The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-11-15 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 15, 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. November 1, 2011 5. Public Hearings a. Conditional Use Permit Revision, Building Addition for the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, 1770 McMenemy Street 6. New Business 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of November 14, 2011. Commissioner Yarwood was scheduled to attend. The anticipated items to be reviewed were two ordinance amendments concerning the updated variance findings in state statutes, the ordinance amendment concerning administrative variances and the ordinance amendment regarding property impacts when a street widening takes place. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of November 28. Commissioner Nuss is scheduled to attend. The anticipated item to be reviewed is the land use plan amendment from C (commercial) to LDR (low density residential) for 1961, 1967 and 1975 McMenemy Street. 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1,2011 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, Commissioner Tanya Nuss, Comrnissioner Gary Pearson, Commissioner Dale Trippler, Comrnissioner Jeremy Yarwood, Commissioner Present Present Present Present Present Pre7.@nt Prep@nt Present Preseht. Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to.apprdvetheaqenda as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Trippler. Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the October 18. 2011. PC minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Boeser. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Bierbaum, Boeser, Martin,J\Juss,_ Pearson & Trippler Abstentions - Commissioners Desai & Yarwood The motion passed. November 1.2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. Plan Amendment, C (commercial) to LDR (low density residential) for 1961, 1967 and 1975 McMenemy Street i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. Nobody came forward to address the commission. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution approvinq a comprehensive land use plan amendment from C (commercial) to LOR (low density residential) for the properties located at 1961, 1967 and 1975 McMenemv Street. Approval is based on the followinq reasons: 1. The properties are presently developed with single dwellings which would be compatible with a land use classification of LOR. 2. The three homes are well kept and would not be des.lined for redevelopment in the forseeable future. 3. The single dwelling development of these IqWis compatilille with abutting residential development to the east, but they are alsocomP<itible land uses to the fire station and office building to the north and south. 4. The reclassification to LDR would elimiriateaninconsistency between the zoning map and land use plan. This action is subject to the apprdvalof this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Bierbaum, Boeser, Desai, Martin, Nuss, Pearson & Trippler Nav - Commissioner Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on November 28, 2011. b. Wetland Buffer Waiver for Ditch Maintenance on Joy Road i. Natural Resources Coordinator, Ginny Gaynor gave the report and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. 1. Dave Johnson, Maplewood addressed the commission. Mr. Johnson felt someone from Ramsey County and the Watershed District should have been present to speak regarding this item. November 1, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 Mr. Johnson also wanted the city to get the county to address several issues: 1) capacity and maintenance of the culvert west of the project location (the one that was clogged with leaves the day of our site visit); 2) signage on the road to slow traffic and to keep semi's off during times of wt restrictions. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Boeser moved to approve the proposed ditch maintenance on Jov Road, includinq excavatinq a 5 foot-wide swale to connect the wetland to the ditch. Seconded by Commissioner Trippler. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Bierbaum, Boeser, Desai, Martin, Pearson, Trippler, & Yarwood Nav - Commissioner Nuss The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on November 14, 2Q,1'.1.., Commissioner Bierbaum moved to propose that:l~e city workwith the county to see ,if they can qet better siqnaqe and qet the trucks off the roa'd. The motion died for a lack of a second. Staff will bring the issues brought up at the meeting from the commission and Mr. Johnson with the county and see if there is a way to cooperate. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 8.' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of October 24, 2011. Commi""ion". n""..j \AI"'" .."hprllllprl to ..ttpnrl, hilt there were no pli:u:ming commission items to review. November 1, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011. Commissioner Yarwood is scheduled to attend. The anticipated items to be reviewed are two ordinance amendments concerning the updated variance findings in state statutes, the ordinance amendment concerning administrative variances and the ordinance amendment regarding property impacts when a street widening takes place. The wetland buffer waiver for ditch maintenance on Joy Road. 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. November 1, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 MEMORANDUM LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review - St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church 1770 McMenemy Street November 9, 2011 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Proposal The St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church,at 1770 McMenemy Street, is proposingto revise its conditional use permit in order to add a new entrance drive from DeSoto Street, expand its current building and enlarge its parking lot. Please refer to the narrative and design plans included with this report. Requests The applicant is requesting: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. Specifically, they want city approval to change the approved site plan to expand their parking lot, to add the new driveway to DeSoto Street and build an addition to the existing building. The city code requires a CUP for churches. 2. Approval of project and design plans. BACKGROUND On November 24, 1986, the city council granted a conditional use permit for a church at this location. On May 12, 1997, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for this site. These requests were for the church to expand their building by addirig space for Sunday school and a solarium to the front of the church. On July 8, 2002, the city council approved a CUP revision and design plans for this site. These requests were for the church to expand their parking lot to the south and to add a playground to their property. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Revision - Parking Lot and Building The proposed parking lot expansion meets the requirements for the current CUP and would fit the site. If approved, the parking lot would grow from 254 spaces to 359 spaces (an increase of 105 spaces). The parking spaces meet the space dimension code requirements. The proposed sanctuary will seat 1,400 attendees. Code requires a parking space for every four seats in the sanctuary. This means code would require 350 parking spaces, which the applicant is proposing to exceed. This expansion will meet the parking needs ofthe expanded church. The site will essentially reach its parking lot capacity so staff is recommending the conditional use permit state that if parking becomes an issue in the future maximum seating capacity for the sanctuary may be lowered. Proper landscaping and screening will ensure that nearby homes are buffered from the parking lot. The proposed parking lot expansion includes four large sections of porous pavement to assist in meeting stormwater standards. The church has been working with the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District on the inclusion of the porous pavement. Code requires the parking lot to be setback at least 15 feet from right-of~ways and 20 feet from residential property lines and the proposed site plan meets these requirements. The existing church building is 8,750 square feet in size. A 10,200 square foot gymnasium is proposed on the east side of the site and a 22,050 square foot addition which includes a sanctuary, offices and classrooms is proposed on the west and south sides of the existing church building. Code requires a 100-foot building setback for the proposed addition on the north and south. The southerly building setback and the proposed addition east of the existing church both meet this 100-foot requirement. The proposed addition that would be west of the existing church, however, scales to be 95 feet from the north property line. This must be adjusted to meet the required 100 foot setback. The easterly setback was unusual to determine, because only part of the proposed addition was adjacent to the residential property to the east. Staff felt it was reasonable to consider that part directly behind this neighboring lot. On that basis, only a 50-foot setback is required and the applicant is proposing a 70 foot setback. The proposed additions will be pre-cast concrete with earth tones and a brick inlay matching the reddish-brown brick veneer found on the existing building. The applicant's plans do not address trash handling. Any outside trash facilities are required to be within an enclosure. Staff is recommending the applicant submit a revised plan addressing this requirement. The applicant has submitted a photometric plan, which meets the city's code requirements. Conditional Use Permit Revision - New Entrance Driveway The proposed plans show a new driveway from the expanded parking lot to DeSoto Street. The neigfiliors near tile cllurcn nave mixea reactions to~his part of the proposaLelty statt has not- received any traffic complaints about the existing church and parking lot layout. Staff 2 understands, however, that the new driveway to DeSoto Street is a change to the site and the area that is a concern to many of the neighbors. It is their opinion that DeSoto Street, because of its condition and design, could not handle the additional traffic. The neighbors also are concerned that the additional traffic from the church would make DeSoto Street unsafe for pedestrians and for the homeowners on the street. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed additions and entrance with neighbors. They invited property owners within 500 feet of the church property. Because of the neighbor's and staff's concerns, the church agreed to have a traffic study done. They hired Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc., to study the existing traffic patterns and to prepare an analysis of what will happen if the church adds the driveway to DeSoto Street. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff Engineer, reviewed this traffic study. Refer to Mr. Kummer's attached report. The applicant is proposing to install a gate for the DeSoto Street entrance. The applicant would keep the gate closed except for Sundays and major holidays. If approved, the city should monitor the parking demand and traffic situation and keep track of any complaints after the church completes the project. If traffic and parking problems occur, the city council could require the church to close the driveway to DeSoto Street or make other changes to the site. Landscaping and Parking Lot Screening The proposed landscaping plan shows a total of 97 trees currently on the site, 73 of these trees are considered by code to be significant. Thirty-nine significant trees are to be removed from the site. The applicant is proposing to plant 55 new trees. There are three species of trees proposed including Japanese Tree Lilac, Northern Catalpa, and American Arborvitae. The landscape plan does not state the placement of the new trees so staff cannot calculate if the applicant is meeting the city's tree ordinance. The applicant will be required to submit a revised landscape plan, which states the size of the new trees. It should be noted many of the existing trees that provide screening to the north, west and east are to be left. These trees may provide credit for meeting screening requirements. Refer to the report by Shann Finwall, the city's environmental plann.er. On the south side, the proposed new trees will provide some screening for the new town home development. The trees proposed would not provide the minimum buffer code requires of a six- foot-tall parking lot screen, however. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a six-foot-tall decorative wood fence to match the fence along the north lot line. Also, on the west and east sides of the site, where the church site abuts homes or future homes, the same screening requirement would apply. The applicant is proposing three biofiltration basins with the expansion of the building and parking lot. As required by the city, the proposal calls for using plants, not seed, in these basins. 3 DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Building Department - Dave Fisher, building official, had the following comments: . Provide a complete building code analysis when the plans are submitted for construction. Use the 1006 IBC and the Minnesota State Building Code. . Verify the Fire Department has access around the site an.d adequate fire hydrants. . The church is required to have a fire sprinkler system and fire alarm. . Provide accessible parking. . Provide address numbers of the building. . Recommend a preconstruction meeting. Fire Department - Butch Gervais, fire marshal, had the following comments: . Applicant will need to add fire protection and notification per code to cover all areas of the new additions. . Rear access through the gate shall not be less than 20 feet for fire department access. . Owner needs to be aware that if the gate is locked and the fire department has no key the lock and or chain will be cut and the fire department will not be responsible to replace either lock or chain. . All proper permits are needed for any fire protection work including alarm panel and shall be done by a licensed contractor. Engineering Department - Steven Kummer, staff engineer, has reviewed this project. Please refer to Mr. Kummer's report. Conclusion Staff understands the residents' wishes to keep additional traffic off of DeSoto Street. And, the site could likely function with the existing use of the McMenemy Street access without adding -one more. However, it does not seem unreasonable to staff for the applicant to add the DeSoto Street access driveway. The use of this driveway would be limited to two services on Sundays and to holiday services. The rest of the time, this driveway would be gated to prevent use. Staff does not see this as being very much of a burden to the neighborhood for such infrequent use. 4 RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the resolution revising the conditional use permit for the church at 1770 McMenemy Street. This permit is based on the standards for approval required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped October 26, 2011. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval includes the parking lot expansion, the new driveway to DeSoto Street and the proposed j:llaY!lrouns buildinq additions. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Regularly maintain the grounds and pick up all debris as well as maintain the decorative wood screening fences. alen€! the nerth siao ef tAO site. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The city council may require the church to limit seatinq capacity in the main sanctuarv aaElitieAalj:larl~in!l sj:lases if a parking shortage develops. e. The j:llans fer the elrivoway te DeSote Stroet, tAO future ehursh aselitien ana futur-e !lymnasium are net aj:lj:lre'Joel. These shall eo suemitt:eEl te the City CeuAeil fer aj:lwe'Jal of a rl3'Jiseel senelitieAal use j:lormit. 7. The city council may require the church to make changes to the site, if the council deems it necessary or prudent, during future reviews of the conditional use permit. 8. The church shall provide aseEluate sereeAin!l of the neo:: j:larkin€!let aAa the now Elri'Joway frGm aEljasont heR'les ey j:llanliAg, eerR'lin!l er eeth a six-foot-tall. solid decorative wood fence to screen the parkinq lots on the south, west and east sides of the site to match the screenin(:l fence on the north lot line. This screeninq fence is to provide a parkin(:l lot screen as required bv city code. 9. The (:late at the proposed DeSoto Street entrance must be closed at all times. except for Sundays and durinq holidav services. B. Approve the plans date-stamped October 26, 2011, for the parking lot expansion, new driveway and building additions at the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, 1770 McMenemy Street. The property owner shall meet the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this expansion. 2: uBefbre getting a grading and building permit, the appllcantshallprovloe staTTwlm; 5 a. . A revised site and landscape plan that shows the following: (1) The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that lists the planting's proposed in the basins. The plan should specify the number, species, and size of plantings. (2) The applicant must submit a revised landscape plan showing the size of the replacement trees. This plan must comply with the requirements of the tree ordinance. (3) Location of the underground irrigation system as required by code. (4) A plan for the installation of a six-foot-tall, solid wood screening fence on the south, west and east sides of the site where the parking lot abuts residential properties. Staff will consider a reduction in the number of trees in lieu of the screening fence. (5) Verification that all setback requirements would be met, specifically, providing a 100-foot building setback from the north property line. b. Provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet ordinance requirements and all the plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer. c. A trash container enclosure plan. The trash enclosure must be compatible with the building and include a 100 percent opaque gate. 3. Resod the lawn that is disturbed by construction activities. 4. Construct the required trash container enclosure. 5. Install a stop sign and speed bumps on the new driveway to DeSoto Street. 6. Before obtaining permits for grading and construction, the applicant shall provide staff with a check or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 125 percent of completing landscaping and site improvements. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 8. Comply with all requirements of the city's engineering report dated November 11, 2011 by Steve Kummer, staff engineer. 9. Comply with all requirements of the assistant fire chief and building official. 6 CITIZENS' COMMENTS Staff surveyed owners of the 135 parcels within 500 feet of the church property. Of the 21 replies, six were in favor, eight were opposed, five had miscellaneous comments and two had no comments. In Favor 1. Looks like a good plan, like the idea of 2nd entrance off DeSoto. Is parking adequate? (Wierenga - 344 Summer Lane) 2. We are not opposed to this, however, the fence on the north side of the property needs some attention and the trees need to be trimmed. (Moxness - 394 Ripley) 3. I strongly support St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church addition. More church is better than more nightclubs in our community. (Vang - 415 Kingston Avenue) 4. Let them build - the entrance on DeSoto is a great idea. Best of luck to them. (Grote- Summer Lane) 5. I am all for their expansion - not sure of the DeSoto entrance since I don't live in that area. Good luck to them! (Casserly - 374 Summer Lane) 6. I have no problem with this project. I admire their reaching out and meeting the needs of their people. (Pliefke ~ 358 Summer Lane) Opposed 1. When the city redid our road (DeSoto) they made it so you can hardly get through if there is a car parked. Then add people walking and it is an accident waiting to happen. Our road was not made for all that extra traffic. (Duellman - 1835 DeSoto Street) 2. No -I am not approving. There is enough traffic on DeSoto. This would only complicate. (Niedermayer - 425 Ripley Avenue) 3. I believe the overall traffic flow on DeSoto would increase too much. I am highly opposed, this is not an acceptable alternative, why not use McMenemy? (Knabe - 1760 DeSoto Street) 4. Please do not allow a new entrance off of DeSoto. It is a quiet residential street with lots of curves. I believe it would be a safety hazard with the extra traffic. The street does not have any shoulder. They should continue using McMenemy as their exit and entrance. McMenemy can handle the traffic. I am very happy for their growth! I actually work with many of the Hmong members who attend SPHAC. (Albert - 387 Ripley Avenue) 5 Adding a new entrance off of DeSoto Street wOuld create the following problems: (1) create traffic flow this street is not built to sustain (2) exiting out of the lot onto DeSoto would be hazardous due to limited visibility caused by the curve and the hill south of the proposed 7 entrance/exit (3) sooner or later drivers would discover the alleyway that leads out to Bradley, and that would feed into the quite neighborhood with many young families. Given these inherent problems, my suggestion would be to keep the entrance/exit on McMenemy or provide shuttle service from a remote parking area, perhaps K-Mart on Maryland and 1-35E. I think we need to have several options brought to the table, not just one revision. Unfortunately, the church property, nestled in the middle of a residential area with no feasible way of widening the existing entrance/exit, may have outgrown the limitations of their acreage and may have to relocate. Suburlilan churches do this all the time because they do not want to create disputes with residents. And if the attendance out grows the proposed changes then what will we do? I appreciate the offer to respond to this proposal. It's good to know we have a voice in discussion and decision-making that can greatly impact us as residents. We like the quiet setting and low traffic volume. (Stephenson - 527 Kingston Avenue) 6. No wayl Keep the street quiet! (Cook - 415 Ripley Avenue) 7. I absolutely do not want a parking lot entrance on DeSoto. DeSoto is filled with beautiful trees and singing birds and wild flowers. Do not take away my evening walk. Already too much traffic on this stretch and trash thrown from cars. This would only make it worse. (Starzinski - 1799 Burr Street) 8. I do not want the proposed additional entrance to the church. (McGuinness - 391 Ripley Avenue) Miscellaneous Comments 1. Please see attached letter from Lisa Hlavenka, Kevin and Kaitlyn Gaeu regarding concerns on proposed DeSoto Street entrance (Hlavenka -1780 DeSoto Street) 2. Please see attached letter from Dick Freimuth regarding concerns on proposed DeSoto Street entrance and stormwater (Freimuth - 1802 Burr Street) 3. Please see attached letter from Thomas qnd Teresa Willkom regarding concerns on proposed DeSoto Street entrance. (Willkom -1838 DeSoto Street) 4. We would hope that the drop off entrance to the north of the new sanctuary could be moved to the west side. Noise, congestion (school busses?) so close to residential housing could be alleviated with better planning of traffic. We are also concerned about the biofiltration basin along the northside of the addition in that we hope the city makes sure runoff doesn't flood my yard. It is at a recess elevation and water/snowmelt could flood back yards in spring/summer. It seems that the drop off site talked about would make nice green space for outdoor functions in spring summer and fall. Otherwise it looks like a great concept and we wish the church all the best. (Lewandowski and Kedrowski - 398 Ripley Avenue) 5. I have no problem with them adding to building or parking lot, but I want no new drive to DeSoto. DeSoto is a small narrow street and cannot handle a lot more traffic. (Hruby- 1720 DeSoto) 8 No Comments 1. Litecky - 354 Summer Lane 2. Dirkzwaker - 356 Summer Lane 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Lot size: 7.42 acres Existing lan.d use: The St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: Single dwellings and developing town house development East: DeSoto Street and single dwellings West: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) highway maintenance facility PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: In (Institutional) Zoning: F (farm residence district) Ordinance Requirements. Section 44-1092(3) requires a CUP for churches. CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 44-1097(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards for approval in the resolution attached to this report. Application Date Staff received the complete application materials for this request on October 26, 2011. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. The deadline for action by the city is December 25, 2011. State statue 15.99 allows the city to extend this deadline an additional 60 days if needed to complete the official review. 10 Sec17\ 1770 McMenemy\ 1770McMenemL CUP _Design_PC _1 01811.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Existing Site Plan 5. City Council Minutes, dated July 8, 2002 6. Proposed Site Pian . 7. Proposed Grading Plan and Sketch Grading Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Proposed Building Elevations 10. Proposed DeSoto Street Gate 11. Applicant's Narrative 12. Engineering Plan Review, dated November 7,2011 13. Environmental Pian Review dated October 5, 2011 14. Letter from Lisa Hlavenka, Kevin and Kaitlyn Gaeu 15. Letter from Dick Freimuth 16. Letter from Thomas and Teresa Willkom 17. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 18. Plans date-stamped October 26,2011 (separate attachment) 11 Attachment 1 3= Q) .- > Q) 0::: c m /II Q) C "C C Cll C o /II > Q) 0::: ll. ::;:) o ~ u ... ~ ~ o 0 Q) ..... U ,g C 0- Cll .- CIl <C "55 m<( c "0 o ffi CIl :2: ~ c Cll 0 ll.'S . u - 0 cn...J Attachment 2 ~ ~ '"C ~ .s , ~- Ii '"C m -:+:i ~" U)mQ.) c::;::;"C o "'(jj .L8 OlO63C1 =~(l) l\l'- c:: (,) C/J >. ....- ij:Q):!:::: C) ._0:: cn-- U)>.CC+-- rn+-'Q.)':="C: l\l'(jjO" ~ -" 0 (,) Q) E""" Q)O.:!.a:V (I) :s:"'C:+::l > :J 0 Q) "' 0 ...J2"(9 'tl - c: jD[J \I ~ Q) 'S: ~ Q) 10 0::: ..J l: .. " .2l l/) Q) C "'C l: ca l: 0 .!!! > Q) 0::: D.. :::) (,) .c: CJ ... ::l .c: (,) Q) CJ ~ l: ca ,- - <C NJ.S ",W3N3Wnw C'l l: 0 CO 2: - Q) ::l rn ca :J D.. "'0 ...; C CO en ...J .... .... .is 01.083(1 '+- ~ ~ ... .. il! C)J: s:: .~ o ~' EJ: J:O - CD ~(J C'lS s:: a.. C'lS .- . - -- U)<( Attachment 3 :c ::l .e: - c~ Q)~ E E .ft c.~ v, .Q Cl Os:::;:- Q) c: _L..._ >.C :;:; - Q)::I rl '=~ Cl 1:5 ~ :<:~ In ~ :5 ~ U) O-"'C ttI .!!! ~ Q):E U~Ec- Cl C J:: tJ).5 m ~.~ .5lfJLLll...J c: ~D II ~ .~ > Q) 0::: c .!2'I III Q) C "C C lU c .2 III .:; Q) 0::: c. :J o .c u ... ~ .c o Q) u C lU .- <C Cl c o J: 0- m .~ ~ lU C. Cl .!: ... . c U)~ Attachment 4 . r;'"-- tl" t :1.' I! . I (~I v -- I : i :1 I I I ~.,.- :;"'.",.::tJ, EI ~ ~~ / _'WIW - -.-.-.-' ~ N W ~~E S 1. ~~..;:::-':t':...tt;~ """''''''C<IIIQ"~'''_F''''''''~-'' '!:..~"'F>u!fjIOfl_""-""""""Dii<Jr_ 1at'__"""",'--_*_p-\l:1o" ~ - :2-=~.;;t:;"~~~~""'::... _1_. _l4l"'_"Ift:lt~~OI...:rtllf'" ~o...""'tb.t",",N_t,.4<<rirOC.l.""""""cr =~~~.~_''''_~Oll ,.^'I.--....i~_.<n:l......"'I>oo~(Ilol'.e.. "..,., . ,~ '," bX';S+~d SITE PLAN N 5 Attachment 5 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:08 P.M., Monday, Jnly 08, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02-14' A. CALL TO ORDER: A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:08 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present 2. 7:30 p.m. (8:51 p.m.). Hmong Alliance Church (1770 McMenemy Street) A. Conditional Use Permit Revision B. Design Approval a. City Manager Fursman presented the staffreport. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. c. Jackie Monahan-Junek presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Kao Lee, representing the church, 2415 Cypress, Maplewood Chou Vang, youth worker for the church, 415 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood Dick DuFresne, 1721 DeSoto Street, Maplewood Audrey Duellrrian, 1843 DeSoto Street, Maplewood Dick Friemuith, 1802 Burr Street, Maplewood James Evans, 1796 Burr Street, Maplewood Kevin Berglund, 1929 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood Sullivan Kong, member of the Hmong Alliance Church from St. Paul Ge Her, 1391 Bradley Street, Maplewood Y ~ Her, 176~ M~M"n"my, M"pl"w()()c1 Christine Le, Member of the Church Jim Benshoof, Benshoof and Associates, Inc, addressing the traffic report they submitted Barry Morgan, Master Engineering, 2104 4th Avenue South, Minneapolis, for the Church Kao Lee, second appearance Kevin Berglund, second appearance 6 Dick Dufresne, second appearance Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the parking lot and plavground for St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church at 1770 McMenemv Street. RESOLUTION 02-07-127 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church applied for a revision to their conditional use permit because of their plans to enlarge their church parking lot, and to add a playground to their property. WHEREAS, this permit allows the church and Sunday school. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1770 McMenemy Street. The legal description is: Except South 95 feet of West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 5 acres and except West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 4 feet of South 5 acres; being in North 10 acres of Southwest 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 (subject to road and easements) in Section 27, Township 29, Range 22. And Commencing at a point on the West line of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, said point being 166.98 feet South from the Northwest comer of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17; running thence East and parallel with the North line of said quarter quarter Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the East line of said quarter quarter Section, thence running South along the East line of said quarter quarter Section 166.98 feet; thence running West and parallel with the North line of said quarter quarter Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the West line of said Section; thence running North along said last named line 166..98 feet to the place of beginning; excepting therefrom the West 342 feet thereof; and except land described in Document No. 2137431. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 24, 1986, the city council granted a conditionall1se permit for a church at this location. 2. On June 17, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit revision, except the addition of the new driveway to DeSoto Street. 3. The city council held a public hearing on July 8, 2002. 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, THFRFFORR RF IT RRSOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit revision, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 7 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, dr~inage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nUisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fIre protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval includes the parking lot expansion, and the proposed playground. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Regularly maintain the grounds and pick up all debris as well as maintain the decorative wood screening fences along the north side of the site. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The city council may require additional parking spaces if a parking shortage develops. 6. The plans for the driveway to DeSoto Street, the future church addition and future gymnasium are not approved. These shall be submitted to the City Council for approval of a revised conditional use pemiit. 7. The city council may require the church to make changes to the site, if the council deems it fl000SSary or pmcl€Bt, t:4uing ihtnr~ r~"ITieu,~ oftnp: ('()n.lit1()n~l11"'p. pp,rmit 8. The church shall provide adequate screening of the new parking lot from adjacent homes by planting, berming or both. Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk Ayes-All 8 Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the design plans for the proposed parkillg lot. and playground for St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this expansion. 2. Before starting the construction of the parkillg lot, provide for staff approval the following plans: a. A revised landscape plan that shows the following: (1) Significant screening and landscaping along the south side of the parking lot in the areas next to the adjacent houses. Such screening shall be at least six feet tall and be 80 percent opaque and may be accomplished with a fence, berming or trees. (2) The use of native turf for the proposed ponding areas with additional landscaping in and around the eastern pond. ' b. Provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet ordinance requirements and all the plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer. If the grading plan shows the elimination of any mature trees (eight inches in caliper or more), the applicant shall replace these trees in accordance with the woodland protection ordinance. c. A revised lighting plan that shows the style and height of the proposed parking lot lights. The lights cannot be more than 25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminary. The plan also must show that the lighting would not exceed the maximum illumination as allowed by code (O.4-foot-candles) at the property lines. d. A trash container enclosure plan that includes a fence that is at least 6 feet tall and a gate that is 100 percent opaque. e. A playground layout plan that includes the location and style of playground equipment. 1. Resod the lawn that is disturbed by construction activities. 2. Restripe the driveway onto McMenemy Street to include a turn lane. 3. Construct the required trash container enclosure. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. g Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to denv the drivewav access onto DeSoto Street. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All Denial of driveway request is because of concern that DeSoto is not currently designedlbuilt to carry additional traffic. When improvements are planned and completed on DeSoto Street, the church could then make it request for an access. City Manager Fursman noted that if additional design features are made for the McMenemy entrance, those could be bought back to the staff for modification. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to extend the meeting to complete the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 10 SITE PLAN ----,- i ,.- i: "II ~ II f l-, i. I , i , , Attachment 6 <:" !; ~ ~ , "" ~,~-' '" 111 () o ." -(J h <::> tJ '~~ ::J 0--- ." t C','," E; "" ,'<1 ~', C" " '" " h tJ ~ ,,' I:l "--''''''''':.1 ~ '-> < ,.'.~ " I r ! ,0. ~ i ' :;'""jl L ~ ~OEJ J"", ... ~~~ ~ I~ '" "'om ~ Fi~---- 'g L_~__ i I -. I --- "'-'f.'u ST PAUL HMONG ALLIANCE CItURCIt ADDITION 1na- McMENE:MY STREET MAPLEWOQD, MN 55117 rL,!1j~ ~~~~ ~ ~@ ~ ~ -;(JJ ~~ " ~ Attachment 7 In _.:~~~"?~'(- -'1--; :' , " \ \__~rJ: J -I ./,: I ' 'I: : ' : \ 'I " a (,' 1 , " , , I //1" -'-"I I,---~j .....-,--f I ~ I\~~ L::::<~,+:::" "j\'\J ,~~~.~~ ,j '- \\~>-----~ ; - '\: I, ,_",,,,,) -,-d I _-If,lf" iJI I :, \ ,;;,;~? r ,',~ ~1'~\~I"i' '~ 'U;;iJij , I ' i'.t"I' ~~j , I:: ril': l~<\ i~ iil '/I~" \!::::li,/ 1-/11:,,1' " 'QI 1\ \ I ' \ . ',' //,'1 I!: :: ~,~ I '~I\\\\_. ' " I ,: \Il' \ 11:'if: ::::::r:: I 1,'1 /11'1 "I,II'B I I ',I I ,I II III,'II~I II \ :Ill :\:f:~:'I1 II'," 1111~lIj : ~ L,; \:1:(1:: ~ 'I' ..llil'l 'L\\\] !flt~~:~ '1\'~ ".'" 1 \,_ J"ii \':i ....'\ \ v I ~~ 1, ,/i ~~! I, '.} I~' ~r '1 '-IIi I", , 1111/ \-. /(\,1 {i'~I" -\\\~ i \11\1$ I ':~:i!~ I'hl I 111'1 1111 " I::: 1I'11 ~ ' ~:::I ',1' :,I!:I /1',1\ '," , o ~ ! (') ! . I -------- ..._.____._...m___~._._. n_._..__ , , g~i~ I ST PAUL HMONG ALLIANCE I Ill! ~UU~ " , 'II IU!n Ie' GRADING & I CHURCH ADDITION i~IH .~ :I~ iiUI DRAINAGE PLAN 1770 McMENEMY STREET [Ii! MAPlEWOOD, MN 55117 ~~i~lffi '" ~;jil~ '" .....-- -"-...- i ~J " piT;;;m~-------- , I I-----~__J I -------:----.--- iUl ,^ ~ " :J: Gl ~ Z Gl " S; Z /__' ~ ~ II~I " ." " i'" p ~"Zfi\ ~ ~!~t " ~ (") i ,~~~~ . ST PAUL HMONG ALLIANCE ~~ Ie" j ~Ot: ~lp "..~ ~ SKETCH GRADING OJ;!: j CHURCH ADDITION ~iK ~i ,-0 PLAN ~-nz ~ 1770 McMENEMY STREET " g! 0 " il ,. ~?:l~ MAPLEWOOD, MN 55117 I! co II - Co( " ii ~,,-~....-.. 9- II " . "~ ",,,,g~ -,1::.:-,,)> ~p~~ ~ :;;'; )> me; ~ ~z o . 11!!I! i .. ~()O I. I.. ~. ii! '8~ :a:'i1~ .1 ::l~'!1 Ill~~ ~ ~ g ! I. 1 ~ II ! ! " ~ ill \! ~ I:l !< ~ Il ~ ~ III III \! II I:l ~ Il ~ ;:; ~ ;\ -.Ii t ~ ~ :: 0: ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . ~ .. ~ lj ~ z ~ 1(1<=== =~~= _1l=Il!l~~tIl~_=Il>:lil\!.!I~ ==;I:l===~ == I ~ to & ~ td I ~ .. 8 , . Illi'llll"'!I'II"J"""I!I!' ::~~llI~!l~!I~~1I ;:; ;\ ~ >:I ,; 0: :i ~ ~ :;: ~ !I ':"'""""i I Inlll."I.! I~nni ',d~ '''! ~ ;;: . III ~ ,'.11 I, ! III I 'ii I" , I Ii iig ~! -'I ~ ~ 1 iil !--lll'fl;;';"';;;-- ~ (") ~ ~~~~ ie' i IlJ LANDSCAPING PLAN ~ . ~ ..~ i O'l '"'II lL .....................-.--~'"-..........-... B ;I m m ~ . ~ < m ~ ~ " m -m i~ " ~ i I !j!'P ~n;p; lr' ,.~~~!~ Illi'1"1: ,I ."".~ " '",11...... ....... "l, g,..,.-> h. ,I;;I~ .... ~jfl ~~~;!~ " ',""10 \VI ,,~>.. ST PAUL HMONG ALLIANCE CHURCH ADDITION 1no McMENEMY STREET MAPlEWOOD, MN55117 <II> '0 ~~ :J: m ~ '" ~ -c~ I! ;~ II l~ 'I~ ~ o ~ m Iz ~~ g~ 5~ Q; ~c ~ g m ....c~ !' I II!!"""" ,I(), i'l, liel' ! !"tI ,. N ";1' . U~~: --,-"......._~-,-,_.-- BUILDING ELEVATIONS ", ;m ~~ m r ~ '" 5 Z ~ ~ o ~ c ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~I;) '''' '''' Il' m " :;j o z OZ ~~ g~ Zc Qr m:;:! ~~ ~c " ~ o m m ~.I . ST PAUL HMONG ALLIANCE CHURCH ADDITION ~ I 1no McMENEMY STREET 11 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55117 Attachment 9 ~~ ~ :! :J: m r ~ o Z ._,..,-,~ ." . . OZ ~~ o 5~ Q~ ~~ ~c " il m m x ~ ~ c. ~ :J: Z ~ o ~ " rn Z ~ m ~ ~ -~ ''I' ""1' ~ilf ~~~~ ~ ;ll!miIE~ ~i.f:~~hg II 1 c""~_;: I'. ,;,,1, .... ...if!- ~;~~!: 'I '.,"t[iS(~ ~ ~ ~.,~. '-- ~.------- 'j ~ .\i ~ -&. ~ \ '-S i- ~. ~ ! - ~-'h ;t \a ~1 n 11 ~ .. ~ 1: ~ Attachment 10 Attachment 11 St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church 1770 McMenemy Street; Maplewood, MN 55117 Phone: (651) 770-7595 Why Saint Paul Hmong Alliance Church Needs to Expand What God Has Called Us to Do God has commanded that every church carry out the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15- 18). St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church (5PHAC) has always believed in the Great Commission as its calling. Since its inception, 5PHAC has experienced many years of wonderful growth and many years of stunted growth. The most challenging years were the ten years from 2000 to 2010, where its growth has gone up and down, ultimately resulting in only a small increase in its overall growth. What's holding us back in our growth? What is our problem? How do we fix it so that we can continue to grow and carry out the Great Commission-especially in our local community? While there are many problems, when we look at our past history, we will see one of our major problems and realize what we need to do in order to grow. Learning from Our Past In 1984, 5PHAC decided to build a new church. That year SPHAC has approximately 400 members (see chart below). In 1988, when the first ground-breaking for the new building took place, SPHAC had 450 members. The statistics show that from 1984 to 1988, the church grew by a mere 50 members. This is an average of 12.5 members per year for four years. However, when the new building was completed in 1989, the membership grew from 450 to about 650, an increase of 200 in one year. From 1989 to 1998, when the Sunday school wing was added, SPHAC's membership went from 650 to about 2500, an average increase of 205 members per year for a period of 9 years. From 2000 to 2010, SPHAC has not increased its facility to allow room for more people. As a result (and this is sad news), SPHAC's membership went from 2,800 members to a little bit over 3,000 members. In other words, in a period of ten years-yes, a decade!-SPHAC grew only an average of 20 members per year! At the end of 2010, SPHAC renewed its membership and dropped the membership back to a total of 2,700 pius committed members. Here's the exciting news about the present: For the first six months of 2011, we already have 97 members (20 new families) join our church. If our growth trend continues, we will have about 200 new members (40 new families) for 2011. But the challenge is, with a physical limitation of our current facility, how long will they stay? We haven't had any more seating room for worship (let alone any other ministries) for the past decade. YEAR 1984 1986 1988 1989 1998 Z()()O 2002-04 FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Decision to build a new church This site was purchased First ground breaking Completed the building Sunday school extension N",,,,J,,,J I "u, e pal kil ,g Expand the parking lot MEMBERS (ADDrox.J 400 450 450 650 2,500 2,800 3,000 + Our history says that when SPHAC does not have a building to worship or when it hits a physical limitation in its facility, its average growth per year is 16 (12.5 to 20) members. When SPHAC takes a leap of faith to expand its facility to allow more room for pepple to worship and do ministry, its average growth per year is about 200 members. There is an undeniable correlation between the growth of our membership and our facility's ability to hold it. Our Current Problems and Needs SPHAC's current problem right now is overcrowding. Let me try to put it in perspective. The capacity of our current sanctuary is 450 people. As of the end of June 2011, we have 549 families (2711 members). We have about one hundred more family units than seating capacity! Even with two worship services and a third youth worship service, we stili haven't put a dent on the problem. The above is just the problem of having room for people to worship on Sundays. When we bring together our 25 plus ministries in the areas of discipleship, ministries and missions, our probiem of overcrowding is magnified. The following is a summarized list of the problems or limitations that we have with our current facility: A. Sanctuary . Seating capacity is designed for 450 people . -Current attendees are about 450 per service (there are currently 2 church services and a third youth service) B. All Our Current Rooms . Class Rooms . Childcare . Alliance Ministries . Offices . Kitchen/Storage - Inadequate in space and class rooms - Inadequate in space and size _ Inadequate in space for fellowship and training - Office sharing causes congestion - Kitchen is small and storage is inadequate C. Fire and Safety Hazards . Too many people in a confined space . Inadequate air circulation Planning for the Future Given our past history of growth and our current problems, the way to grow is to expand our facility's capacity. We do understand that a lot still depend on other factors-such as prayer, the quality of the ministries and trainings and the commitment of our people. We are also working very hard to address these issues as well. However, while we're working hard on the things that has just been mentioned, we want to make sure that our facility isn't the factor limiting our growth. . While all that has been said is centered on our facility and its capacity to sustain growth, let's remember that the purpose for the expansion of our church is the Great Commission. If we want to keep our €:Ailar9r:l ir:l tt:le faith "no tn r~~rh nllt to thp Inc:;t in our communitv.we need to have room for them to worship, to teach them and to disciple them. Our church is one of the means to this end; it is the center for all these activities. The time for our church to expand is here. Attachment 12 Enaineeriila Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: Hmon9 Alliance Church Expansion @ 1770 McMenemy Street 11-25 Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer DATE: 11-7-11 PLAN SET: Conditional Use Permit Review dated 8-31-11 REPORTS: Revised Stonebooke Engineering Traffic Study dated 10-31-11 Storm Water Computations dated 10-21-11 The Hmong Alliance Church is proposing a facility and parking lot expansion at 1770 McMenemy Street. The Church plans to construct a new sanctuary, office space, Sunday school classrooms and a gym area. The existing parking lot will expand from about 250 to 360 stalls to accommodate future increased church attendance. The site will keep the existing entrance to McMenemy Street and open a new entrance to Desoto Street. Request The applicant is requesting a revision of their Conditional Use Permit and design review. This does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review prior to issuing building and grading permits. The scope of this review includes aspects of site design including, but not limited to, geometrics, paving, grading, utilities, temporary sediment and erosion control and permanent storm water management. Engineering staff has reviewed traffic operations impacts for intersections affected by the proposed expansion. The following are Engineering review comments on the design review, and act as conditions prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits: Hvdroloqy and Stormwater Manaqement 1) Provide computations for the 1 0-year/24-hour rainfall event. ?) PrnlfirlA "nmp"t"tion!'< for the 1-inch of runoff over all disturbed impervious surfaces. 3) Use 4.2 inches for the 10-year/24-hour rainfall and 2.8 inches for the 2-year/24-hour rainfall event. 4) Summarize the proposed runoff volumes for the 2-year, 10-year, 100-year and back-to- back 1 OO-year rainfall events flowing to each proposed ponding area in cubic feet. Provide comparison between volume generated versus volume provided forthe back-to- back 1 OO-year event on the proposed site. All onsite ponding must have adequate volume to contain the 100-year back-to-back storm event. 5) All structures near no-outlet ponds shall have a minimum of 5 feet of freeboard from the highest elevation of the Back-to-Back 1 OO-year storm. Applicant shall ascertain elevations of all low floor openings and appropriately expand off-site topography. 6) Provide pre-treatment of storm water runoff prior to discharge into ponds andrain gardens. Pre-treatment includes sump catch basins, grass strips or swales for capturing large sediment particles prior to discharge into basins. 7) For ponding areas proposed along the north side of the site abutting the Ripley properties, the HWL must be at least 2 feet below the top of the pond embankment and emergency overflows in catastrophic events must be routed to the south. 8) Pond designs shall provide a means for promoting infiltration along the bottom and sides lopes of the ponds such as rock trenches and tree plantings. Applicant shall provide a procedure for excavation and construction of the gardens such that the bottoms of the gardens are not impacted. 9) Prior to approval of building/grading permits, provide at least two soil borings and infiltration testing at all ponding locations on site to support the Soil Group Type "A" assumptions for pond infiltration. Provide infiltration tests using test pits using an infiltration testing method approved by the City Engineer. 10) Provide drawdown computations for the ponding areas based on infiltration tests. Pond drawdown time shall not exceed 72 hours. 11) Adjust hydrologic computations to reflect on-site land uses. For example, woods with a Hydrologic Soil Group "A" should be denoted with an NRCS curve number of 30. 12) Provide secondary outlet elevations in HydroCAD computations. 13) Proposed HydroCADsurface areas for Ponds 2P and 4P do not correspond to the pond footprints shown on the plans. Explain. 14) The Pond 2P elevations appear to be tied into the wrong contours. Revise Pond 2P SlJch that the design contours are properly tied into the embankment. 15) Proposed Pond 3P is deficient for storage of the back-to-back 1 OO-year storm when compared to the plan grades. Please revise and verify. 16) Provide the following information on revised plans for all ponds: a. 100-year HWL b. 1 OO-year Back-to-Back HWL c. Stabilized Emergency Overflow Routes with elevations and intended off-site discharge route. Gradinq and Drainaqe 17) Provide complete site grading plan including tie-ins for new parking lot construction along eastern portion of the site and any adjustments to existing parking lot grades to the west of the building. Ponding areas shown in this area appear to meet the intent of positive drainage away from neighboring homes along Desoto Street. 18) Pond footprints do not appear to be final. Revise HydroCAD computations according to any pond surface contours that are edited as part of the final grading plan. 19) Provide drainage arrows indicated any off~site flow directions to or from the site. 20) Graded embankments shall not exceed 3: 1 slopes. Slopes with grades greater than 3: 1 shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer with plans approved by the City Engineer. 21) Applicant must provide grading and volume verifications of the proposed ponding basins. 22) Applicant shall indicate finished and lower floor elevations of the proposed buildings. SWPPP 23) Provide site stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). SWPPP should include, but is not limited to, construction site storm water management, final stabilization, procedures for construction of storm water BMP's to inhibit compaction of soils, and ongoing maintenance protocols for temporary and permanent BMP's. 24) Provide design for proposed pervious pavements. Retaininq Walls 25) A preliminary structural analysis by the City indicates that the existing block retaining wall on the south property line of the site is failing and will become a hazard to the property owners to the south. I he applicant shall prepare ellgilll:""",j 1-'1""", tu I "pail and/or replace this wall. 26) All retaining walls over 4 feet tall must be designed by a registered professional engineer with retaining wall expertise. Retaining wall plans shall have top and bottom elevations. 27) All retaining wall tiebacks shall not encroach on abutting properties. Applicant must obtain temporary construction easements for all construction activities that will occur on other property. Geometrics 28) Provide dimensioned site geometrics plan including typical parking aisle widths, stall widths, setback dimensions from property lines, drive aisle widths and curb return radii. 29) Show driveway entry radii from Desoto Street and McMenemy Street. 30) Clear existing brush along Desoto Street to a distance of 30 feet from back of curb to allow for adequate visibility of the driveway entrance. Monument signs must be set back 30 feet from the .back of curb. Plantings and shrubs within the driveway area shall not exceed 12 inches in height. 31) Provide typical stall angle for angled parking stalls. 32) Provide details on driveway entrance pavement sections and construction of entrances matching into public roadways. 33) All parking areas must have concrete curb and gutter. Provide detail on plans. 34) Show grading, ramps and associated details for the handicapped parking stalls. All handicapped entries and ramps from parking lot shall meet ADA requirements. 35) Show proof of parking along northerly access driveway from McMenemy Street. Utilities 36) The applicant intends to utilize the existing sewer and water connections from Ripley Avenue. Existing sewer line is a 4-inch pipe at a 4% slope. Provide fixture unit computations to assure that existing sewer service line has adequate capacity. 37) Applicant shall perform a condition survey on the existing 4-inch sewer service and perform any needed upgrades or repairs as part of the expansion project. 38) Show storm sewer drainage plans with proposea catcn DaSlns and plpihg. 39) Add the following notes to the construction plans: 40) Applicant shall contact St. Paul Regional Water Services regarding capacity of the existing 8-inch water line from Ripley Street. Landscapinq 41) All native seed mixtures and plant material shall be approved by the City staff open space coordinator. Details 42) Submit construction plans with details for construction of driveways, pavements, curb, infiltration basins, and other necessary plan details. Other 43) Applicant shall submit cash escrow or letter of credit amounting to 125% of the value of the proposed parking lot paving, landscaping, storm water basin, and final stabilization work. 44) The developer phall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 45) The Olivner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting agencies. 46) The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all stormwater treatment devices (sumps, basins, ponds, etc.). Traffic - Study Intersections . Due to the proposed expansion and desire to open a new driveway entrance onto Desoto Street, the applicant was required to perform a Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic analysis focused on Sunday operations of the neighborhood roadways. The most intensive use of the church sile will occur on Sunday during the two church services which start at 9:00am and 12:30pm. The services last for 1-1/2 hours, so egress from the church is expected (and was observed) to begin shortly after 10:30am and 2:00pm. The morning service typically has more attendees than the afternoon service. Four neighborhood intersections were analyzed as part of the analysis: McMenemy/Roselawn, McMenemy/Larpenteur, Desoto/Larpenteur and Desoto/Roselawn. Clearly, during the morning hours of Sunday, the vast majority of traffic along McMenemy Street from Roselawn to Larpenteur is due to activities at the church. The current Sunday operations of the 4 study intersections as noted above, while impacted by church traffic, are not presently experienCing operational deficiencies beyond acceptable levels of service. With the proposed expansion, however, staff anticipates slight increases in delays at the 4 study intersections, but not to the point that future Sunday operating levels of service will decrease beyond current levels. Traffic - Desoto Street One primary concern relative to this expansion is the opening of access to Desoto Street from the property. Currently, the church accesses McMenemy Street. The expansion plan calls for utilizing a curb cut from Desoto Street installed as part of the City street reconstruction project in 2007 as well as the access from McMenemy Street. The applicant anticipates gating the access point and permitting use only during Sunday church services and other large events. In all, the applicant indicates that the access may be used 65~70 times per year. Sunday traffic volumes to Desoto Street will increase as a result of opening the entrance. After reviewing the traffic study, staff has made the following conclusions: While the property owner has rights to access Desoto Street, from a traffic and intersection operations standpoint, engineering staff feels that the additional access point is not required for distributing or otherwise improving area intersection operations. Sight distance of the driveway location was analyzed. Staff feels that there is adequate stopping sight distance in both the northbound and southbound directions. However, staff does recommend trimming back dense foliage from the edge of the roadway to better define the driveway cut and increase visibility. Speed is a concern of area residents. :starr conaucteq a Spot speed study UII O","utu Street south of Ripley. The 85th-percentile speeds northbound and southbound are 32 mph and 37 mph respectively. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. The applicant's traffic impact study indicates that 1/3 of the trips generated by the church will utilize the Desoto Street access when open. Given the distribution of parking stalls on the site, the location of the building entrance, and the directional split of current trips to the existing entrance, staff finds this distribution reasonable. A recent traffic count on Desoto Street indicates that the ADT is about 500 south of Ripley Avenue. Sunday traffic averages about 80-100 trips lower than then ADT for the rest of the week. Based on the applicant's traffic study and field observations by City personnel: o The church will add 100-120 additional trips (to and from) Desoto Street for their morning service and 70-80 additional trips (to and from) during their afternoon service. The applicant's traffic study indicates about a 50/50 split north and south. Staff believes that about 2/3rds of the trips will access Larpenteur Avenue from Desoto Street and vice-versa. o Ingress to the church will span over about a 30-45 minute period before each service. The majority of egress trips from the church will occur over about a 15- minute period after each service. Attachment 13 Environmental Review Project: St., Paul Hmong Alliance Church Additional Date of Plans: August 31, 2011 Date of Review: October 5, 2011 Location: 1770 McMenemy Street Reviewers: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator (651) 249-2416, virqinia.qaynor@ci.maplewood.mn.us Background: The project involves the expansion to the St. Paul Hmong Alliance's existing church building and parking lot. There are significant trees being removed with the expansion and biofiltration basins being constructed for stormwater management. A. Tree Preservation Ordinance: Maplewood's tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree and bases replacement on that size. In essence, the ordinance requires an applicant to plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees because they removed a significant number of large trees. Tree Removal and Required Replacement: The landscape plan shows a total of 97 trees on the site, 73 of those are significant, for a total of 1385.42 caliper inches of significant trees. Thirty-nine of the significant trees are planned for removal, for a total of 322.65 caliper inches removed. The required tree replacement for this project is 15.92 caliper inches, or 8 trees that are 2 inches in diameter. In addition to tree replacement requirements, the applicant must also comply with the City's screening requirements from a parking lot adjacent residential property. For this reason, 8 trees replanted on such a large site would be inadequate to meet the screening requirements. The applicant's landscape plan shows a total of 55 trees to be replanted on the site. There are three species of trees proposed including Japanese Tree Lilac, Northern Catalpa, and American Arborvitae. The landscape plan does not call out the size of these trees, so overall tree replacement cannot be determined. Tree Preservation Recommendation: The applicant must submit a revised landscape plan showing the size ofthe replacement trees. 1 B. Biofiltration Basins: The applicant is proposing three biofiltration basins with the expansion of the building and parking lot. As required by the city, the proposal calls for using plants, not seed, in these basins. Biofiltration Basin Planting Recommendations: The applicant shall submit a revised lal71dscape plan that lists the plantings proposed in the basins. The plan should specify the number, species, and size of plantings. 2 Attachment 14 September 30,2011 Dear Mr. Mattin, Subject: Hmong Alliance Church Addition on Desoto St. . I just noticed this comments submission had a deadline of September 23"1, 2011, so please accept my apologies for the tardiness ofthis feedb~ck. One oft\:Je neighborsjust brought to my attention that the traffic study was not-yet submitted by the Hmong Alliance Church and was uncertain how that would delay the progression of this proposal. We discussed a possible October 4110 . Planning Commission meeting date for this particular proposal. I will check the website continuously or email you to determine if this date is still tentative or set despite the traffic study. My comments regarding the expansion proposal are as follows: 1. The original Council meeting on July 8, 2002 denied the driveway request due to . concern_that Desoto was not currently designed/built to carry additional traffic. Aside from the repaving process, what occurred in the street revision to ensure the-street is able to carry more traffic? There are pavement depressions/holes starting (a few of them) towards Larpenteur. If the road was not changed to add Iighting-(street lamps), sidewalks added, streets widened, etc.. . are the pavement changes from street revision sufficient to consider issues of safety and increased street usage due to significant traffic increases? . 2. Why hasn't the McMenemy U-drive addition been exhausted as an alternative for an additional exit? Waf; totd at church meeting thlit "that topic is not currently up for discussion".' They also stated they could not declare an additional exit onto McMenemy as an "emergency eidt"'due to a minimum 50-foot distance-between exits and that an exit onto Desoto could be declared an emergency exit. If it's gated all days except Sundays, the emergency personnel would haye to break the gating anyways and would likely use the McMenemy entrance anyways as emergency route. 3 If city passes proposal to build exit onto Desoto St.--ensure gating datesltimes, gate to be open are listed on conditional use permit. Limit gate openings to Sundays, Easter & Christmas holidays. This way, if problems are encountered' in the. future, there is existing documentation of what should be occurring. 4. Concern about the increase in traffic changing the planned quality/character of neighborhood and potential financial impact to residents/citizens of Desoto St. We are currently experiencing difficult eoonomic times for many families. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Please contact me at email: hlave002@.umn.edu or phone: 651.334-0733. Lisa Hlavenka, Kevin & Kaitlyn Gaeu on 1780 Desoto St., Maplewood, MN 5S 117 . . q'~"."i.~'..\\<I. I . ll,f.. ,":,r. Attachment 15 I live near the corner of Ripley and Desoti{and I have two concerns regarding the . expansion _of the Hrriong Alliance Church; . . ,'. -- Since this property Is zoned "Farm" I que$tlon how much hard surface to green , space Is being allowed,itseems that the hard surface area.is extrerrielyhigh, I saY this, as a member of this neighborhood, that witnesses the struggles we have with dealing wlthiriadequate storm drainage. The storm drainage system in the neighborhood needs pumps to clear Qut at least two (2) of the local ponds after . rains. We hear the pumps on Edgerlon &'Ripley pumping all night long for days on end. I think that some of the Church'sdr/iinage will end up In these ponds. , ." The secondrrialn Issue I have is the acce$sdrlve onto_Desoto, Our neighborhood hasrrianysmall kids and no sidewalks so there are times when there Is alol of __ activity in the streets. Adding more cars through our neighborhood wlllchalige the character of our small neighborhood as the cars come to or lealie the Church's parking lots for services and other events; Many of these times will add many cars durning short periods of time. This Is what happened at Har Mar whim Cub moved in: Cub wanted an access to the east Into the residential neighborhood. The residents did not want the additional trafflc~ They argued that the added cars was not appropriate for their residential neighborhood. I think the same is true in our case. Letter from Dick Freimuth Attachment 16 September 19,2011 Dear Michael Martin - Planner, My family and I have concerns about the expansion of the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church. One, potentially you are letting up to 3000 cars exit onto Desoto Street. Desoto Street barely holds two cars side by side as it is. There are no sidewalks or shoulders on Desoto Street, many people walk up and down that street daily and there are many small children on Desoto tbat play. Potentially having 3000 people exiting onto our street is a huge concern for safety. McMenemy Street is wider and has a large shoulder on each side of the street. We feel that one exit to the new Church onto McMenemy should be sufficient and safer for our community. Feel free to contact us at: Thomas and Teresa WilIkom 1838 Desoto Street Maplewood, MN 55117 twiIlkom@lsowashco.kI2.mn.us 651-778-9917 Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION ., WHEREAS, the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church applied for a revision to their conditional use permit because of their plans to enlarge their church parking lot, to add a driveway to DeSoto Street and to build additions to their existing building. WHEREAS, this permit allows the church and Sunday school. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1770 McMenemy Street. The legal description is: Except South 95 feet of West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 5 acres and except West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 4 feet of South 5 acres; being in North 10 acres of Southwest 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 (subject to road and easements) in Section 27, Township 29, Range 22. And Commencing at a point on the West line of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, said point being 166.98 feet South from the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17; running thence East and parallel with the North line of said quarter quarter Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the East _line of said quarter quarter Section, thence running South along the East line of said quarter quarter Section 166.98 feet; thence running West and parallel with the North line of said quarter quarter Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the West line of said Section; thence running North along said last named line 166.98 feet to the place of beginning; excepting therefrom the West 342 feet thereof; and except land described in Document No. 2137431. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 15, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. 2. The city council reviewed this request on , 2011. The council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council conditional use permit revision, because: the above-described 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped October 26, 2011. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval includes the parking lot expansion, the new driveway to DeSoto Street and the proposed FllaYllrol,lREI buildinq additions. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void.. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Regularly maintain the grounds and pick up all debris as well as maintain the decorative wood screening fences alonll the Rarth siEle of tho site. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The city council may require the church to limit seatinq capacity in the main sanctuarv additienal Flarl(inll sFlaGos if a parking shortage develops. e. TAe Fllans for the driveway to DoSate Street, the fl,llure GhUrCA aElElition and futuro gyrnnasium arc nat aFlFlrO'Jed. These shallBa SUBmitted to tAe City CounGiI for aFlFlrO'Jal of a re'Jisod senditional use Flerrnit. 7. The city council may require the church to make changes to the site, if the council deems it necessary or prudent, during future reviews of the conditional use permit. 8. The church shall provide adoEll,lato sGreeninll af the now Flarl(inglot and the new driveway frorn aEljaGont namas BY Fllanting, Berrning or Beth a six-foot-tall, solid decorative wood fence to screen the parkinq lots on the south, west and east sides of the site to match the screeninq fence on the north lot line. This screeninq fence is to provide a parkinq lot screen as required by city code. 9. The qate at the proposed DeSoto Street entrance must be closed at all times, except for Sundays and durinq holiday services. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2011,