Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-04 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 4, 2011 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. September 6, 2011 5. Public Hearings 6. New Business a. Ordinance Amendment-Section 2-41, The City authority to Approve Variances. b. Ordinance Amendment-Section 44-13, The City's authority to Approve Variances. c. Discussion Item: Veteran's Affairs Medical Clinic Proposal East of 2920 White Bear Avenue (Walgreens) 7. Unfinished Business a. Planning Commission Minutes Discussion (no report) . Format for minutes . CC/Manager Workshop, October 10-PC representation requested for discussion about action minutes 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of September 12, 2011. Commissioner Boeser attended. The items discussed were the CUP revision for Maplewood Toyota and the storm water improvements within the wetland buffer north of Wakefield Lake. b. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of September 26, 2011. Commissioner Pearson was scheduled to attend. The item discussed was the right-of-way vacation on the north side of Beam Avenue. c. Upcoming City Council Meeting of October 10, 2011. Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend. The anticipated item to be reviewed is the CUP for LaMettry Collision. 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6,.2011 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Fischer. 2. ROLL CALL AI Bierbaum, Commissioner Joseph Boeser, Commissioner Tushar Desai,Commissioner Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Robert Martin, Cornmissioner Tanya Nuss, Commissioner Gary Pearson, Commissioner Dale Trippler, Comrnissioner Jeremy Yarwood, Commissioner Present Present Present Present Present at 7:05 p.m. Present Pre;;.~nt Pr~~ent ~W;$~rlt <!ill!!!!::" Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA '1",;< -''>:'',<,,-;>. ;;, Senior Planner Ekstrand tabled 8.~;ilm@ M;~~I~~~88fGreen Buil.ding Program Update due to the Assistant Building Official, Nick Qarver)~aving.a conflict this evening. This itern will be back for a future meeting. ':iii' ",.;;;",,:, ':::iIi!~i'::, Commissioner Pearson\i!libved'!@!iabPreve the aqenda as amended. '<~jl!!:- \:;:!\ .i;"- ,....., ,.- Seconded by Comrnissioner::[rippl13r. Ayes - All _:<n.. /IV :-;im:i)i~iF" The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Trippler requested the minutes be expanded to include the discussion from the three people that spoke during the public hearing for the Wakefield Lake Experimental Storm Water Treatment Basin - Wetland Buffer Variance for the city council. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Auqust 16. 2011, Planninq Commission minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Boeser. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Boeser, Desai, Nuss & Pearson Navs - Commissioner's Martin & Trippler September 6, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 Abstentions - Cornmissioner's Bierbaum, & Yarwood The motion passed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit for LaMettry Collision Auto Repair, 2923 Maplewood Drive 1. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the commission. 2. Owner of LaMettry Collision, Rick LaMettry addressed and answered 'questions of the commission. 3. Owner of Maplewood Toyota, Steve McDaniels addressed and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. There were no residents that came forward to addresslt'ie commission. -. .. ",.y Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. ,':::'" dilih> -,'-" yn '" .. " ,....- Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve theit\jlsQI~'llbn appi6vinq a conditional use permit for vehicle repair on the property north of 2923 Mapl'eWi:Jod Drive. Approval is based on the findinqs required bv ordinance and subiect to the'fl!)IIi:J'A'm~.,CiCD~ditions: (correctina impervious to pervious). ":!!"'; ,', ,';;;.,,'" ";,_H:f:m!i~jh).;<,,.; 1. All construction shall followl,me sit~ll~I,an a~le-stamped July 25, 2011. The director of cornmunity developrnent ma'frbvermim'6r changes. .;Of'-: 2. The proposed constrq2iion El!substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council ap~roval he permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for bM" .~"i r. ,.>i 3. If within one year of this permit approval the construction does not begin, the city shall review the status of the 2005 conditional use permit granted to Maplewood Toyota for their temporary parking lot on this site. Consideration shall be given to terminating that CIP, or requiring permanent parking lot improvements, based on the development plans of Mr. La Mettry. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department. This was determined in 2005 for the existing parking lot, however, a reevaluation shall be made to assure code compliance. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the Maplewood Engineering Department's review of this proposal as prepared by Steve Kummer, staff engineer, dated August 10, 2011. 7. There shall be no plowing of snow from this site for deposit in the city's holding pond to the west. September 6,2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes - All The motion passed. This itern will go to the CDRB on September 27,201.1 and to the City Council on October 10, 2011. b. 7:00 p.m. or later: Right-of-Way Vacation, north side of Beam Avenue, east of White Bear Avenue 1. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. There were no residents that came forward to address the commission. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. The commission expressed that they would have prefe[!(jed that this proposal should have been heard by the Park & Recreation Commission prior tQ:itUi!j\Jl!)1ing to the Planning Commission. The commission requested their concerns regarding tq".'riume'~r:,()f parking spaces and access to the trails and site be forwarded to the Park & Recre81ti~n Comn\'i~;;ion. :i[El:' Commissioner Yarwood moved to appro\'(&th(i)J~s6fution for the vacation of unused riqht-of-wav, north of Beam Avenue and east of White Ej:e,ar ASlenue. The reasons for the vacation are as follows:';"', ':F,',.,':,'" . i!,;j,;" ':," ">); 1. Itis in the public interest.,..;:::U1I'; ". "'F::::i" 2. The city is not usi~,~..the::[i~t1t~~f-way for a public street. 3. The right-of-way,ji~.not ne'e:W(i)(j~~r street access purposes as the adjacent properties have street access onS!!l<l,m Averjue. i';ifii This approval is subject to: 1. Ensure the continued dedication of any utility easements within the area of the unused right-of-way. Seconded by Commissioner Martin. Ayes - All The motion passed. This item goes to the City Council on September 26, 2011. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. September 6,2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Maplewood Green Building Program Update - Deleted 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of August 22, 2011. Commissioner Martin was scheduled to attend. There were no planning commission items. b. Upcoming City Council meeting of September 12, 2011. Commissioner Boeser is scheduled to attend. The anticipated items to be reviewed are the CUP revision for Maplewood Toyota and the storm water improvements within the wetland buffer north of Wakefield Lake. c. Upcoming City Council meeting of September 26, 2011. Commissioner Pearson is scheduled to attend. This agenda has not yet been set. 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the September 6, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Variance Authority Ordinance Amendment of Section 2-41 September 21, 2011 INTRODUCTION On May 6, 2011, the revised variance legislation took effect, which gives municipalities the authority and guidelines for granting variances from the provisions of the city ordinance. Staff will be presenting various ordinance amendments to the planning commission and city council where the existing ordinance language no longer addresses the revised variance legislation as established by the State Legislature, BACKGROUND Reason for the Statutory Change In 2008, the City of Minnetonka issued a variance to a residential property owner permitting the expansion of a legal, non-conforming garage. The city, relying on a 1989 Court of Appeals decision, concluded that the grant of a variance was reasonable. The city's decision was challenged by an adjacent property owner. Both the District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the city's decision was appropriate. On June 24, 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and found the city's decision impermissible. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of "undue hardship" in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, and concluded that a city's authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to "a reasonable use" without the variance. This establishes a high threshold for both the city and the property owner when considering variance requests. The Supreme Court reviewed the parallel county variance authority language that allows for variances in situations of "practical difficulties" or "hardship." The Supreme Court found that the city authority was more limited because it did not contain the "practical difficulties" provision. The court explicitly recognized that it was changing a longstanding standard that cities have relied on in considering variance requests. In particular, the court specifically rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship," which allowed for the grant of a variance in circumstances where the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." The Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that his or her property cannot be put to reasonable use without a variance." , On May 6, 2011, the State of Minnesota enacted the revised variance provisions. Previous Variance Criteria from State Statute The City Council was required to make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Revised Variance Criteria from State Statute The new provisions of state law requires that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be: (1) In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; (2) Consistent with the comprehensive plan; (3) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. DISCUSSION The Primary Changes The differences between the former variance guidelines and the revised language are: 1. The new statute now states that variances must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This was not mentioned in the previous language. 2. Cities must now determine that the property owner is encountering "practical difficulties" because of ordinance provisions that regulate the use of his or her 2 property. Previously, the terminology was that, to grant a variance the city must determine that strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the property owner "undue hardship" because of circumstances unique to the property. Practical difficulties exist when: a. A property owner proposes to use their property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; , b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner, and; c. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The previous language stated that a variance could only be granted if a property could not be put to any reasonable use without a variance. The new language states that a variance may be granted if a proposed use is reasonable. There may not seem to be a great distinction between the former and the revised variance provisions, but the city council should amend all references to variances in our ordinances to coincide with the amended wording in the state statute. SUMMARY Staff recommends the following changes: . Deleting the reference to the statutory number and simply require compliance with "state statute." This is to avoid inaccuracy in case the state changes their numbering. . Deleting the specifics about variance findings and simply require compliance with the state law. . Deleting the reference to appeals of the city council's decision to district court. This ordinance should be specific to the city's process and not to a possible district court process. . The existing ordinance was incorrect in allowing the city council's decision to be within 90 days after the public hearing. State law requires that the city council decide on land use matters within 60 days from the acceptance of a complete application by the planning staff. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution for the attached revisions to Secti,on 2-41, Authority to Hear and Decide Zoning Appeals and Requests for Variances. p:\ ORD\Variance\ Variance Authority Amendment Section 2-41 10 11 ts Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amendment to Section 2-41 3 Attachment 1 ,ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE CITY COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO REVIEW VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM THE LITERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE The Maplewood City Council approves the following revision to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.) Section 1. Section 2-410f the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 2-41. Authority to hear and decide zoning appeals and requests for variances. (a) Appeals and variances. The city council shall hear and decide all appeals from alleged erroneous decisions of any administrative or enforcement officer of the city in matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the zoning ordinances of the city. The council shall also hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance in chapter 44. subiect to the reauirements outlined in state statute. when their strict enforcement wOl,jlEl cause unE!l,je harE!ship eocal,jso of circl,jmstanGes unique to the individl,jal prol'lerty under GonsiEleration anE! to grant SUGh varianGos only when it is demonstrated that SUGh actions will ee in keel'ling with the sl'lirit and intent of Ghapter 44. Variances SUGh grants shall not allow I'lrovido for a use which is not permitted under the zoning classification in which the property is located. The council may impose conditions in granting variances to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. In matters relating to planning, the city council shall have the powers as set forth bv state statute. in Minn. Stats. ss 462.:359, sued. 4. (b) Procedures. Appeals may be brought before the city council by any affected person. Appearance before the council may be in person or by agent or attorney. The council shall make their decision sohodlJle a hearing within 60 days after receivina a complete application an apl'leal is submittod in writing, subiect to the review auidelines prescribed by state statute. All notices of appeal must be filed with the director of community development within the time prescribed by applicable law, ordinance or regulation. The decision of tho city oounoil shall be final, and no further aotion shall ee required or alloweE! by tho city, oxcept that tho oOl,jncil may, in accorElanco with the deoision, resoind or othorvJise altor any deoision I'lFOviously maEle whioh may have eeen the sul:Jjeot of the al'll'leal. Fl,jrther al'll'leal may be taken te tho E!istriot Gourt of the cOl,jnty providing sioh appoal is made within 20 days after the dato of the dOGision of the city council. 4 (c) Decisien. The city cGuncil shall renaer its decision on any appeal within gO days after the date of the ena of the hearin!j. (Code 1982, ss 2-26) Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on Mayor Attest: City Clerk 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Variance Authority Ordinance Amendment of Section 44-13 September 21, 2011 INTRODUCTION On May 6, 2011, the revised variance legislation took effect, which gives municipalities the authority and guidelines for granting variances from the provisions of the city ordinance. Staff will be presenting various ordinance amendments to the planning commission and city council where the existing ordinance language no longer addresses the revised variance legislation as established by the State Legislature. BACKGROUND Reason for the Statutory Change In 2008, the City of Minnetonka issued a variance to a residential property owner permitting the expansion of a legal, non-conforming garage. The city, relying on a 1989 Court of Appeals decision, concluded that the grant of a variance was reasonable. The city's decision was challenged by an adjacent property owner. Both the District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the city's decision was appropriate. On June 24, 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and found the city's decision impermissible. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of "undue hardship" in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, and concluded that a city's authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to "a reasonable use" without the variance. This establishes a high threshold for both the city and the property owner when considering variance requests. The Supreme Court reviewed the parallel county variance authority language that allows for variances in situations of "prabtical difficulties" or "hardship." The Supreme Court found that the city authority was more limited because it did not contain the "practical difficulties" provision. The court explicitly recognized that it was changing a longstanding standard that cities have relied on in considering variance requests. In particular, the court specifically rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship," which allowed for the grant of a variance in circumstances where the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." The Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that his or her property cannot be put to reasonable use without a variance." On May 6, 2011, the State of Minnesota enacted the revised variance provisions. Previous Variance Criteria from State Statute The City Council was required to make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Revised Variance Criteria from State Statute The new provisions of state law require that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be: (1) In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; (2) Consistent with the comprehensive plan; (3) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. DISCUSSION The Primary Changes The differences between the former variance guidelines and the revised language are: 1. The new statute now states that variances must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This was not mentioned in the previous language. 2. Cities must now determine that the property owner is encountering "practical difficulties" because of ordinance provisions that regulate the use of his or her 2 property. Previously, the terminology was that, to grant a variance the city must determine that strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the property owner "undue hardship" because of circumstances unique to the property. Practical difficulties exist when: a. A property owner proposes to use their property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner, and; c. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The previous language stated that a variance could only be granted if a property . could not be put to any reasonable use without a variance. The new language states that a variance may be granted if a proposed use is reasonable. There may not seem to be a great distinction between the former and the revised variance provisions, but the city council should amend all references to variances in our ordinances to coincide with the amended wording in the state statute. SUMMARY Staff recommends deleting the reference to the statutory number and simply require compliance with "state statute." This is to avoid inaccuracy in case the state changes their numbering. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution for the attached revisions to Section 44-13, Variances. p:\ ORDlVariance\ Variance Authority Amendment Section 44-13 10 11 te Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amendment to Section 44-13 3 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING CODE The Maplewood City Council approves the following revision to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.) Section 1. Section 44-13 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 44-13. Variances. The city may grant variances to the requirements of this chapter. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes Minn. State;. ch. 1@2. The city may approve administrative variances according to article VI of this chapter. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl,.Assistant City Manager Discussion-Veteran's Affair Clinic Proposal Beam Avenue, between Walgreens and Maplewood Heights Park September 27, 2011 INTRODUCTION On September 6, 2011, the planning commission approved a right-of-way vacation for a short section of unimproved right-of-way on the north side of Beam Avenue. This right- of-way lies within the proposed Veterans Affairs Clinic site between Walgreens and Maplewood Heights Park. The planning commission requested that the clinic proposal be brought before them for discussion, even though their evaluation is not required in the planning review process. In this instance, the planning commission's review is not needed since the zoning of the site is LBC (limited business commercial) which allows medical clinics. For a description of the proposal, please refer to the attached memo that was presented to the city council on September 26, 2011. City Council Action On September 26, the city council approved the plans for the proposed Veterans Affairs' Clinic as well as the right-of-way vacation. The council also approved a parking agreement with the applicant to allow the use of an abutting piece of city park land for a shared parking lot between the clinic and the park. This agreement would provide the following benefits to the city: . Add approximately $65,000 in PAC (park availability charge) funds. . The applicant would pay $20,000 to resurface the basketball and tennis courts. . There would be four parking spaces specifically dedicated to park use, but after clinic hours, any parking space wouid be available to park patrons. . The applicant would provide landscaping and relocate park trails. CONCLUSION There is no action required. This is a discussion item only. P:\Com-Dev\Sec2N\Beam Ave Medical Building\Beam Ave Medical Building Summary for PC 104 11 te Attachment: City Council Agenda Report Dated September 19, 2011 MEMORANDUM DATE: James Antonen, City Manager DuWayne Konewko, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Taylor, Recreation Program Supervisor Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Reciprocal Easement Agreement, Design Review and Right-of-Way Vacation - Beam Avenue Medical Building Northeast of Beam and White Bear avenues, between Walgreens and Maplewood Heights Park September 19, 2011 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: INTRODUCTION Project Description Dan Regan, of Airlake Development, is proposing to construct a 13,728-square-foot medical building on a vacant lot located northeast of the Beam and White Bear avenues intersection, east of Walgreens and west of Maplewood Heights Park. The proposed medical building will potentially be a Veterans Affairs Clinic which is to be awarded later , this year. Mr. Regan has indicated he would move forward with this building regardless of the Veterans Affairs decision. As part of this proposal, Mr. Regan has been negotiating with the Parks Department to share parking facilities and to utilize some of the park land for the parking lot. The requirements outlined for a Veterans Affairs Clinic building in combination with the city's parking requirements make it impossible for the applicant to fit everything within his site, thus the negotiations with the city's Parks Department. The property is guided in the city's comprehensive plan as Commercial (C) and zoned as Limited Business Commercial (LBC), which allows for offices, medical or health-related clinics, day care centers, or similar uses. Requests To build this development, the applicant is requesting the following city approvals: 1. Design plans 2. Vacation of unused right-of-way 3. Reciprocal easement agreement BACKGROUND December 11, 2006: The city council approved a lot division to split this site from the Walgreens to the west. May 23, 2011: The city council directed the city manager to draft a letter of support for a potential Veterans Affairs medical office building to be iocated behind the Walgreen's building on Beam and White Bear avenues. DISCUSSION Design Review Curb CutslDrivewavs The current site does not have a curb cut. The parking lot serving Maplewood Heights Park does have a curb cut. The proposed site plan will have one curb cut off of Beam Avenue with the park and medical buildings sharing parking facilities. The city and Mr. Regan will need to execute an easement agreement outlining the terms of the shared access and parking facilities. There will be an additional access point from the access road on the Walgreens property. Sidewalks and Trails There is an existing six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk located along Beam Avenue. There will be an internal concrete sidewalk to serve the building. There will also be a five-foot- wide bituminous trail on the east side of the site connecting the sidewalk along Beam Avenue and the parking lot to the ring trail around the pond within Maplewood Heights Park. There is a proposed retaining wall on the east side of the site which will work to keep the grades of the trails and sidewalks accessible. For retaining walls more than four feet in height a fence on the top is required by building code. Staff is recommending a fence be installed on top of the retaining wall regardless of the final height because of the proximity of the nearby tennis and basketball courts. Site Lavout The original site plan submitted to the city did not meet all the setback and parking requirements. Staff has worked with Mr. Regan to ensure these standards are now met. The revised site plan is attached to this report but staff is recommending that approval be conditioned on the applicant resubmitting a revised set of plans to reflect the current proposed site plan. The building and parking lot meet or exceed required setbacks of 30 feet and 15 feet to the right-of-way respectively. The proposed drive aisle through the parking lot meets the city minimum requirement of 24 feet. There is a small portion of unused right-of-way between the applicant's parcel and the city park parcel that must be vacated. Parkina City code requires medical office buildings to have one parking stall per 200 square feet of office space. The proposed development requires 69 parking stalls based on this requirement. The applicants are proposing 70 parking stalls, which includes eight handicap accessible stalls. The parking stalls will be 9.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep, which meets city code requirement for a medical office (low turnover) use. In addition to the 70 stalls for the medical building, four stalls are proposed to be excusive for the park. These stalls will have signs indicating for park use only. The current park parking lot has 10 stalls but the city's parks department staff is comfortable with having four stalls exclusively assigned to the park because of the amount of street parking nearby and the ability for park goers to use other parking spaces at the medical building during non- 2 business hours. The official shared parking agreement between the city and Mr. Regan will be memorialized through the easement agreement. Landscapinq The landscape plan shows 17 trees, including 11 deciduous trees, and various shrubs. The plan also calls out underground irrigation for all landscaping as required by code. Staff is comfortable with the layout and design of the internal site landscaping but recommends the following additions to the landscape plan: 1. Submit revised landscape plan to reflect updated site layout. 2. Additional trees to be planted along Beam Avenue at a rate of 30-feet at center apart from one another. 3. Applicant shall submit a planting plan to be approved by the city's naturalist for the area northeast of the proposed building where grading will disturb land within the wetland buffer area. Liq hti nq City code requires the submittal of a lighting and photometrics plan which ensures all freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less and that the maximum foot candles of illumination at all property lines does not exceed A-foot-candles. The submitted photometrics plan shows the applicant meeting the code requirement. However, the applicant should be required to submit a revised plan to reflect the updated site layout. The plan should also clearly mark light types, heights and locations. Trash Handlinq The applicant has indicated all trash facilities will be located within the building. If at any time trash facilities are located outside of the building it will need to be located within an enclosed structure which must be approved by the city. Buildinq Elevations The exterior of the building will be constructed with face brick, limestone, EIFS and clear anodized aluminum windows. The building elevations also propose a 19-foot-high entryway with horizontal siding. Staff finds the proposed buildings elevations to be an attractive design. Vacation of Unused Right-of-Way Unused Riqht-of-Wav Mr. Regan is also requesting the city vacate a street right-of-way. This unused right-of- way is located between an undeveloped parcel Mr. Regan owns and the parcel which Maplewood Heights Park is located. The west 30 feet of this unused right-of-way had previously been vacated and attached to Mr. Regan's parcel. The east 30 feet still exist as right-of-way and is proposed to be vacated and attached to the Maplewood Heights Park parcel. Please see the attached drawings. 3 ExistinQ Utility Easement Covering the right-of-way area that has already been vacated and attached to Mr. Regan's parcel and the portion of right-of-way that is proposed to be vacated and attached to the park's parcel is a utility easement that the city will need to keep in place. There is a 66-inch diameter outfall pipe from Heights Pond that is about 16-18 feet deep. The easement is needed in case there was ever a need to excavate the pipe either for repair or for maintenance. The easement width of 60 feet - both the vacated and proposed vacated right-of-way - is needed to meet the standards of providing a safe area while working on the pipe. Reciprocal Easement Agreement Mr. Regan is requesting a reciprocal easement agreement with the City of Maplewood at Maplewood Heights Park. This agreement would be for shared parking to serve the proposed 13,728 square foot medical building on the vacant lot adjacent to the park. As part of the proposal, Mr. Regan is negotiating with City staff to share parking facilities and to utilize some of the park land for the parking lot. Currently the park has an existing parking lot that is 4,600 square feet in size and has 10 parking stalls. The proposed new joint use lot would have 7,500 square feet and 21 stalls on park property. To complete the proposed parking area the current trail will need to be relocated to the east side of the lot. This relocation will actually better suit our patrons with direct access from the sidewalk on Beam. As part of the proposed agreement the City will receive site improvements related to the parking area, exclusive use of 4 parking stalls in the new proposed lot, and improvements to the tennis and basketball courts not to exceed $20,000. The developer will also be responsible for dealing with the year round maintenance of the parking iot resulting in a cost savings to the City. It is important to note that the improvements to the tennis and basketball court would normally come from General Tax levy dollars and not out of PAC. These improvements will allow us to spend the dollars we receive from the General Levy in other needed areas. At the September meeting of the Planning Commission they discussed the street right- of-way vacation as well as the overall project. It is important to note the Planning Commission did not know the extent that City staff was negotiating with the developer for the added improvements. Staff recognizes that the park is well used and that the parking lot is necessary. Most of the usage comes in the evening and on weekends when the clinic is closed and Park patrons will have use of all the stalls within the lot. In addition to the parking lot there is also adequate parking on Beam Avenue. Parks staff believes that through our negotiations with the developer we have alleviated the Planning Commission's concerns. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be taking action on this subject at their September 21 meeting. Staff will give a report on the result of their discussion to the City Council on Monday, September 26. 4 OTHER COMMENTS Fire Department: Butch Gervais, fire marshal, reviewed the development proposal and has the following comments: 1) install fire protection per code; 2) alarm panel per code. Police Department: Lieutenant Richard Doblar had the following comments: Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor/developer should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measure would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner. Engineering Department: Steve Kummer, staff engineer, has reviewed this project. Mr. Kummer's comments and requirements are attached to this report. COMMITTEE ACTION Community DesiQn Review Board On August 23, 2011 the community design review board recommended approval of the site and design plans for the medical office building. The CDRB did show general support for the collaboration between Mr. Regan and the city for use of the parking lot. Business and Economic Development Commission On August 25,2011 the business and economic development commission informally reviewed this project and showed general support. The commission did not make any recommendations since code does not direct this commission to review anything related to this project. The project was brought to this commission due to staff's effort to keep the BEDC up to date regarding development projects in the city. Planninq Commission On SeptElmber 6, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed right-of-way vacation. The planning commission did ask questions about what the city's benefit would be for assisting with this project. At the time of this meeting, parks staff was still negotiating with the applicant. Parks and Recreation Commission The parks and recreations commission will be considering the proposed reciprocal easement agreement at its September 21, 2011 meeting. This report was sent out to the city council prior to this meeting. Staff will provide the commission's recommendations and any comments at the city council September 26, 2011 meeting. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve the site and design plans for the medical office building to be located northeast of the Beam and White Bear avenues intersection, east of the Walgreens. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in the July 28, 2011, engineering report. 2) Revised landscaping and photometric plans to reflect the updated site plan. 3) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a. Submit revised landscape plan to reflect updated site layout. b. Additional trees to be planted along Beam Avenue at a rate of 30-feet at center apart from one another. c. Applicant shall submit a planting plan to be approved by the city's naturalist for the area northeast of the proposed building where grading will disturb land within the wetland buffer area. 4) Any needed watershed district approval. 5) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 6) Submit to community development staff, an approved easement agreement between the applicant and the city outlining the use and maintenance of city park land and the shared parking lot. 7) The city council must approve the vacation of the unused right-of- way between the applicant's parcel and the city park parcel. 8) Approved revised site plan presented at the meeting and the applicant shall work with staff regarding how deliveries are done on site. 6 9) Revise the site plan to extend the sidewalk to access the road and explore the potential of cross stripping for pedestrian access to Walgreens, subject to staff approval. d. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and underground irrigation. 4) Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. 5) Install all required outdoor lighting. 6) Install fencing along any retaining walls built as part of this project, subject to staff approval. e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the pUblic health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Approve the resolution attached to this report. This resolution is for the vacation of unused right-of-way, north of Beam Avenue and east of White Bear Avenue. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: a. It is in the pUblic interest. b. The city is not using the right-of-way for a public street. c. The right-of-way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent properties have street access on Beam Avenue. This approval is subject to: a. Ensure the continued dedication of the utility easement covering the area of the unused right-of-way. 7 3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Reciprocal Easement Agreement with Airlake Properties at Maplewood Heights Park for the use of 7,500 square feet of park land for a shared parking lot. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: a. Provide improvements around the parking lot, as agreed upon with parks department staff. b. Four exclusive use spots for park patrons, to be indicated by a permanent sign. c. Trail relocation, as agreed upon with parks department staff. d. Improvements made by the developer to the tennis and basketball courts, not to exceed $20,000. e. Developer agrees to provide year round maintenance of the proposed parking lot and allow the City access to all of the additional parking stalls. 8 pot ;J=JlC\'" REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing Use: 1.23 Acres Vacant Land SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Maplewood Heights Park Beam Avenue and Premier Bank across the street (Zoned LBC) Maplewood Heights Park Walgreens (Zoned BC) PLANNING Future Land Use Zoning: Commercial (C) Limited Business Commercial (LBC) Application Date The city received the complete application for the medical building on July 20, 2011. The initial 60-day review deadline was September 18, 2011. The city has extended its review an additional 60 days, as allowed by Minnesota State Statute 15.99 and the new deadline is'now November 17, 2011. P:ICom-DevISec2NIBeam Ave Medical BuildinglBeam Ave Medical Building_CC_092611 Attachments, 1, Zoning Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Location Map 4. Applicants' Development Statement 5. Site Plan Lighting Plan 7. Landscape Pian 8. Building Elevations 9. Engineering Plan Review 10. Kimley-Horn Traffic Comments 11. Site Survey with Proposed Vacation 12. Community Design Review Board Draft Minutes, August 23,2011 13, Planning Commission Draft Minutes, September 6, 2011 14, Public Right-ol-Way Vacation Resolution 9 Beam Avenue Medical Building Design Review Zoning Map Beam Avenue Medical Building Design Review Land Use Map Street Right-of-Way Vacation Location Map and Aerial Photo Attachment 4 Master Development Plan The City of Maplewood's unique landscape of architecture surrounded by a spectacular natural environment occasionally presents opportunities for localized rebirths, developments that can create new and revitalized neighborhoods, projects that can spur additional development and create a new identity for a district. OUf Maplewood Heights Park property. with its numerous nearby amenities, is one such opportunity. I am proud to present our vision for a proposed development that will truly effectuate completion and achieve a grand development vision for a state of the art medical office building. OUf Master Development Plan will bring 13.728 square feet of new construction to the 1.3 acre property in a balance of Class A office, exterior design elements that honor the community's expectation of safe, high quality healthcare delivery, and responds to the need to feel connected to nature and the outside world, The unique setting of the site allows the masterplan to take advantage of prominent views to the busy intersection of White Bear and Beam Avenues, to create a scale to the development that responds to and compliments neighboring properties, while still providing the feel of a parkland setting just steps away, Our vision for the development extends beyond our on-site Master Development Plan, We have crafted our site design in a way that links the building site to the park amenities offered just outside the door. This integration rcsponds to the needs of todar's employees and patients by offering access to a pavcd, pedestrian and bicycle-fricndly trail that 'encircles the entire Maplewood Heights Park. The paved trail also provides linkages to all Maplewood Heights Park has to offer, including outdoor grilling areas, playgrounds, tennis and basketball courts. Attachment 4 There are several significant design decisions informing the masterplan that help create the attractive architecture of the proposed development. These are reinforced by a focused consideration on the architecture of the individual building and site improvements. Understanding the need for critical attention to architectural design issues paves the way for a signature design that adds interest and identity to the architectural landscape. These architectural issues. outlined below, focus on the character of the buildings and public spaces. Above grade, exterior siding materiality and texture. shall be integrally colored block and brick, with prominent natural stone and wood design features, The color of the exterior walls will be earth-tone and consistent and complimentary to the natural surroundings. All plantings of flowers, vegetation, and trees will be generally consistent with the natural environment and the landscaping plan will include an outdoor seating environment with a memorial to honor our nation's fallen heros. The opportunity to create a new development that uses the most up-to-date sustainable building practices cannot be missed. The proposed development of the site and building offers many chances to employ practices that achieve responsible usage of the land and provide efficiencies for the building occupants. State of the art stormwater management on the outside and HV AC and plumbing systems on the interiors. will result in an environment that is pleasing to customers and employees. The end result of the energy efficient design elements will be a structure that is the first LEED Silver Certified building in the City of Maplewood. I am confident that working in collaboration with City of Maplewood Staff and our development team. our efforts will result in completion of the building and occupancy in the short timeframe. Upon successful City of Maplewood approvals. construction will commence shortly after consummation of a tenant lease. The development team is committed to pursuing the earliest possible start date, pending resolution to the relevant aspects of the project. Pending a lease transaction date, completion of construction and occupancy could come as early as March 2012. Sincerely, }~ Daniel O. Regan Vice President Reeo Real Estate. LLC Airlake Development, Inc. 2866 White Bear Ave Maplewood, MN 55109 dan.rcgan@airlakedevelopment.com (612)987-9966 I ;W::'!::':;:';;N"""''''''''''''''''~~'~"''_''''_''''''''''b' jllIIWi! ~ l!!!iiii~ ~~I' ' .~:' I: 11 IHtll;'.,i : i ~ ,-, Ii ~ I'll ; II ~Ho ~ :!l ~ - 1.1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VA OUT-PAllENT CUNIC IolAPIEilOODWlNhESOTo\ CONCEPT PLAN A L ~ I I I-- I I I I I IIJ:I :~ Ill> I~ I~ I~ ,_1_' I I I I I I I I I L ) Attachment 5 ~ACCE:::OAD . 1 I , . c ~ ~ , l , I , I I I I ) / / " 1!5 "T1-.,t~cg: rtl 0 ~ (j) II~~~ *~G)o::l 19U;~~ Cl Z Gl ,:1 :1 1 1 ;1 , Ii I' I I' I I' ---rt - - 11 I I: I I: 11 I' I: I I' , ---rj- -"------\----- - ---- : i I III l' ___~l_ ~____i L_ _____ / / h , , L' , X'~o~ -'" ';: ~"il 8l "1' ",<J [;f;~!~ "'"' ,~o 11"1 '~i , , II I "i . Ii Ii !I ,) 'I "' I "" I 1,- i -'l1 !~O z~--<JI)-- ill , .~ ."6' 8' g'.~ 8' ,.~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ R~ ~~~ ~ .~ ,~."~ .~ ~,.~ ~ \~~ ~ ~d r~ffl~~ g~ ~~~~ ~ .R~ ~ "'Iil iil~~~ ~1\1 gl;;~1\1 "". " m . ~~l""~ 'II~ o~ Qo .~ ~_~~.~ ~""~ ~ l. ~ ~~ @i.@.. i~i~ ~ l~ ~ ~m ~~~m ~~ ~;~ 8 ~g z ~~ Fg~2 ~~ ~~o~ ~ ~~ Q 5~ ~~"t'~ ~~ Z ~Q ~ ~~ Z ~~ ~~i ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~2 ~ ~~ !'Iii!;i' 8 ~ ill ~I ~~ ~~ .. "~ .~ 'O~i..~ ~ .' '. ~. .~ ~G '0 .~,.~., ~ .' ~. ., ~ .~.~ .~~~,.~ m I~ z~ zg o~ ~~ m~ ~~~~~~g 5 i ~o ~D ~~ ~~ o~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ 02 ~!ilf;l "'i 5!~ rJFljI;~9;F m .~ ~ ~:~!~~. ~~.m~~ w !~ : ~ ~I gd ~~ :el~~~ ~~ .. z ~;!;i! 'i' ,",ZPoLS <::l ~ F!'Ii? ~ i~,~~~~ a f;; - Z l1: =I ll;'" ~ = ~ ~~ ~ ~~ e~ AIRLAKE OEVELOPMENT, INC. 2866 WHIlE BEAR AVE MAPLEWOOO, MN 55109 r'"'~' ~'__"_M__=" I ~ '--.--'~"~I "._ '""""'"1lUC .............,_.....- ....._ , "'\ ::_I'lc:"'"",~~-"""'" RLK. ~ ""... 11llI"".-..."..,,,.u... ~ _.....__ : -- DA"_ uc. oo.---1illL... '-...J ~,E,& -='S~ "#:1;"$? .