolution in size and architectural detail. Building the Majestic Collection in Heritage Square II carries on the smart and elegant concept of Legacy Village, and offers yet another option for homebuyers that is innovative in the marketplace. This collection contributes to a pedestrian-friendly, urban style streetscape with front entryways facing the streets. Some other features unique to the Majestic Collection are rooms located on the end units that hide meters and other equipment. A plan is attached to illustrate this nice element. Most of the striking architectural details accentuate the facades of the buildings that face PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE II - MAPLEWOOD, MN 24 the street, but the backsides have not been ignored. Different materials are used to break up monotony, such as vinyl shake accents, rock face block, varying rooflines, and windowed garage doors. Overhangs above the garage doors also provide undulation. There are three color packages chosen for the buildings. A matrix is included in this submittal, along with an Anti-Monotony Plan, that demonstrates the objective to provide variation in color schemes throughout the community. Preliminary Plat Application We request to re-plat three areas of the community to accommodate for requested zoning changes on the northeast comer of Lot 1 Block 1, modifications in the layout of the rental housing buildings on Lot 4 Block 2, and road alignment alterations on the western portion of Lot 1 Block 1, which leaves a 78,250 square foot open space identified as Outlot A This also signifies a formal request to review the platting of our entire proposed Heritage Square II Community. Final Plat Application We request to have the final platting of Heritage Square II reviewed concurrently. HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION All private drives, sprinkler systems, monument signs, and common open space areas will be owned and maintained by one homeowner's association for the multiple family area, GUEST PARKING There are 2 parking spaces in all garages. The driveway areas for the Majestic Collection allow enough room to maneuver a vehicle, and deters guest parking. This design is meant to encourage guest parking along the street, by the front doors to enhance the character of the streetscape and common courtyards. Guest parking is designated on the private streets and driveways. Overnight guest parking will be available on private streets and parking bays. PHASING The project is proposed for site construction in a single phase. The Developer intends to develop the property as soon as all govemmental approvals and permits are in place. uTILITIES The grading and utility plans illustrate the general layout of the proposed watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, rain garden and ponding areas. A central storm sewer system is planned to convey street runoff water to a storm scepter and treatment/sedimentation pond before it continues onto wetlands. Rain gardens with a superior underground infiltration system are located throughout the development. EXISTING POWER LINES There are power lines, towers, and an associated easement near the property. owned and operated by Centerpoint Energy (NSP). The lines are PROJECT NARIL~TIVE HERITAGE SQUARE II - MAPLEWOOD, MN 25 I 4 Attachment l0 PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED RENTAL-TOWN HOUSE AND OFFICE PLAN Legacy Village Townhome Buildings and Streets 26 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, July 14, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-14 Attachment H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:27 P.M. Legacy Village PUD (County Road D and Southlawn Drive) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (4 Votes) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Tax Abatement Plan a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. bo Assistant Community Development Director Ekstrand presented specifics from the report. Co Phil Carlson, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, a planning consultant for the city provided further specifics of the project. d. Commissioner Pearson presented the Planning Commission Report. e. William Griffith, attorney for the Hartford Group presented further details. fo Paul Steinman, Vice President of Springsted, spoke on the abatement analysis for the project. 9:33 p.m. A three-minute break was taken. go Mayor Cardinal opened the public heating, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Gerald Peterson, 3016 Hazelwood Street North, Maplewood George Supan, 3050 Hazelwood Street North, Maplewood Kevin Berglund, 1929 Kingston Avenue East, Maplewood Bill Griffith, attorney for Hartford Group h. Mayor Cardinal closed the public heating. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adopt the following resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment for the proposed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street: RESOLUTION 03-07-128 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Hartford Group Inc. applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) and P (park). 27 WHEREAS, this. change applies to the property located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. The legal description is: Dorle Park, Lots 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 29-36, Block 2 and Except the West 10 acres, the North 1/2 of the Northeast ~A in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 (Subject to roads and easements). WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission held a public heating. The city staff published a heating notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the heating a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission tabled action on this proposal since the applicant was in the process of revising their plans. 2. On July 7, 2003, the planning commission continued discussion of this proposal and recommended that the city council approve this land use plan change. 3. On July 14, 2003, 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 since they would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies such as: 1. This project would promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 2. It would provide a wide variety of housing types. 3. It would integrate development with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. 4. Adequate services would be provided such as for streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 5. This project would provide attractive surroundings at which to shop, work and live. The land use plan changes described in this resolution refer to the following segments of the Legacy Village development as shown on their preliminary plat for this project: The following parcels on the Preliminary Plat would be changed to Park: a. Outlot F- public park; and b. Outlot I- public park. All other parcels on the Preliminary Plat except those noted above as Park or remaining BC would change to R-3H High Density Residential: c. Lot 1, Block 1 - rental townhomes, except for the office suites/clubhouse site; d. Lot 1, Block 2 - rental townhomes; 28 e. Lot 1, Block 3 - senior assisted living; f. Outlot B - multi-family; and o Outlot H- for-sale townhomes; Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for the proposed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street: RESOLUTION 03-07-129 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Hartford Group, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to develop a multi-use development called Legacy Village. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. The legal description is: Dorle Park, Lots 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 29-36, Block 2 and Except the West 10 acres, the North V2 of the Northeast IA in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 (Subject to roads and easements). WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On July 7, 2003 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on July 14, 2003. 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 written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit because: 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 29 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 mn-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. o 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. o The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to these code requirements: · All construction shall follow the site plan that the city stamped June 12, 2003. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. · The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1) Rental Townhomes and Office/Clubhouse: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03 in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; bo A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; 3O do ho mo The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; Street B and Street C serving the townhomes wilt be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4; 15/16; 19/20; 21/22; and 25/26, and sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces connecting to the front sidewalks of each of those buildings; The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; A 6'-wide sidewalk Should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width, location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D and sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street A at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 70' spacing shown on the plans; Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the sometimes 100' spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 50'-80' spacing shown on the plans; The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5' for the clubhouse and 15' for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; p. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning 31 2) Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; q. Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomes will be added or modified as follows: Senior ao bo Parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces. ii. Street A will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100' of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. ooo 111. The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi. Street B will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces cited here. The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add "proof of parking" spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Assisted Living: Front building setbacks to Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5', in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersection; Emergency exits - two fronting Kennard Street and one fronting Legacy Parkway - will provide sidewalk connections to the sidewalks on the street; c. A sidewalk connection will be provided near the south side of the building connecting 32 Kennard Street to the path around the pond to the east; d. The entry at the far south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; e. The emergency exit on the southwest face of the building near the south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; f. The emergency exit on the south face of the northeastern leg of the building will provide a sidewalk connection south to the sidewalk abutting the parking lot; go Overstory trees will be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the south side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 80'-100' spacing shown on the plans; h. Revise the site plan to show proof-of-parking to reduce the amount of surface parking. 3) Multi-Family Site (Outlot B): a° The multi-family site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use of the property is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3A or Ro3B zoning district (depending on the building size) and conditions outlined here are met; b. The multi-family site is approved for up to 50 units of housing; c. A building comer should be within 30' of the curb on the roundabout to maintain the character of the intersection; d. The building or buildings must be designed to continue the general pattern and sight lines of the townhomes to the west; e. Sidewalk connections must be provided to the power line trail on the south side of the parcel; fo Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any unit if townhomes are built, or the front entry of the apartment building if apartments are built; g. A play area or tot lot must be provided on site with easy access to the building entries and to the power line trail, within reasonable sight of as many of the units as possible; h. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center; j. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 33 4) Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D right-of-way with all parking to the south; The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; eo Access to the site will be off the east leg of the roundabout and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to CountY Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent furniture store site; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. ho Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building; 5) Furniture Store (Outlot C): ao The furniture store is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; bo The building should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D and Southlawn Drive rights-of-way with all parking to the south. The design of the comer of the building should be such that reasonable and safe sight distances are maintained at County Road D and Southlawn; Co The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off the extension of the east leg of the roundabout, to County 34 Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent retail/commercial site and up to two driveway accesses to Southlawn Drive at points to be approved by the city engineer; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive at an average of 30'-40' on center. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building. 6) Commercial Site (Outlot D): ao The commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. One of the buildings on the commercial site should be sited close to the comer of Southlawn Drive and Legacy Parkway, within 30' of the Southlawn Drive right-of-way; The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the south (Outlot E); ho There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Southlawn Drive, the path around the pond to the west, and to Outlot E. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot - at curb level, not parking lot level; Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; j. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of Legacy Parkway and the west side of Southlawn Drive an average of 30'-40' on center. k. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access 35 and maintenance. 7) Restaurant Site (Outlot E): ao The restaurant site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; c. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; .d. Access to the site will be off a shared driveway with the shopping center property to the south, provided easements and agreements can be reached with that property owner to provide such access. Access will be provided onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; e. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to the ordinance; f. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the north (Outlot D); go There must be a si&walk on the south side of the site connecting Southlawn Drive with the trail around the ponding area to the west. There must also be sidewalks connecting the building entry to the shared driveway on the south side, Southlawn Drive, and to Outlot D. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot - at curb level, not parking lot level; Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive and the north side of the driveway access on the south side of the site at an average of 30'-40' on center. 8) Corporate/Commercial Site (Outlot G): ao The corporate/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the comer of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, within 15' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection, with parking to the north and east of the building; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, 36 however, is that pylon sig-ns shall not be allowed. Monument silo-ns may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. The driveway access to Kennard Street at the northwest comer of the site may move north if needed for the realignment of the power line trail and to align with the driveway entrance to the park on the west side of Kennard; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and through the parking lot to the power line trail; ho Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the north side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center. jo Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building. 9) For-Sale Townhomes (Outlot H): ao The for-sale townhome site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3C zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; bo Townhome buildings must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the comer of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, and close to Kennard Street, within 20' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection and the streetscape; The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings in the development; Access to the site will be off the west leg of the roundabout at Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, plus another access to Kennard Street further south, most likely in a loop street through the site. If the properties west of Outlot H fronting Hazelwood Drive are likely to develop when Outlot H is proposed for development, then consideration will be given to a public through street connecting Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive as an extension of Legacy Parkway; e. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, 37 Kennard Street, and the park and power line trail to the north. Such s~dewalks must be designed within a clear system of open spaces and landscaping that serves all units more or less equally; f. Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any townhouse unit; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and along both sides of the major internal street(s) at an average of 30'-40' on center. 10) Public Park with Trail (Outlot F): ao The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). b. Hartford will construct all the grading, ponding, and trails noted on the plans; Co Hartford will secure all necessary easements and agreements with the shopping center property owner to the south for grading and construction of the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. 11) Public Park (Outlot I): ao The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). b. Hartford will construct all the grading, play fields, equipment, and parking noted on the plans or as negotiated with the city; c. The power line trail will be realigned to cross Kennard Street further north to accommodate sidewalk connections to the townhomes to the north; d. Sidewalk connections will be provided in several locations to the power line trail in reasonable locations to connect all major activity areas with the trail; Sidewalk connections will be provided in appropriate locations to the sidewalk and green space system of the townhome development to the south, at such time as that development is planned or in place; Hartford will secure easements and agreements with the property owner to the south for the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted-living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. 12) The Legacy Village site as a whole: 38 1) 2) 3) 4) The applicant shall dedicate wetland-protection buffers around each wetland within this development. The width of each buffer shall be according to each wetlands classification as determined by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. These buffers shall be dedicated to the City of Maplewood and shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this development. The applicant shall install wetland-protection buffer signs around each wetland buffer. These signs shall state "there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling or dumping beyond this point." c. The community design review board shall review the landscape plans using the criteria herein as a guide. d. The architectural plans for all buildings in Legacy Village are subject to the approval of the community design review board. e. The grading, drainage, erosion control, utility and roadway plans (public and private) are subject to the approval of the city engineer. f. The applicant shall meet the tree-replacement/tree-preservation requirements of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. g. The city will be strictly enforcing the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. no-noise requirement and strictly enforcing dust-control efforts for all phases of this development. h. The applicant shall coordinate the installation of the sidewalk along the County Road D alignment with the city engineer. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the preliminary plat date-stamPed June 12, 2003, subject to the following conditions for the proPosed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street: Public street right-of-way will be dedicated for County Road D, Kennard Street, Legacy Parkway and Southlawn Drive as recommended by city engineering consultant Jon Horn in his memorandum. In addition, the applicant shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way for a sidewalk along the County Road D alignment, subject to the city engineer's approval. Outlot f and Outlot I will be dedicated to the city for public park purposes as recommended and approved by the city parks director; An easement over the power line trail will be dedicated to the city as required by the city engineer and parks director, and as modified by conditions of approval for the PUD; Wetland buffer easements shall be shown around the wetlands on the site. The applicant shall dedicate these wetland buffer easements to the City of Maplewood. 39 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Collins moved to authorize the preparation of a development agreement with the Hartford Group, Inc. providing tax abatement not to exceed a present value of $3.8 million dollars for the proposed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen 40 A~achmpn+l? 41¸ Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Heritage Square H - DRAFT PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee and Chris Cavett Maplewood Engineering Dept. DATE: May 28, 2004 Town and Country Homes is proposing to develop for sale town homes on the Legacy Village planned unit development previously approved for rental town homes and an executive office site. The developer shall address the following issues. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The engineer shall provide an erosion control plan. 2. The developer must sign a maintenance agreement for the maintenance and annual cleaning of the rainwater gardens. The engineer shall note the top and bottom elevations of the proposed retaining walls. A building permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall greater than four feet high. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. The proposed grades at the west end of the tunnel do not work. The proposed grades indicate a low point with no outlet, just west of Kennard Street, at the trail tunnel. The applicant shall revise the grades to eliminate the low point. 5. The applicant shall coordinate grades for Outlot Tot Lot area with the city's plan and contractor. Utilities 1. Submit plans the Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review. Drainage The engineer shall provide drainage calculations in compliance with the storm water management plan for the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements. The engineer shall provide the "Enhanced Practices" worksheets. The outlet structures in several rainwater gardens have rim elevations set at the bottom contour of the gardens. To maximize infiltration, the rim elevations of these structures shall be set approximately 0.5 feet or higher above the bottom contour elevation of the rainwater gardens. 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 Attachment 13 42 bottom of the basin. If rock sumps are utilized within the proposed development, the project engineer shall provide a detail and description of how the contractor is to construct the sumps and the rainwater gardens. Provide emergency overflow swales from the rainwater gardens and ponds. The overflow swales shall be lined with a permanent soil stabilization blanket, (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal). Indicate emergency overflow elevations on the drawing. 5. The applicant shall obtain off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The applicant shall obtain approval from the pipeline for the 27" storm sewer crossing. The utility plan shows 27" HDPE being utilized. This size HDPE pipe is not manufactured. The next closest pipe sizes available in HDPE are 24" or 30". The engineer shall revise the storm sewer to reflect this. 8. The engineer shall provide storm sewer details. Landscaping The applicant shall provide additional landscaping in and around the ponds and rainwater gardens. Include a native-grass seed mixture for upland and lowland areas around any rain gardens or ponds. Misc. 1. The applicant shall coordinate the Legacy trail alignment with the city and the city's consultant. The applicant shall coordinate construction of Legacy trail with the city's contractor and provide the city with all of the necessary Right of Entry Agreements. 3. The developer will be required to enter into a developers agreement with the city. 43 Attachment 14 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes applied for a change to the City's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at the southwest comer of County Road D East and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1, Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 7, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public headng. The City staff published a hearing 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 the land use plan change. On June 14, 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 change because the proposed townhomes would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development than the previously approved commercial building. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2004. 44 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes applied for a conditional use permit to revise the Legacy Village planned unit development by eliminating a 1.5-acre commercial building site and propose townhomes instead and also to eliminate a rental- housing component with for-sale townhome units. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 20-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Southlawn Drive. The legal description is: Lot 1, block 1, lot 1, block 2 and lot 4 block 2 of Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On June 7, 2004 the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The city council held a public headng on June 14, 2004. 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 written 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. 45 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 (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): The development shall follow the plans date-stamped April 30, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the Assistant City Engineer's report dated May 28, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the issuance of a grading permit. 6. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Town and Country Homes date-stamped Apdl 30, 2004 from u=,~..,., ~ ..... .~,,.~.~ ~o~n-~ i,, ..,, dst3!!=, except as specifically modified by these conditions. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Village Trail East (west of Kennard Street) ~*'~'~" ~ ..... ;*~' * ..... ~'""'" ~" '""~"""~ ~ ~'"'~ 8 in at least four locations and connecting the power line trail to the curb of 46 eo ho jo Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) in at least three locations to be approved by staff. Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) Street--B and Flandrau Street East Street-C:, serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east. Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways a._~s shown on the plans and wherever else they may fit ~ A six-foot-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Street E),five to Southlawn DdveT through c. cnt!nu~d d!c",..c'~!cn b~::~n th~ c!.~.· =nd n~d= for t'.'m !=n~ =nd c+~r f~=t'.'~ ~f fk.,.,~ C~un~' Rc=d ~.r~ preje . The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. The landscape plan is approved as proposed with the exception that the boulevard trees along Kennard Street shall be planted according to the approved Kennard Street Boulevard-Tree .,~,., ~O'on*in'~.,~.o'~'~. r~ ..... f~, f ....... ;,, k,~ ,-,,.~..,f,~.~ ,~l,.,,.,,-, k,-,fk ~,~ 47 T qo ",.eh!er !nste~d cf the sometimes !00' sp~cJng shc';;n on the The curve in the middle of Village Trail East (west of Kennard Street) ~f-"'" a ..... ;,a h,,;I,~i,,,,o 40 ~,,,,~ 4O ,.,ill shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight glare on aimed L-.tc the front of the units. All setbacks are approved as shown. ~ , --v ~v/C"_'hh~"J~a '-,"~ h,,il,~i~,~,o 4, ~ ,~ 4~ 4~ Visitor-parking spaces for the rental townhomes will be added or modified as follows: 1) ~ In addition to the parking spaces in front of each flarafle door, the ,applicant shall provide additional visitor-parkinfl spaces at the minimum quantiW of on.-half space per townhome unit. This work~ out to a minimum of 89 visitor parking spaces required. Furthermore, the visitor-parking spaces must be placed such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least five spaces. Street A ';.-;II be widened tc 26' "...c,_-bt~c'--','b =nd ch-street ~;~la~ ~ fha ~fraaf av#-a~f ~f~r ~a,;fh;,~ 41'!fl~ ,~: fha ,~.~a~anf 48 T T The Maplewood An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. City Council approved this resolution on June ,2004. 49 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Cahanes Estates 2415 Minnehaha Avenue June 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing a lO-lot plat for single dwellings in a new development called Cahanes Estates. It would be on a 3.39-acre site on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue on the property at 2415 Minnehaha Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 10-18. Request To build this project, Mr. Conlin is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat for 10 lots for the 10 single dwellings. (See the map on page 13.) DISCUSSION Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. It would be an in- fill plat for houses surrounded by single-family homes on three sides with a new street intersecting with Minnehaha Avenue. Preliminary Plat Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land...". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. To this end, Section 34-6 of the code says that "the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city.' Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 10 lots on the 3.39-acre site means there would be 2.95 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan and zoning code for single dwelling residential development. As proposed, each lot will be above the 10,000 square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each single-family lot. T ~ Lot Sizes and Dimensions As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 10,091 square feet to 17,392 square feet with an average lot size of about 12,187 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 13.) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. In addition, the code requires comer lots to be at least 100 feet wide on each street side. As submitted, the proposed plat meets or exceeds all these standards. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Erin Laberee's comments are included starting on page 19. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Minnehaha Avenue and are available to serve the proposed development. The developer will extend the sanitary sewer and water main into the site from the existing systems in Minnehaha Avenue. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) will need to approve the plan for the water main before the start of construction. In addition, the applicant is proposing to build new, small storm water ponds and rainwater gardens on the southeast and southwest comers of the site and at the intersection of the new street and Minnehaha Avenue. As designed, the storm water from this development would go into the new ponds and then discharge to the existing city storm water system in Bartelmy Lane. The city designed and built the storm water system in the area to accommodate the drainage from a large area, including this site. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. As noted in the engineering comments, the city is going to install the improvements on this site as part of a public improvement project - including utilities, street and curbing. This, however, requires the property owner to petition the city to install the public improvements. After the city receives such a petition, the city will do the final design of the project plans and the developer or applicant will pay the city back for all costs. Drainage Concerns Two of the 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 engineering department comments from Erin Laberee starting on page 19.) As proposed, the grading plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the street and driveways, going first into new storm water ponds on the southeast and southwest comers of the site before it discharges into the existing city storm water system. Most of the site drains to the east and to the south. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed ponds on the site as storm water detention facilities, they want the development to not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. This standard is a requirement of the city engineering department. 2 Minnehaha Avenue ROW The engineering department noted that Ramsey County will need additional right-of-way for Minnehaha Avenue. The developer will need to dedicate this additional right-of-way on the final plat. 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 3.39-acre site, the applicant's plans show a total of 45 large trees on the site and that they would save 12 of the existing trees on the property. (See the site survey on page 12). The plans show the removal of 33 large trees (ash, oak, maple and elm), but they would preserve 12 existing trees (primarily on the perimeter of the site). As proposed on the preliminary tree plan (page 18), the developer would plant 30 trees on the site. These include 20 Colorado or black-hills spruce near the rear property line of the lots and 10 maple trees on the site, primarily at the front comer of each lot. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 3.39-acre site, the code requires there be at least 34 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed tree planting plan, along with the trees that the developer would save, would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct is reviewing the development proposal and will have to issue Mr. Conlin a permit before the contractor starts construction. 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, noted that the cul-de-sac must have a turning radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. RECOMMENDATION Ao Approve the Cahanes Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on May 18, 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. 3 b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. C. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. 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. f. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Minnehaha Avenue and the proposed street (Cahanes Court). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. g. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. h. Demolish or remove the existing house, garages and sheds from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, scrap metal, debds and junk from the site. i. Cap and seal all wells on site; and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. j. Complete all curb on Minnehaha Avenue on the south side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Minnehaha Avenue, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin LaBeree dated June 1, 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. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show house 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. 4 (c) Shows all spruce trees as a mix of black hills spruce or Austrian pines. (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. (7) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (8) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (9) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (10) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). The (1) street, driveway and utility plans shall show the: Street with a width of 28 feet (with parking on one side), shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) New street (Cahanes Court) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) Completion of the curb on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Repair of Minnehaha Avenue (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) Coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavation located within the proposed right-of-way or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) A water service to each lot. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. 5 (11) Label Minnehaha Avenue and the new street as Cahanes Court on all construction and project plans. 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 new street as Cahanes Court and label Minnehaha Avenue on all plans. c. Show any additional required right-of-way for Minnehaha Avenue. 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 District for grading. 8. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, install the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessa~ improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place tempora~ orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Minnehaha Avenue (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 9. Submit the homeowners' association documents for review and approval by city staff. These shall include provisions for the maintenance and use of the rainwater gardens. 10. Record the following with the final plat: a. The homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on Lots I and 10 from going onto Minnehaha Avenue. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls and the gardens or drainage systems. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 6 11. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the new street access. 12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 13. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, garage and the other structures from the property. 14. The property owner shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of the public improvements. 15. 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. 7 T ~ CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 82 properties within 500 feet of this site. comments about the proposal. For All six of the replies had Objections CommentslQuestions/Concems 1. I was at the first meeting and was favorably impressed with the developers. Aside from the prospect of higher taxes, I have no adverse feelings about the development since I am not right next door to it. (Johnson - 756 Mary Street) 2. More should be done to conserve existing trees. 72 percent tree loss is too great. Also concerned about the silt fence all away around the property - with this being a higher property, the flow of neighbor to neighbor is unjust. (Gilman - 770 Mary Street) 3. I am not happy about 10 units going in - maybe 8 would be better. I hope crime rate and property taxes do not go up. There are already new units across from Beaver Lake going up. How about traffic - it is already bad on Minnehaha from 3M and Century is already crowded. I feel sorry for the people who have to live next door to something like that. 3M traffic goes pretty fast down our street as a through way to Stillwater. There is already too much traffic on our street. Our friend was trying to tum in our ddveway on a left hand tum and was hit by a 3M lady worker. Teenagers ddving through too fast at 9-10 at night dudng the summer. I always worry about my children being hit. (Smith - 795 Mary Street) 4. I do not see how you can get ten houses in there unless they are very close together. Are these 2-story houses in the midst of one story ranch houses/ramblers? I though Maplewood was about preserving open space. This is going to be way too crowded. (Samuelson - 800 Bartelmy Lane) 5. See the notes from the Meyer's on page 21. 6. Also, see the e-mail message from Linda Stevens on pages 22 and 23. 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.39 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings 3M property across Minnehaha Single dwellings Single dwellings PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request (including the proposed plans) on May 18, 2004. State law requires the city to take action on this request by July 16, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 25\Cahanes Estates - 2004.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Existing Site Survey 4. Proposed Preliminary Plat 5. Site Plan 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Erosion Control Plan 8. Proposed Utility Plan 9. Tree Planting Plan 10. Engineering Comments from Erin L. dated June 1,2004 11. Comments from the Meyers dated May 25, 2004 12. E-mail message From Linda Stevens dated May 31,2004 13. Project Plans (separate attachments) 9 Attachment 1 Z BANK Gethsemane Park MINNEHAHA AVENUE 3M Z ~J Uons Park CONWAY AVENUE LOCATION 10 MAP T Attachment 2 t6 14 2338 827 2334 2332 R1 2328 2322 813 805 ~ 793 2387 21371 2375 ;2 2360 2366 i 2355 2369 2384 777 2372 '765 755 R1 74'7 739 :: 2375, ' ;2383 ¢2391 834 2410 2418 822 827 854 821 806 815 794 809 2403 2415 2427 BUSH AVE 2404 2410 ~ 24q8 2424 762 2405 R1 2415 SITE 839 833 828 808 783 821 80O 777 834 813 803 792 784 761 751 743 735 2447 822 795 776 2456 812 804 787 7,60 752. - 744 736 2461 2466 R1 796 809 779 771 757 749 743 735 2471 2480 2472 833 827 821 815 784 776 770 762 R1 756 750 744 736 2485 MINNEHAHA AVE SM M1 2301 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 11 Attachment i -- --r ~ 783 ~ ', ,, 2404 I 2410 2418 2424 ~ / / ~ ~ ~ X X ! 2. :~ ---_ -; \. / x 777 ~ ~ 761 / / ' -~ / / _r~---~ ~x x ~ '~ ~/ :~: . ~ [ ~.~ ~,~~' L___~x/ / ~ .~__ ~ 743 ~ ~ ~Ul~'1'' ~'~ ~:~ ~-~, ~ t , / / ~ ~ ' '1,~ / .... ~ ' - / ~- -~: / \ - -~¥ wu MINNEHAHA AVENUE OE ~',' 2447 ss ss ~ WM SITE SURVEY 12 T Attachment 4 -, i,,] i i,i N E-- H ,,:,, H ,,:,,/ I 17,165 Sqft. 4 h I · ~ I 10.253 ~lft. F q 1 I 60.00 6O,OO 10,205 SqP~ 12.915 Sqf[. Nsg°og'58'£ 129.25 MINNEHAHA AVE. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT Attachment 5 -, I 6 17,165 SqfL I L __x MINN£HAHA 14,199 Sqf'L 6 17,302 Sqff. ~. 10,~ Sqff. ] I0 12,915 Stiff. . AVE. SITE PLAN 14 Attachment 6 ............ MINNEHAHA AVENUE PROPOSED GRADING 15 PLAN T Attachment 7 / I I LJ MINNEHAHA AVENUE --OE OE OE OE L __ \ .\ SS \ OE OE o -- '~OE- EROSION CONTROL PLAN 16 Attachment 8 I I LJ -, I 2 ~g87.4 w~ SS-- MINNEHAHA AVENUE Attachment 9 // \ AVE. /*', '~." E~'. LU TREE PLANTING PLAN 18 Attachment l0 En~,ineerim, Plan Review PRO~ECT: Cahanes Estates PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: June 1, 2004 Home Sites is proposing to develop the property at 2415 Minnehaha Avenue into 10 residential lots on a cul-de-sac street. Several rainwater gardens are proposed as part of the drainage system. The developer is proposing that the streets and utilities be public infrastructure. As such, they are to be constructed as part of a public improvement project with all costs assessed to the developer. The Maplewood Engineering Department will prepare the detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utilities. The city will address the many small details of the street and utility plans when the city prepares the plans and specifications. The developer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted below and shall address the concerns listed below. The developer or his engineer shall address the following issues: Streets An additional 7 feet of right-of-way will be required on Minnehaha Avenue for future road improvements. The applicant shall show this additional right-of-way on the plat. The county will not allow the construction of rainwater gardens in the right of way for Minnehaha Avenue. The proposed street width is 30 feet, back to back of curb. City standards only allow parking on one side of the street for this proposed street width. The street width must be increased to 32 feet wide (face to face of curb) to allow for parking on both sides of the street. Drainage The developer is proposing four rainwater gardens at the south end of the development to store and infiltrate runofffrom the entire site. The drainage calculations show that post development rates and volumes are higher than pre development. The city will allow a slight increase in rate of runoff from the site during large storm events if the volume stored on site is less than or equal to predevelopment conditions. If it is not possible to meet these requirements by constructing rainwater gardens, it may be necessary to eliminate one unit and construct a NURP Pond on the project site. The drainage map shows that pre development drainage is assumed to runoff the site. The existing contours show that there is an existing low area where water ponds near the middle of the site (1004 contour). This area shall be taken into consideration when calculating predevelopment mnofffrom the site. All of the rainwater gardens shall have outlets and overflow swales. The contractor shall construct the overflow swales with permanent soil stabili?ation blanket. The overflow elevation shall be marked on the plans. 19 The proposed storm sewer is shown to connect to an existing structure on the south side of Minnehaha Ave. The storm sewer now exists on the north side of Minnehaha Ave. The proposed storm sewer shall connect into the existing storm sewer, north of Minnehaha Avenue, to avoid crossing the road. The applicant shall reduce the amount of runoff that is flowing offsite onto adjacent properties, specifically at the northeast comer and west part of the site. Runoff shall be directed fi.om roofs and backyards into swales or rainwater gardens. If rainwater gardens are to be used, they must include an outlet. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Curb cuts shall be marked on the plans. Ifa large volume ofrunoffis to be directed into the rainwater gardens via curb cuts, the contractor shall install riprap to prevent erosion fi.om flowing into the gardens. 2. Protect the existing retaining wall west of the property during construction. Utilities 1. Submit plans to SPRWS for their review and approval. 2. Show proposed sewer and water service locations on the plans. 3. Show existing sanitary and sewer service locations on the plans. The contractor shall remove or abandon all existing services. Landscaping 1. Provide additional landscaping in and around the rainwater gardens. This shall include shrubs and perennials. 2. A native seed mix shall be used around garden areas. The applicant shall provide seed mix details. 3. The existing conditions drawing shows that trees 118-120 and 122 will be saved. The grading plan shows grading will occur around the location of these trees. Show these trees as "to be removed" or revise the grading plan to save the trees. Misc. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible part for the maintenance and care of the rainwater gardens. The. proposed drainage system is dependent on the rainwater gardens and it is impol-tant that future homeowners do not compromise the function of the gardens or fill them in. 20 Attachment ll QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS MAY 25, 2004 1. The back of our lot line is at 996' - 10' or so to the west it's at 1004. The grading plan shows no change except for insertion of darker lines - need clarification, please. 2. Tree ~ 140 is an Elm, not a Box Elder - why cut it down? It's reasonably close to the lot line. 3. Are all maps drawn to scale? Does map 5 define size of site 'building'? 4. Will future developement houses be limited to height? 5. What's a silt 'fine dirt' fence? 6. Does map 6 show any appreciable elevation changes? If so, where? 7. Will proposed street be named Chris or Cahanes Court? 8. Map 9 shows new tree planting at about 50% less than stated at our initial meeting. 9. Who do we contact if we have a question or concern during the de- velopement phase? 10. Wi~ the planned destruction of the existing vegetation, what assurance do we have that our lower elevation will not be in- undated with run off? 11. Will we have any input regarding the placement of trees in back of our adjourning yards? 21 ZIV?.D MAY :2 6 2004 T T Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: sydhannah(i~att.net Monday, May 31, 2004 11:01 PM Ken Roberts sydhannah~;~att.net; banabean~hotmail.com URGENT re: Cahanes estates Development 2415 Minnehaha Attachment 12 May 31st Dear Mr. Roberts, I spoke with you by phone last week regarding the above mentioned development. I live at the 777 Bartelmy Lane N address. You were extremely patient and helpful with explanations that I could easily understand and I appreciated it very much. Thank you. I intended to get a letter off to you right away, but I got distracted and completely forgot about it until tonight. I hope it is not too late to turn in my comments as I believe they are worthy of further discussion and re-working of parts of the plans for the development. As I stated in our telephone discussion, the prior owner, as well as myself have had problems with water that drains down the hill, (the proposed site of Cahanes Estates) which has caused flooding in the basement as well as in the garage. I've spent a great deal of money landscaping and building up dirt and rock around the foundation of my house to avert the water. There are 45 trees listed of which 72% will be cut down. These massive trees have helped to absorb the rain water that would otherwise run onto mine and other's properties. With the removal of all these trees there will be a huge impact on water drainage. Naturally, the proposed development is of GREAT CONCERN to me. How will the new development impact the drainage of water onto my property? What will be done to ensure that my property remains unaffected in a negative manner, from this development? Additionally, you told me that a straight line from the corner of my garage to the corner of the proposed house, directly next to my property was 70 feet. I and my daughter actually went outside and measured the 70 feet from the two points you stated and I must tell you, the 'proposed house' IS VERY CLOSE TO MY HOUSE! I truly don't think the people who are thinking about buying it, will want their home that close to another home. Regardless, of the fact that it is the back of the home. I know I DO NOT WANT it that close to my home. If there is ANY WAY POSSIBLE, that this particular house could be moved just 10 more feet forward, I think the developer would have a much easier time selling it and for the price he/she wants and I would be a much happier neighbor! Thank you again for your help and for taking the time to read this. I sincerely hope that these issues will be taken into account, as I am getting them in writing to you after the date mentioned in your letter. However, the drainage concern was discussed by phone prior to the deadline. Sincerely, Linda Stevens 777 Bartelmy Lane N Maplewood, MN 55119 651-738-3439 P.S. I know that this will not matter to the city or the developer, but I feel that I must say again, how extremely sad and disappointed I and my daughter are that we are losing so many trees! (72% of 45 trees!) Trees that are probably at least 100 years old. Along with the loss of the trees is the loss of wildlife such as deer, rabbits and many, many different species of birds. I know that this does not matter when it 22 comes to making money. But it will have a huge impact on my family as we have enjoyed this part of living here for the past 10 years. 23 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner City Code Amendments - Public Hearings May 24, 2004 INTRODUCTION Request Staff is proposing that the city council amend vadous sections of the city code about public hearings. There are several sections of the code that now say the city council will hold a public headng when the city is considering a land use, planning or rezoning proposal. To be consistent with the recent direction of the city council, the city needs to change the code to say that the planning commission will hold such hearings. Reasons for this Request There are several parts of the current city code that are not consistent with the recent directive of the city council. The council must change the code to make it consistent with the new policy. BACKGROUND Council's Directive On May 3, 2004, the city council held a joint work session with the planning commission about public hearings. Based on the discussion dudng this meeting, the council decided that the planning commission should start holding the public headngs for land use or planning proposals. DISCUSSION As I have noted above, there are several sections of the code that the city council needs to change to meet their directive about public hearings. I have listed each of them in the proposed ordinance amendment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed ordinance amendment about public hearings starting on page two. P:com_dvmt\ord~public hearings code amend. - 2004 Attachment: Public Headngs Code Amendment Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MAPLEWOOD CITY CODE ABOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 12-310 (f)(1). Variances. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (f) Variances. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: (1) The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. Before the city council acts on a variance, the planning commission shall hold a public headng and shall make a recommendation to the city council. 'r~......-~. ....... ;, ~-,,t ~, ,..,.. k~ ..... """'" """ .... '~ ....The city staff shall notify the ~...,.~ .... k,;....C--. ~..~ ,'~' u .......... property owners within 500 ~E0 feet of the buffer at least ten days before the headng. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any buffer alteration. Section 2. This amendment changes Section 14-57. License application approval procedure. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 14-57. License application approval procedure. An application for a home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development or his or her designee, shall prepare a report and recommendation to send to the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public headn.q for each home occupation license request. The city shall mail a notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed home occupation at least 10 days before the headn.q. The city also shall publish the public headng notice in the official newspaper at least ten days before the headng. The planning commission will consider the proposal and then shall make a recommendation. The planning commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council. The city council will make the final decision about all home occupation license requests ~ ...... k,;.. .......... -r~......-,. ....... :, ..k..,, k..,. .... kt;........ ...."'" :cq ..... r' ............. ~ ..... --'J ................................ - r' ~ -.....- '-'--.ct. (Code 1982, §17-22) Section 3. This amendment changes Section 34-5(c). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 34-5. Preliminary plat procedure. (c) The director of community development shall deliver to the finance director for deposit any moneys received as fees required in this chapter with each preliminary plan. The finance director shall credit the money to the general fund of the city. All moneys so received shall be used to defray the expenses of processing the application. The director of community development shall prepare a report and recommendation. This report shall then be forwarded to the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public headng about the proposal and they shall forward a recommendation to the city council. Tk....-',. ....... -', ..k..,, k..,.~ .... k,-'.- k.....~ .... thc c--.!c~.~J~.,.' "' "" .... The headng shall be held following publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the headng. The applicant, property owner, and all other property owners within 500 ~ feet of the property to be subdivided shall be notified by mail at least ten days before the day of the headng. When a division or subdivision to which this chapter does not apply is presented to the city, the city clerk shall with in ten days certify that this chapter does not apply to the particular division. If the city fails to preliminarily approve or disapprove an application within the review pedod, the application shall be deemed preliminary approved, and upon demand the city shall execute a certificate to that effect. Section 4. This amendment changes Section 44-10. Zoning map. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-10. Zoning map. (a) Generally. The boundaries of the districts designated in section 44-9 will be shown on a map, and the map is hereby made part of this chapter, which map shall be known as the zoning map of the City of Maplewood. The map shall include any zoning changes recommended by the planning commission er-and adopted by the ,-__.__"""'"" .""';""._..__. The planning commission shall hold a public headng to consider all zonin.q map changes and shall make a recommendation about such changes to the city council. The city shall notify all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed zonin¢~ mad change about the public headng and shall publish a public headng notice- in the official newspaper at least ten days before the public headng ~'-'.'-_'-'""' :c '~t ......................... r--r- .... , .... r- ..... u ................. ,..__v_'" ...... ..._....~'~'"" '""...v ~.'y. All interested persons shall be heard at the hearing or any adjournment thereof. After the hearing, the planning commission shall forward a recommendation to the city council. The the city council shall adopt the zoning map and any chan.qes to it; and all notations, references and data shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter and shall be as much a part of this chapter as if all were fully described. The map shall be kept up to date as provided in subsection (c) of this section. 'T T Section 5. This amendment changes Section 44-1093(c). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (c) The development shall conform to the plan as filed with the city. Any substantive changes in the plan shall require a recommendation by the planning commission after they hold a public headn,q and requires the approval by of the city council. Section 6. This amendment changes Section 44-1096(b). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1096. Procedure. (b) The plannina commission c!.".,' cc'_'=".J! shall hold at least one public headng on each application for a conditional use permit. ~'~, ,~-*~-.-'1 k~,~, ;..~.. ' ; ~.... ............ ~ ~,,,, ....... $ .... ~,, ....... ~v ....... ,w, vv ~j,~ ....... ~f.. ...... ,,, ~'".. ,_ ;_-':~c~!;'c .~'""""".__....= "'"*""__.v_. The director of community development shall have a notice of the hearing published in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing. The director shall also cause a notice to be mailed to each of the owners of property within 500 aGO feet of the boundary lines of the property upon which such use has been requested, which notices are to be mailed to the last known address of such owners at least ten days before the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the hearin§ and shall describe the conditional use request. Failure of property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings in this section. Section 7. This amendment changes Section 44-1240(b). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1240(b). (b) The city shall send a copy of approved amendments, subdivisions, variances or conditional uses under this article to the commissioner. The city shall mail all such approvals within ten days of final action. When the city approves a vadance after the commissioner has recommended denial, the notification of the approved vadance shall include the c!.'.,' cc"~c!!'e minutes of the public headng and of the city council's action. 4 Section 8. This amendment changes Section 44-1283(a). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1283. Permit termination. (a) The matedal extraction permit may be terminated for violation of this article of any conditions of the permit. No permit may be terminated until the c!t-; cc'_'~c!! planninQ commission has held a public headng and the city council has determined whether the permit shall be terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The city council may establish certain conditions which, if not complied with by the operator, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the city holds a public headng and the city council · ""' "" c. the permit cc~ ._ cc~c! .... c.."m..!.._~_.. · considers terminafin,q '" -~--- Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on Attest: Mayor City Clerk TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner City Code Amendments - Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board June 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION Request Staff is proposing that the city council amend several sections of the city code about the planning commission and the community design review board (CDRB). There are several sections of the code with language about the duties and chairpersons of the planning commission and CDRB. These code sections now say that the respective commission or board will elect or appoint the chairperson. To be consistent with the recent direction of the city council, the city needs to change the code to say that the city council will make such appointments. In addition, the planning commission CDRB should revise their respective rules of procedure to reflect the new policy of the city council. Reasons for this Request There are several parts of the city code that are not consistent with the directive of the city council. The council must change the code to make it consistent with their recent policy change. BACKGROUND Council's Directive On March 22, 2004, the city council reviewed the proposed policy for the appointment to commissions and boards. The council made minor revisions and suggestions to the proposed policy to put them into effect. DISCUSSION As I have noted above, there are several sections of the code that the city council needs to change to meet their directive about the appointment of the board chairpersons. I have listed each of these sections in the proposed ordinance amendment. I also have proposed changes to the rules of procedure for the CDRB and the planning commission to reflect the policy change of the city council. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the proposed code amendments about the planning commission and community design review board starting on page three. For the Community Design Review Board (CDRB), adopt the proposed revision to their Rules of Procedure on page five. For the Planning Commission, adopt the proposed revision to their Rules of Procedure on page six. P:com_dvmt\ord\PC and CDRB Code amend. - 2004 Attachments: 1. Proposed Code Amendment Ordinance 2. Proposed Revision to CDRB Rules of Procedure 3. Proposed Revision to the PC Rules of Procedure Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MAPLEWOOD CITY CODE ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 2-249. Chairperson and vice-chairperson. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec 2.249 Chairperson and vice-chairperson. The planning commission shall c~cct a c.".:!.-;cmcn c,",d submit two names for nomination as chairperson to the city council every two years. The city council will select the chairperson for the planning commission. The planning commission shall elect a vice-chairperson at the second planning commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is othenvise no longer on the planning commission, the vice-chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the city council can appoint a new chairperson. Section 2. This amendment changes Section 2-251(a) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): sec. 2-251. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The planning commission shall elect its own officers, except for the chairperson, establish meeting times, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. section 3. This amendment changes Section 2-252 (9) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 2-252. Duties and responsibilities. (9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city council ;"'"' '": .... .~....,:.... ....k,;.. k.....;...... Section 4. This amendment changes Section 2-254. Responsibilities of community development director. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 2-254. Responsibilities of community development director. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the planning commission and its chairperson, the community development director or his/her designee shall: (Numbers 1-6 remain unchanged). 3 Section 5. This amendment changes Section 2-284. Officers; quorum; changes to rules of procedure. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (a) Chairperson, vice-chairperson. Every two years, at the .~.t crc."; second meeting in January, the community design review board shall c~c_'ct 3 chc!.~c."cc~ c~'J_ select two names for nomination as chairperson to submit to the cib/council. The city council will select the chairperson for the community desi.qn review board. The community design review board shall elect a vice-chairperson at their second meefinR of the year. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2004. Attest: Mayor City Clerk 4 Attachment 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (CDRB) RULES OF PROCEDURE (The additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The c.".:!.'~cmc~, vice chairperson and such officers as the board may decide are needed, shall be appointed by the board at the second meeting of each calendar year and will serve until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. The city council will select the chairperson for the board. The Community Design Review Board adopted this revision on June ,2004. Attachment 3 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMSSION (PC) RULES OF PROCEDURE (The additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A c.".:!.~c.-ccn, vice chairperson shall be elected by the commission at the second meeting of each calendar year and will serve until their successors have been elected. The city council will select the chairperson for the planning commission. The planning commission adopted this revision on June ,2004. TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: City Tour DATE: June 1, 2004 MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission should start planning their annual tour of the city. DISCUSSION The first matter the commission should decide is the date of the tour. Typically, the planning commission holds the tour from 5:30 - 8:30 on an evening in mid-summer. In reviewing the calendar and the meeting schedules of the commission, council and CDRB, I would suggest that the commission hold the tour on a Wednesday or Thursday during the weeks of July 12, July 19 or July 26. (These would be July 14, 15, 21, 22, 28 and 29). Holding the tour in July will maximize the amount of daylight that would be available. Please review your summer calendars and be ready to state a preference for the date of the tour. Secondly, the commission should decide on the format of the tour. In recent years, we have driven by many sites with little time for comment or discussion at those locations. After a recent tour, several of the commission members suggested that having fewer sites while allowing more time at those sites would be useful. Staff thought it might be educational and helpful to look at new development(s) outside of Maplewood instead of touring our city. Please be ready to discuss your preferences for this year's tour. Another matter for the commission to consider is what groups to invite on the tour. To keep the tour more focused and relevant to planning considerations, staff suggests that we invite the city council, the CDRB and the HRA to join the PC on this year's tour. Finally, the commission should let staff know of any sites they want to include on the tour (if we tour in Maplewood). We usually try to visit sites that we know have upcoming proposals, where construction has started or where the contractor recently finished the site work. Examples for this year include the Gladstone area, Legacy Village on County Road D, the Highway 61/County Road D area and the area along Century Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to Holloway Avenue (including the Priory and the MnDOT land). krlmemo/pctour.doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 1, 2004 Since Monday July 5, 2004 is a city holiday, the planning commission needs to reschedule their meeting scheduled for that date. I would suggest Tuesday July 6 or Wednesday July 7 as possible altemative dates for a meeting. Kr/PC mtg reschedule.doc C: Department Heads PC members City Council PC mailing list T