Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/20041. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. August 16, 2004 5. Public Headngs 7:00 Home Occupation License (1477 County Road C) 7:30 Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse (2050 White Bear Avenue) Lot Division Conditional Use Permit 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. August 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. September 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Bartol c. September 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Diedch d. October 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations a. Commissioner's Appreciation Picnic - Wednesday, September 15 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Present Present Present Mary Dierich Present Michael Grover Present Daniel Lee Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVALOFAGENDA Commissioner Dierich requested that staff add the Findings of Fact before the public hearing portion of the Summerhill Senior Housing Cooperative discussion. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bartol had a correction on page 3, the second from the last paragraph changing the word extensive to excessive. Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 19, 2004. Commissioner Bartol moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 19, 2004, as amended. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Roberts to ask the Code Enforcement Officer, Butch Gervais, to go out to 1705 Abel Street for an inspection. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -2- Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler Abstentions-Desai, Mueller, Pearson V. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Roberts reviewed the findings of fact and the "valid bases" for findings of fact and the reasons that are "not valid" bases for findings of fact. This information had been included in the planning commission packet for review. Miscellaneous discussion by the commission members followed after the reading. VI. PUBLIC HEARING a. Summerhill Senior Housing Cooperative (935 Ferndale Street North) Ms. Finwall said Transfiguration Church proposes to construct an addition to their church and middle school site located at 6133 North 15th Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. Because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church would like to sell the elementary school site. Transfiguration Church wants to support senior housing in the community. As such, they interviewed several senior housing developers for the purchase of their elementary school site. After several months of interviewing potential developers, the church selected Nichols Development, LLC, to purchase and develop the site as a senior cooperative housing development. Nichols Development is proposing a 44-unit senior cooperative building for the site called Summerhill of Maplewood. The proposed building would have three stories, 61 underground parking stalls and 26 surface parking stalls. The units would be sold as a cooperative in which residents buy a share of the building and pay a monthly carrying fee, until the eventual sale of their unit. City staff recommends approval of the land use plan change and rezoning for the new senior cooperative from school and single dwelling residential to high multiple dwelling residential. Commissioner Dierich asked Ms. Finwall what the percentage of seniors was in the City of Maplewood and how that percentage would change in the next 20 years? Ms. Finwall said off hand she did not have those statistics or the met council's projections for seniors but perhaps the applicant could give statistics from the Maxfield Research study when he comes forward to speak. Commissioner Dierich asked who would be responsible for the street repair after the site was built? Mr. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. He said the developer would be responsible for the street repair. The city wants to see that any work done fits in with the work that was done to the street in 1998-1999. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -3- Commissioner Dierich asked if the issues brought up by the engineering department regarding the grading and drainage going into the Nature Center had been resolved? Mr. Cavett said the original plan had not addressed that concern. With the new three story building this change would address that issue and city staff would ensure that is taken care of properly. Commissioner Dierich asked what the soils were in the area and if it would be difficult to excavate that deeply? Mr. Cavett said the city found the soils were variable but generally were sandy in nature. Commissioner Dierich asked if the zoning was changed to R-3M would the proposed density be okay or would the city have to give a variance? Ms. Finwall said the city's comprehensive plan is divided into three levels. High, medium and Iow and the applicants are requesting the high level, which would allow for the requested 44 units. In the R-3M zoning, the maximum number of units the developer could build is 27. Commissioner Trippler thanked Ms. Finwall for including the map in the packet that represented the residents who were opposed and the people who were in support. This makes it easier to review the site to see where the public opinion lies relative to the property. He would recommend staff include information like this in future packets. He said when staff mentioned there would be fewer vehicle trips with the senior coop compared to the existing elementary school he heard moans from the audience. According to the information provided in the packet on a yearly basis he calculated the senior housing would have 62,415 vehicle trips per year and the school would have 53,430 vehicle trips per year. That is assuming the school is closed for three months out of the year and closed on weekends. The overall impact on the neighborhood would consist of more traffic in the neighborhood with the senior housing proposal. When he looks at the zoning map he sees mostly R-1 zoning and doesn't believe this proposal is a good fit for the neighborhood. He believes senior citizen housing is important and needed, however, not in this particular neighborhood. Commissioner Mueller said mixed housing is being built all over and seems to be a trend. This is basically mixed housing put in the middle of single-family housing. Someone mentioned schools are not busy in the summer and on weekends. He is an educator and the school is always busy at night, on the weekends and in the summer months. He would prefer to have traffic in his neighborhood spread out throughout the day as it would be with senior housing located here compared to busy traffic in the morning and in the evening when he is driving around. Commissioner Grover asked as a point of clarification if the footprint of the building was spread out more since revising the plan from a four story building to a three story building, which would mean less green space for this proposal? Ms. Finwall said the footprint of the building is larger so there is less green space. Commissioner Grover asked how the financing has changed with the decrease in units? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -4- Ms. Finwall said with the city's density calculations for senior housing the applicant was able to add more two-bedroom units with the 44-unit proposal, which made it financially feasible. She said she would ask the applicant to address that issue when coming forward to speak. Commissioner Trippler said he is in favor of mixed use housing but he thought what the city was trying to accomplish with zoning was to have a gradual increase or decrease from one zoning to another. In this particular case the applicant wants to go from School (S) to (R-3H), which is the highest residential zoning the city allows. If this proposal was for (R-2) he would not have a problem with it. He asked staff if the city had a zoning jump like this anywhere else in the City of Maplewood? Ms. Finwall said staff would review the zoning map and respond in a moment. However, one example Ms. Finwall thought of was the Resoto Senior Housing on Roselawn Avenue that has 70 units adjacent single-family housing to the south. Mr. Roberts offered two more examples Gere Apartments at the corner of County Road B and Hazelwood Avenue west of John Glenn Middle School, which is a 70-unit apartment building with single-family homes on three sides and a school across the street and apartments on the west side of English between Ripley and Frisbie Avenue, which is a 30-unit apartment building south of the open space mixed with single-family homes. Chairperson Fischer said the city has been looking at mixed uses in the Hillcrest Area and the Gladstone Area. She asked if there were any buffer zones built into the mixed-use zoning? Ms. Finwall said in the new mixed-use zoning district the city requires buffering of 50 feet to the mixed-use building. With multiple dwelling units adjacent single-family homes the city has the same required setback. In this case both proposals meet the increased setbacks due to the fact that this proposal would be across the street from single-family homes. The setback would be an average of 115 feet from the residential properties. Commissioner Desai asked if this proposal went through as senior housing and the units didn't sell, would the applicant have to come back to the city to convert it to an apartment building or condominiums? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission is approving the zoning and comprehensive land use change. This won't be a PUD approving senior housing, however, the developer is proposing a senior cooperative and with the financing it cannot be converted to other housing for 40 or more years. It would not require city approval to convert the building from seniors to apartments because they meet the current parking requirements, but it would require major financial approvals. Commissioner Dierich said with mixed-use zoning the city is talking about planning for businesses and housing to be in the same area together, which is different than this. You can have mixed uses, however, mixed-use zoning is different. She asked how many units in this proposal are due to density units for underground parking? Ms. Finwall said she doesn't have the answer to that. City code allows an additional 300 square feet per unit, per underground parking stall, which can be added onto the gross acre of the lot to increase the density. Perhaps the applicant can answer that. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -5- Commissioner Dierich said this is a land use change and a zoning change, which means if the applicant gets R-3H zoning it's possible the applicant could come back and say they are building something other than senior housing. The city has a proposal but not a plan yet. Ms. Finwall said any newly proposed multiple dwelling would have to go through he CDRB process so it's not a done deal yet. But with rezoning and a comprehensive land use change they are not necessarily bound to this senior housing project. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development, Nichols Development, 350 West Burnsville Parkway, Burnsville, addressed the commission. The information from Maxfield Research states that the Census for 1990 to 2000 in the City of Maplewood for residents 65 and older went from 3,680 to 5,257, which is an increase of 43% over 10 years. In 1990 Maplewood residents 75 and older was 1,577 and in 2000 was 2,674, which was a 70% increase. He printed demographics off the I nternet for the year 2000 and Maplewood residents ages 55 and older was 16% of the population. 8% of the Maplewood residents were 75 and older in 2000. The impact for reducing the units is quite large with this building being a senior cooperative. The financing is based on a HUD insured 40-year fixed rate mortgage and is not subsidized in any way. The residents that have ownership in the building will pay for the building insurance. When Nichols Development proposed 52 units it was more financially feasible for HUD with the payments for the mortgage and insurance. That could be better balanced for the monthly mortgage payments including the cost of operations for the building. With the reduction of units from 52 to 44 that is the least amount of units they can have for units of this size and they are confident they can make it work with 44 units. Anything less than 44 units would not be long term financially feasible and you would see spikes in the monthly carrying charges for the seniors as time goes on. With the HUD insurance at the point the "shovel hits the ground" 90% of the units must have a reservation on them at which point 60% of the minimum share payment must be in hand. Minimum share payment is approximately 1/3 of the cost of the unit. A $150,000 unit means a prospective owner must put up $50,000 and once 60% of that is collected they can break ground and move forward. Mr. Armstrong said it would be close to an act of god to switch this senior cooperative building to a rental building because it is registered with the State of Minnesota, listed as a corporation, and because of the 40-year mortgage financing. Mr. Armstrong introduced Father Bob Hart and asked him to speak. Father Bob Hart, Pastor at Transfiguration Church, 935 Ferndale Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. The parish was founded in 1939 and one of their primary goals has been to educate the children. They realized several years ago that the property at 935 Ferndale Street North was not accomplishing that goal because the building was not large enough. They started building at the 15th street and Century Avenue corner in Oakdale and they are now in the last stage of a three-stage process. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -6- Father Hart said the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis is strongly dedicated to senior housing. He was at a meeting a few months ago where that fact was reiterated. When the church started looking at selling the property they decided senior housing would make a lot of sense to the neighborhood but also to the community. They looked at several developers and when Nichols Development came forward with their proposal, the church had people review the sites that Nichols Development were involved with. One of the church's fears was that someone would buy the property and they would have a building that would be half full and the building would not be used to the fullest. Then the neighbors would be really upset that the building was not full. The church looked at their goal to have senior housing and this plan made sense to the church to go this direction with a company that had a proven track record. Mr. Armstrong gave a brief description of the Nichols Development and then introduced Ms. Dena Rae Meyer. Ms. Dena Rae Meyer, Director of Sales and Marketing, Nichols Development, 350 West Burnsville Parkway, Burnsville, addressed the commission. Nichols Development started mentioning Summerhill of Maplewood in their ads and because of that she has received approximately 50 telephone calls inquiring about this development proposal in Maplewood. Those people are from the Maplewood community and 5 of those callers want to put money down now to reserve a unit. Two of the five callers live in the immediate area and want to stay in the immediate area. As part of the HUD requirement there cannot be anyone younger than 55 years old living here. Because the people that would live in this building would be part owners theytake great pride in both the inside and outside of the building. They have taken comments from the neighborhood and are now going to put screened in porches off the decks of the units. Other developments would love to have screened in porches with the bugs in Minnesota, this allows people to enjoy the outdoors longer. They will have nine-foot ceilings, full sized washers and dryers in each unit and the square footage has ranged from 1,100 to 1,800 in some of their other developments, however, in Maplewood the units would be a bit smaller. There is a great room for gatherings, fitness center, guest suite, underground heated parking and a carwash. Security is an important concern with residents and they take great pride in the extra security. Every resident receives a key card that allows them entrance to the building and garage. These key cards are individually programmed in case someone looses their key card then one card can be programmed instead of having to re-key the whole building. A lot of residents that take up residence in Summerhill buildings go south for the winter. Many also have cabins and are gone most of the summer. For this reason there is less traffic coming and going from the building and traffic concerns shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Armstrong said Summerhill has built units in Eden Prairie, which is a 44-unit building that opened in 2001, Summerhill of Bloomington, which is a 44-unit building that opened in January 2002, Summerhill of Apple Valley with 70-units that opened in November 2003, they will be breaking ground in October for Summerhill of Cottage Grove for a 56-unit building and are currently working on a building in Hamline Park in St. Paul for a 44-unit building and they are looking at some additional communities as well. He added the Nichols Development has listened to the community with their concerns and have made several changes including moving the building, reducing the number of units from 52 to 44 units, and reducing the size of the building from four stories to three stories. They have also reduced the slope of the building and are screening the decks, as well as some other changes. Mr. Armstrong introduced the architect, Mr. Link Wilson and asked him to come forward. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -7- Mr. Link Wilson, Architect, Miller Hanson Partners, 1201 Hawthorne Avenue, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. Miller Hanson Partners, a housing design firm was established in 1939. They have a long track record with the Nichols Development and are aware of the problems and concerns that arise with designing and constructing buildings in different communities. Mr. Wilson reviewed the building design plans for both the audience and the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked with the reduction of units from 52 to 44 units, how many units had one bedroom verses two bedrooms? Mr. Armstrong said with the 44-unit building they are proposing to have 12 one-bedroom, one- bath units, 18 two-bedroom, two-bath units, and 14 one-bedroom, plus a den and a bath units. Ms. Finwall said the applicant could get up to 46 units without any density bonuses with this proposal. Commissioner Dierich asked if the applicant went to a flat roof with a mansard edge on it how much lower would that make the building for the neighborhood? Mr. Wilson said it is not a style that they prefer and he spends a lot of time out on construction sites and he sees roof leaks and problems with that style of roof. Flat roofs do not last as long and they have problems with ice dams. From the mid point of the roof you would gain about 8 feet but with a mansard edge that would change it to about 5 feet. In his opinion, a flat roof would not be as visually appealing on this building design. Commissioner Dierich said because this neighborhood was built in the 1950's many apartment buildings at that time had a garden level. She asked if they could have a garden level in this building to lower the building. Mr. Wilson said in his experience this type of homebuyer would not particularly like to live in a half submerged home. With a garden level home a person could not have a deck or screened porch either. There are also security issues to deal with for the seniors, and buyers like their units built up and off the ground. Commissioner Dierich asked what the average income level was for people that buy these types of units? Ms. Meyer said off hand she did not know the average income level, however, HUD requires that individuals can't spend more than 46% of their annual income on their monthly carrying charges, which range from $1,000 to $1,500 a month. Commissioner Bartol said the gables are stepped back and he is not sure what Commissioner Dierich was trying to accomplish with a mansard roof because that casts a greater shadow because the mansard roof adds an immediate four feet where a gable roof ads a gradual 8 feet. Mr. Wilson said they have a 4-12 slope and a shadow cast off of that would be less than a mansard roof. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -8- Commissioner Pearson asked if the underground parking would ingress and egress from the north? Mr. Wilson said that is correct. Commissioner Pearson asked if they planned on having a "safe room" for the residents? Mr. Wilson said the garage is considered to be a (S3) structure and is made of 12-inch reinforced concrete block and has a 12-inch precast concrete lid on it. If there were a tornado, he believes the entire neighborhood would want to be in the underground garage because it would be a very safe place to be. Commissioner Pearson asked if the 18 foot-wide garage door on the north side needed to be required to handle 100 mph winds? Mr. Wilson said the 18 foot-wide garage door probably could not withstand the 100 mph winds. However, there are two different egress and ingress to the garage and there are safe refuge areas within the garage area. Commissioner Trippler said as part of any type of retirement community he would be looking at pathways and other recreational areas for seniors to enjoy. He asked where the trail shown on the plans led? Mr. Wilson said the trail connects to the sidewalk. This is also a way into the Nature Center and is also a way for emergency vehicles to gain access to the property by driving on the sidewalk. Commissioner Trippler asked if there would be any benches for people to sit on around the grounds? He also asked if the water shown on the plans were ponds or would they be storm catch basins? Mr. Wilson said those are not ponds they are more of an overflow. There will be a playground area for the neighborhood as well as visitors or relatives of the residents. There is also a patio area for residents to enjoy. About 1/3 of the floor area in these buildings is common area. It is a community room, guest suite, business center, office, craft room, a billiard room etc. Commissioner Trippler asked what the size of the patio area was because it looked quite small. Ms. Meyer said it is not a patio it's a four-season gazebo with some soft seating and a big screen television and outside of the gazebo is a slab of concrete with some exterior seating and a gas grill. They wait until the residents move in and get comfortable and allow the residents to have input as to where they believe the benches should be placed instead of placing them haphazardly. Mr. Wilson said his design plan did not show this gazebo that Ms. Meyer is referring to but it will be brought to the community design review board at their meeting for review. Commissioner Bartol said in Mr. Wilson's defense he would venture to say the drawing shown was put together very quickly for tonight's meeting? Mr. Wilson said correct. il Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -9- Commissioner Bartol asked about the ramp going down into the underground garage. He is concerned with ice and Minnesota winters and would like Mr. Wilson to address that. Mr. Wilson said the ramp is four foot, six inches out of the ground and the building is up and out of the ground. However, the slope is still steep at about 9% grade and you don't want to go over 10%. The slope is on the north side of the building and they have experienced two different ways of dealing with ice. They have installed a Wirsbo system, which he doesn't prefer because that type of system can be punctured by trash vehicles. They have also installed some thick electrical cables that can heat the ground, which helps to keep ice off the slope. Commissioner Grover said given the residential density in the area he asked if there were other styles of development that Summerhill has built that are not so dominating in presence so that the building would be more in line with the architecture and the layout? Mr. Wilson welcomed commissioners to visit the Summerhill buildings around the twin cities. Each building is different and even though the same architect designed the buildings you would never guess it because each building is so unique. They try to suit the buildings to the neighborhood along with building materials and colors and there are also cost issues that they have to deal with when designing a building. You are also locked into certain design features with cars parking underground and homes above that. Commissioner Bartol said another issue with trying to fit 44 units in a building, is you have to build at least two levels if not three levels otherwise your building pad takes up a large portion of the property. Remember we are talking about senior housing and typically seniors don't want to walk far or have to go up and down stairs so you have to install elevators. You really can't spread a building out and make it look less oppressive and still have elevator access. This is about the only design you could have and accomplish 44 units. The following Maplewood residents spoke at the public hearing: 1. Jay Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue. 2. Gene Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. 3. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. 4. Janel & John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North. 5. Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue. 6. Abby Bour, 957 Edith Street. 7. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East. 8. Kristen Bowers, 2677 Harvester Avenue East. 9. Willard Ginkel 1001 Ferndale Street North. 10. Frank Fleischlacker, 2650 Harvester Avenue. 1. Jay Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue He is not against senior housing. The developer is asking the city to change this property from the lowest zoning possible Single Family (S) to the highest zoning possible (High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). He and his neighbors are against this proposal even with the revised scale of the building from a four story to a three-story building and from the 52 units to the reduction of 44 units. The city has zoning for a good reason and this building is still inappropriate for this neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -10- Mr. Hruby is also concerned about the increase in traffic since the current location is vacant 25% of the year. In 1999 the City of Maplewood and the residents paid very good money in tax dollars and assessments to have a cul-de-sac on Harvester Avenue on the west end. That cul-de-sac was specifically to reduce traffic in the area and now the developer wants to build this development, which would add another 60 cars a day. That is a very strong about face from the intention of the city's policy to cul-de-sac Harvester Avenue to reduce traffic. The school does not have a gymnasium or any sport fields so there are no extracurricular activities taking place. 2. Gene Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. He lives directly across from this proposal. He asked what the height, width, and length of this proposed building was? (Ms. Finwall said the height is 37 feet high and she didn't know the width and length off hand.) He asked the commission how they would like looking out their door everyday and face this large building? It takes away all his privacy and that's the reason they moved into Maplewood to begin with. They knew the school was there but there wasn't traffic in the area. 3. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. The developer did a beautiful job designing the building and she appreciates all the work they did in the building proposal, but it doesn't belong in this neighborhood. You should not change the zoning for this either. She appreciated the commission allowing her to speak her peace and Maplewood would make a big mistake by granting this building to be built and changing the zoning. 4. Janel & John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North. They live directly across from the driveway of the proposed project. If this building were built with three stories you would be looking into her back and her front yard because their house is a l~- story house. They moved into this neighborhood 29 years ago near a school so they could raise their children in Maplewood. This is a neighborhood that needs to stay single family residential. They have lived by the school building, which is 1¼-stories tall because one level is at garden level. She is concerned about the trees on the nature center side and she believes those trees will be damaged during the construction process. Those trees are hundreds of years old and she doesn't believe the city can afford to damage the nature center because it is a "jewel" in Maplewood! They have been knocking on doors and talking to their neighbors. They have been collecting signatures for a petition against the development and have 42 signatures. Some people could not be here tonight and some people did not respond to the survey they were sent. She presented the petition to Chairperson Fischer and passed it around and then gave it to staff for the record. Mr. and Mrs. Heroff said this has been a wonderful experience going door to door and meeting the people in the neighborhood. She can live with a two story senior housing building but not with a three or four story building. She agrees with senior housing and she agrees with senior housing in that location but not a building that size. She is a senior and she could not afford to move into the building. According to the pricing sheet it costs $150,000 a unit. She doesn't believe that the seniors that live in the neighborhood are going to be able to afford to sell their homes and move into units that cost this much either. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -11- 5. Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue. She did not sign the petition that came around their neighborhood because she did not know all the details, but that is why she is here tonight. She is concerned what "would be" built in this location if this senior housing building were not approved. Realistically the church is going to sell the property and prefers the property would be a park but that is not going to happen. She would rather have senior housing across the street rather than Section 8 housing. The residents have to be real careful what they wish for in their neighborhood. She grew up in the neighborhood and she and her husband bought her parents house because they love the neighborhood. You have to be realistic that changes are going to happen. They just don't want a huge building built across the street. She is concerned where the garbage dumpsters would go and where the mechanical equipment would be. People have said nothing happens at the school 25% of the time. The reality is the school has activities all year long day and night. The traffic is not as much of a concern to her as much as what is going to be built there. (Ms. Finwall replied that the property could be used by another type of school without any city approvals including a charter or junior high school.) 6. Abby Bour, 957 Edith Street. She believes the neighborhood could use a nice park for the children to play. Currently children have to cross two major intersections to play at the park. The Nature Center is lovely and they walk down there. She understands there is a small park planned with this proposal and she would welcome that. She wants something to be put there that would increase her home value and she believes this proposal would increase the value, as any new construction would increase the value of the neighborhood. She and her husband have done many improvements to their home and they don't want anything to go in that would decrease her home value. She doesn't want to look at this building and thinks that is not aesthetically pleasing nor does she want to drive down the street and look at this building either. She would welcome senior homes or townhomes in the area. 7. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East. He said he had several conversations with Ms. Finwall and found her to be impartial to the proposal and very informative with the questions he asked. Ms. Finwall also spent a lot of time sending information out to residents, way beyond the 500 feet that is required. North St. Paul closed their library because they did not have enough money to run it any longer. This property is 2.13 acres of land that they want to put senior housing on and the only other cooperative nearby is in North St. Paul and is on about 2 acres and on a busy road. Mr. Picard said the Cardinal Pointe cooperative in north Maplewood is on 5 acres and other high rises are on even more acreage. This would be the only senior housing (he could find) that would be surrounded by residential homes. Because of this, the residents find this difficult to handle having this development on such a small piece of land. Mr. Picard said if this was zoned R-2 he would have nothing against it. He still likes the idea of having a library in this location. (Commissioner Bartol said he is confident that having a library in this location would increase the traffic more than the proposed senior housing would.) Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -12- 8. Kristen Bowers, 2677 Harvester Avenue East. She has a great concern for the residents on Ferndale Street because those residents will virtually have no sun shining on their property. She is "for" senior housing and she realizes something will have to go there. R-2 zoning would not be out of the question and this is a single- family neighborhood. Most people have ¼-acre lots so that lot is the size of four of their properties and the developer is talking about putting 44 units on the same size parcel. Most of the kids are bused to school and the parents do not drive the children, so there is not that much traffic. She would be interested in knowing the school's current building height compared to the proposed building height. (Commissioner Bartol said with the building setback and the landscape the senior building may look nicer than what is currently there.) (Ms. Finwall added that the building would be setback 30 feet from the right-of-way with an overall setback of 90-115 feet from residential property.) (Commissioner Trippler asked staff to let the residents know what R-2 zoning meant since it has been referred to so many times this evening.) (Ms. Finwall said she believes residents meant to say (R-3M) which means medium density and they could have 27 units. R-2 zoning is double dwelling residential which would allow for duplexes and would require 12,000 square feet per double unit and they could have up to 16 units or 8 double dwellings on this property under that zoning.) 9. Willard Ginkel, 1001 Ferndale Street North. He said they live in the speedway of Minnesota! The church is going to sell this land regardless if it is a high-rise or something else. There could be affordable housing built here just like in Beaver Lake. The residents need to be very careful what they wish for on this piece of property. Instead of the property benefiting anyone, it could end up being a detriment to the community. 10. Frank Fleischlacker, 2650 Harvester Avenue. He is trying to raise a family of five kids and it is a nice area for kids to ride their bike. Now you are talking about increasing the traffic and it would be unsafe for the kids to ride their bike. He moved here to raise the kids in a nice residential neighborhood. Mr. Fleischlacker said the school is closed in the summer and he likes that. His backyard is the best part of the house and now he can't have pit fires in his backyard because it will bother people in the senior housing who would complain about it. This is absurd, and why don't you people think of the families. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the idea of senior housing. This is an attractive design in his opinion. He appreciates that the applicant tried to listen to the neighborhood's concerns and reduced the height of the building. This neighborhood is unified in character, all R-l, fairly uniform in size, well maintained and in a quiet neighborhood. The proposal is an excellent proposal but he doesn't think it fits in this neighborhood and for that reason he will vote no. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -13- Commissioner Mueller assumed if the developer was asked to build a two-story building that it would not be financially feasible. If a two-story building were built, it would have to be spread out over a larger area of the property, which would not be the answer either. Mr. Armstrong said they could not make a two-story senior cooperative building financially feasible on the site. Commissioner Mueller said he knows the church wanted to build a senior cooperative on the site but he wanted to know what they would do if that did not happen? It sounds like the residents don't want it built in their neighborhood. He asked if the church had other options? Father Hart said when they first looked into selling the property they hired a developer to market the property. Some of the proposals that were put forth were another church renovating the building, one developer was going to expand it and turn it into a senior property, and other than that the church doesn't have a plan b. He is a neighborhood resident as well and lives kitty corner from the proposed area. It is not as quiet of a neighborhood as the residents have stated. There are loud cars that go up and down the street with loud radios, pipes on their cars and frankly he does not think it is a very quiet neighborhood. Regarding the traffic, there are lots of activities that occur in the church during the summer and on the weekends. The traffic would be less if the senior housing were to be built than the traffic that occurs now. Commissioner Dierich admitted she and her family are members of the Transfiguration Church and her kids attended school all eight years so she is very aware of the traffic situation. She likes the idea of the senior housing and she likes it in this neighborhood. She has a mother that could not afford to buy a unit in the coop at this price. She likes the idea of a senior coop however, because this is high density it does not belong in this neighborhood. On the other hand, given the fact that the church would be having this land developed it would be built well just like the Transfiguration school was done well. The developer would do their best to meet the neighbors' concerns and needs. She would like to see the architect be more flexible with the design especially with the height of the building and having a garden level could shave height off the building. She would not want to look at a three-story building either even though she already looks at three story homes in her neighborhood. She would strongly recommend that Transfiguration and the developer withdraw for the time being and work with the neighborhood a little longer. Commissioner Bartol said the need for senior housing is going to increase. The seniors are increasing and they are going to need to live somewhere. If not in a neighborhood that is vastly R-1 zoned, then where? Does the city lump all the multiple level, high density or high-rise buildings in one area? Then you will really have a traffic problem. He thinks this is an ideal place for senior housing because of the location and the Nature Center. If not senior housing then what should be built in this location? It may be 8 duplexes. They may be three story duplexes, they wouldn't be a setback like this building would have, it wouldn't have a playground area, and it probably wouldn't have nice landscaping or sitting areas outside. It is not going to stay a school and it won't be a park. Commissioner Bartol said as far as the traffic count estimates are that would equal one car every ten minutes. It would be a benefit to the neighborhood and it would increase the property value in the neighborhood. They would be very quiet neighbors and he would vote "for" this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -14- Commissioner Mueller said as a planning commission does the commission have any authority to say how tall a house can be built on this property? Ms. Finwall said no. Commissioner Mueller said having a senior building in this location would be nice, close to the Nature Center and with this being a family neighborhood with children, seniors love children, it would be a great combination and a great way to make "community". Commissioner Pearson said he serves on the HRA (housing redevelopment authority) and this proposal tugs on his heartstrings. The HRA has tried to provide senior housing in the City of Maplewood. There is going to be a tremendous shortage of senior housing. He lives across the street from Lakeview Senior Housing and it has less of a setback than what this proposal would have. It's less attractive than this proposal and when the building was built the CDRB did not look at where the mechanical equipment would go so consequently he has to listen to the mechanical units. All in all they are good neighbors to live next to. They keep the property up and the traffic on Maryland Avenue is ten times more than this neighborhood would ever see. He has a hard time going against such a large block of neighbors whose will is to keep the neighborhood as it is and to keep the existing zoning what it is. Even though this is a good proposal and development he has to vote against it and "with" the neighbor. Commissioner Mueller said he likes this proposal and it would do great things for the property but he has a hard time going against "the people". Commissioner Dierich said senior housing is a good idea and the neighbors are saying maybe if you made it two stories they may approve of the proposal. She reviewed the findings of fact document for this proposal and based on these findings this is the reason she is not voting for this. Ms. Finwall did a great job working on this proposal and working with the neighborhood, as did the Nichols Development. Chairperson Fischer said a person raising a family might look at having this development in their neighborhood differently than someone who is a senior and looking for a development to move into. For seniors this development has a lot of amenities that a person would be looking for. The population for seniors is increasing and they will be looking for housing. Many times people that have family in Maplewood want to move here to be closer to family members. Commissioner Mueller asked what the timeframe was for this development with the city process? Ms. Finwall said the city has to process this within 60 days, which would be September 21,2004, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. Mr. Armstrong said that is a complex question because there is a series of steps that need to be completed. They need to close on the land so Transfiguration Church can move forward with their construction. Transfiguration would keep the elementary school open one more year and then the building would be demolished next summer so they could begin construction. He is concerned about the comments from the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -15- Mr. Armstrong said first they proposed a four-story building. The neighbors were concerned about the height of the building so Nichols Development agreed to reduce it to three stories. Now the neighbors say if it was a two-story building they would be more agreeable but what guarantee does the developer have that they won't ask for another change and never come to an agreement? It's disheartening. The other Summerhill sites that they have built projects on have been smaller than 2.16 acres in size with similar number of units and others larger in size with more units. He would ask the commission to consider the three-story building and Nichols Development would continue to make modifications and work with the neighbors. They could reduce the height from nine-foot ceilings to eight-foot ceilings. It is possible to have a fiat roof but there are too many problems with ice dams and roof problems. He has that problem himself at his home and would not want to see this building encounter similar problems. Commissioner Mueller moved to ~ deny the comprehensive land use change from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) for the property at 935 Ferndale Street. Commissioner Mueller moved to ~ deny the rezoning from Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) for the property located at 935 Ferndale Street..) The reason for Commissioner Mueller's denial was the community was overwhelmingly not in favor of the development and despite his approval of the development, his vote is based on the neighbors concerns for their neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Nays- Bartol, Fischer, Lee Abstention - Dierich The motion is denied. This item goes to the city council on September 13, 2004. Commissioners Desai, Grover and Trippler said they did not vote for this item because they did not feel this was a good fit in the neighborhood. Commissioners Mueller and Pearson said they voted against this item because they listened to the concerns of the neighborhood and voted with the wishes of the residents. Commissioners Bartol, Fischer, and Lee thought this was a good proposal and a good fit in the neighborhood. The planning commission took a short recess. b. Cottages at Legacy Village (Hazelwood Street) Mr. Roberts said Larry Aim, representing Southwind Builders, is proposing to build 33 for-sale townhomes on a 4.6-acre site on the east side of Hazelwood Street, south of County Road D. The project is between Hazelwood Street and the recently approved Heritage Square part of the Legacy Village PUD. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -16- Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they knew how much the developer paid for the three southerly properties on Hazelwood Street? Mr. Roberts said no he did not. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city would pay $650,000 for two properties and then turn around and do the demolition and pay the developer a lot of money? Mr. Roberts said staff became concerned when the two northerly properties weren't interested in being redeveloped and did not want to sell. But through some extended negotiations with the developer and the homeowners the city was able to buy those properties based on the values set by appraisals. One reason was for Legacy Parkway to go all the way through the development area, which was important for traffic flow. Secondly, the city didn't want to leave two existing homes in the area and felt it was important to include the properties in the redevelopment of the area. Mr. Cavett said the main reason was because it was important for the Legacy Parkway connection from a traffic standpoint. The city felt the wisest thing to do with the land use was to purchase these homes and not leave two existing homes in this new development area. As part of the city's approved tax abatement plan for the area this pays for the assessments, demolition, grading, as well as the purchase price of the two homes. As this area develops it will be a higher tax base than the single-family homes that existed. That is how this is financially feasible for the city to work with the developer to make this happen. Commissioner Trippler said the city paid $650,000 for the two properties and then they will turn around and sell that to the developer and the developer will pay the city $150,000 when the city paid $650,000 for the same property? After that the city is going to buy back the Legacy Parkway right-of-way for $50,000? The way this reads the city took a $500,000 loss here and as a taxpayer that makes him angry. Mr. Cavett said he cannot speak to the financial details but he can answer questions the commission may have. Chairperson Fischer said with this being redevelopment in the city why didn't this go through the Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA)? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure and he would have to ask Chuck Ahl and Melinda Coleman about that with the tax abatement plans. Commissioner Bartol said the land purchase and sales information on page 5 of the staff report is basically a history of what has happened. It has already taken place and the commission can question why it happened that way but nothing can be undone because it has already occurred. Mr. Roberts said from his understanding that is correct. Commissioner Bartol said it would influence his position and he felt this proposal is incredibly dense. There is a nearby park but people would have to cross Legacy Parkway to get there. He was wondering if the city could encourage the developer to reduce the density and put in a small park to accommodate younger children that cannot cross Legacy Parkway. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -17- Mr. Roberts said there is some green space on the plan but not a lot. From what he understood, the market for this development is for empty nesters or young people that don't have children yet therefore, a park wouldn't be necessary in this development. Commissioner Grover asked what the density comparison was for both developments? Mr. Roberts said on page 2 of the staff report it states the 33 units on the 4.6-acre site means there would be 7.2 units per gross acre. This project density is less than the maximum density standard in the comprehensive plan for town houses. For comparison, the Heritage Square town houses to the east of this site will have 220 units on 19.8 acres, which is an average of 11.1 units per acre. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if it was typical to include things as stated on page 5 because that's where the question comes up whether this is tax procedural or not. As a taxpayer she is really upset by this information that the city spent $650,000 on this and the reasoning behind it. She asked if the city was going to get that money back? Mr. Cavett said he is not an authority on tax abatement issues but the $650,000 is not moneythat exists today. It is money that would be created by a higher tax base that would not exist if this development did not take place. It is not costing the Maplewood residents any money. Mr. Roberts said also this money is not coming out of the housing redevelopment fund. Commissioner Grover asked if the ratios shown on page 2 of the staff report in the bottom paragraph referred to the 4.6 acres? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler said on page 9 of the staff report, number 13 it says side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the zoning code. He asked staffto tell him what the side yard setbacks would be without an approved PUD? Mr. Roberts said for a single-family home the setback it is 10 feet to living space and he thinks these are about 5 or 6 feet from the property line between the units. Chairperson Fischer asked if the variance would be for each unit or just some of the units? Mr. Roberts said a variance isn't needed for every unit but he didn't analyze the exact setback for each unit. However, item 12 and 13 of the conditions together on page 9 are essentially approving a PUD rather than approving a bunch of variances for each lot and block. Commissioner Dierich said she drew a revised site plan showing the garages in a different location and asked if there was a reason the developer did not use an alternate plan? Mr. Roberts said that is something the developer could bring up when he comes forward to address the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -18- Mr. Larry Aim, Southwind Builders, 5960 Highway 61 North, White Bear Township, addressed the commission. He said he visits many different cities and the commission's input is very important. He asked Commissioner Dierich to state what she would like to see changed for this plan? Commissioner Dierich said she would like to see the porches all facing each other in the center and green space in the middle. As long as the city is going to do a PUD why don't you move the driveway to the edges of the development and have the common green space in the middle of the homes. Her plan showed 26 homes on the plan with the garages on the edge of the development. Mr. Roberts said he's only guessing but he believed that Commissioner Dierich's plan would have more impervious surface than the plan proposed by the developer. Mr. Aim said they looked at using a plan similar to Commissioner Dierich's but it ended up having too many curb cuts. The reason for this plan is this way you only look out onto green space and onto other people's porches, not at driveways. He said they have had fairly good luck in other cities with this concept shown to the commission. Commissioner Grover asked staff if this plan was consistent with the other developments in Legacy Village? He said if his memory serves him the garages were behind the developments with an alley between the developments. Mr. Roberts said the Legacy Village plan includes a mixture of units and styles. Commissioner Dierich said she likes the style of the homes but she is concerned about the homes on Hazelwood Street. Because the street has fast traffic she does not see people sitting out on their front porches watching the traffic. Flipping those units around would provide a sound buffer for those units. The thought is to keep everybody tied to the neighborhood and that was the design for the whole plat. When you have units facing out there is not the feeling of community. Some of the units may need to be reconfigured even though you would still have the same amount of units. Mr. Aim said he had hoped the speed limit on Hazelwood Street would be about 30 mph. His goal was to connect everything with sidewalks because there is a regional trail there. He grew up on a busy street with a front porch so he is kind of callous to that type of situation. Regarding space between units, typical residential homes are five feet on the garage side and ten feet on the home. These units are 16 feet apart but when you talk about lot size in a townhome project, the home is only a little bit smaller than the lot. The rest is common area but the space between units is consistent with a typical single family home. Commissioner Trippler asked if these were considered individual homes or townhomes? Mr. Aim said these are individual homes but with a townhome association. It gives the buyer the chance to buy a single family home but still live within the confines and keep their home value up. The outside area will be sprinklered and maintained by an association and the homeowner will pay a monthly fee for that service. Commissioner Dierich asked if the motions could be separated into three different motions. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -19- Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution on page 35 of the staff report. This resolution approves a change to the comprehensive land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) for a 4.6-acre site for the Cottages at Legacy Village on Hazelwood Street. The city is approving this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that is between two residential areas. This change would allow for a town house that would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a collector street and is near arterial streets. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 5. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - All Commissioner Dierich moved to adopt the resolution on pages 36-38 of the staff report. This resolution approves the 33-unit Cottages at Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) on Hazelwood Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall meet the requirements noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated August 6, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the city issues a grading permit. 6. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. 7. The developer or contractor shall construct the project according to the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except as specifically modified by these conditions. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -20- 8. The developer shall add sidewalks and sidewalk connections in locations that city staff decides are necessary. 9. The developer or builder will provide parking spaces at the ends of the driveways wherever they may fit. 10. The developer or builder shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Hazelwood Street for the entire length of the project. 11.The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. 12. Provide a revised landscape plan for city staff approval. This revised plan shall include: a. Increasing the tree size to 2¼ inches from (2 inches). b. Changing the Colorado Spruce to Black Hills Spruce or Austrian Pines (or a mix of these two species). The developer should coordinate the landscaping materials and designs along Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street to make sure that they are compatible with the approved landscape designs for Heritage Square and Kennard Street. d. Overstory trees to be planted along both sides of Legacy Parkway and along Hazelwood Street shall be set at an average of 30-to-40-feet on center. 13.AII setbacks are approved as shown on the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004. 14. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the zoning code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan date-stamped July 22, 2004. 15. The applicant or developer shall provide visitor-parking spaces at the minimum quantity of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimum of 17 required visitor parking. 16.An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 17. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - All Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -21- Commissioner Dierich moved to ~ deny the preliminary plat for the Cottages of Legacy Village (date-stamped July 22, 2004), subject to the following conditions: (changes are in bold and deletions are stricken.) 1. The applicant shall meet the requirements in the assistant city engineer's report dated August 6, 2004. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the city issues a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 5. The applicant shall pay the city $150,000 for the property now owned by the city. The reason for her denial of item C. is Commissioner Dierich would like to see the developer re-look at the orientation of the homes, the amount of driveway and the curb cuts into Hazelwood Street. The motion failed for a lack of second. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Cottages of Legacy Village (date-stamped July 22, 2004), subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall meet the requirements in the assistant city engineer's report dated August 6, 2004. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the city issues a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 5. The applicant shall pay the city $150,000 for the property now owned by the city. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Nay- Dierich This item goes to the CDRB on August 24, 2004, and to the city council on September 13, 2004. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -22- VII. NEW BUSINESS a. Hillside Estates (Springside Drive) Ms. Finwall said John Poirier is requesting preliminary plat approval from the City of Maplewood in order to subdivide his 1.6-acre parcel into three new lots. One lot will have street frontage on Linwood Avenue and two lots will have street frontage on a cul-de-sac extension of Springside Drive. All three lots will be developed with future single-family homes. City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning from (F) to (R-l). Commissioner Trippler said there are a lot of very old trees on the property and he asked how many of those old trees would be removed to build these single-family homes? Ms. Finwall said according to the tree plan there are 85 large trees on that lot mainly located on the east side of the property along Linwood Avenue and several trees are in the area where the cul-de- sac will be constructed. The City of Maplewood would be doing the road construction project and the city is committed to saving as many trees as possible. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city was building the cul-de-sac? Mr. Cavett said residents can petition the city to ask for help with improvements as part of a public improvement project. The benefits are assessed back to the benefiting properties. This process can be done privately or publicly. It is the city's preference that the infrastructure is done by the city so they can supervise and inspect the construction. Mr. Poirier petitioned the city as a majority property owner, however, the city doesn't see many of these requests. Commissioner Trippler asked how much this would cost? Mr. Cavett said this would cost about $160,000 to remove the temporary and construct the new street and cul-de-sac. The vast majority of the project costs are being assessed to the benefiting properties. There is a portion that the city is covering but basically that is to remove the existing temporary cul-de-sac. The $160,000 includes project costs, administrative costs, and engineering costs. Of that the majority is being assessed to the benefiting properties. As part of the construction, the contractor would not mass grade the site. A minimal amount of grading will take place and the lots will be filled in later. Commissioner Dierich said the commission has always been told the existing homes set the setback. If this is the case does lot 3 need a variance because the house is actually set by the lot that is next to it? Ms. Finwall said it would require a front setback authorization from the city. The existing house to the east is setback further and the existing house on the west is also setback further. This is just a concept and the commission should approve the preliminary plat and not the location of the homes. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to come forward and address the commission. li Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -23- Mr. John Poirier from Woodbury, addressed the commission. He said Ms. Finwall and Mr. Cavett have covered everything for him and he has no questions for the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked if he had any problems with the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Poirier said no he did not. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map from Farm Residence (F) to Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) for the proposed Hillside Estates plat. The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. d. The owner plans to develop this property as single-family houses. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the Hillside Estates preliminary plat date stamped July 14, 2004. Prior to final plat approval, the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Have the city's engineering department prepare the final construction drawings as specified in the city engineering department's August 5, 2004, engineering plan review. b. Prepare and submit to city staff for approval, easement documents for the required utility and drainage easements. Prior to issuance of a building permit for lots 1 through 3 the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Record the plat and utility and drainage easements. Submit grading and drainage plans for each new lot to be approved by the city's engineering department. The trading plan must reflect the preservation of as many large trees as possible. All large trees removed from the three lots must be replaced one-for-one, not to exceed 16 trees, as required by the city's tree preservation ordinance. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. VIII. Planning Commission -24- Minutes of 08-16-04 This item goes to the city council on August 23, 2004. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. IX. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. X. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the July 26, 2004, city council meeting. Mr. Trippler did not bring his notes to the meeting. Therefore, Mr. Roberts reported the only planning item was the Heritage Square second addition, which was approved. b. Mr. Bartol was the planning commission representative at the August 9, 2004, city council meeting, however he was called out of town, therefore Mr. Roberts reported on the meeting. Mr. Roberts said the first item was the CUP for Commercial Equipment Parking at 65 Larpenteur Avenue, which was approved. The second item was site plan and building design changes for Buffalo Wild Wings at the Chesapeake Retail Center, which was approved. c. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the August 23, 2004, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Hillside Estates Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Change for Springside Drive. d. Mr. Bartol will be the planning commission representative atthe September 13, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Summerhill Senior Housing and the Cottages at Legacy Village. Xl. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Reschedule September 6, 2004, planning commission meeting The commission voted to reschedule the Monday, September 6, 2004, planning commission meeting to Wednesday, September 8, 2004. Planning Commission -25- Minutes of 08-16-04 b. Annual Tour Follow-up Mr. Roberts asked the commission for any follow up tour comments and told members they could e-mail him or telephone him with comments or suggestions for next year's tour. XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICATION: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Rose Lorsung, Planning Intern Home Occupation License Jacqueline and Nick Dow 1477 County Road C East August 31, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Jacqueline Dow and her minor son, Nick Dow, are requesting that the city approve a home occupation license to operate a bait store. They are currently operating this store out of a small section of their detached garage at 1477 County Road C East. The business will consist mainly of selling live fish bait that they store in standard laundry tubs. Please see applicants' home occupation questionnaire beginning on page 6 and the maps on pages 8 through 10. DISCUSSION Bait Shop Business The applicants' business would primarily be selling live bait including worms, leeches and a variety of minnows. The applicants are now storing the minnows in aerated standard laundry tubs in the garage. Ms. Dow currently has 6 standard laundry tubs, an aerator, and two refrigerators in her garage for the bait business. She and her son plan on being the only employees in the home occupation, with Ms. Dow as the primary employee. The applicant states that she and her son would receive customer visits between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Tuesday through Sunday, and she expects about 3-6 customers a day. Also, although this operation is mostly seasonal, Ms. Dow would like to operate the business year-round. Neighborhood Comments Of the 40 neighbors the city surveyed, we received eleven written replies. Three were for the request and eight were against. Six of the neighbors expressed concerns with having a business in a residential neighborhood. Two neighbors had privacy concerns as the cars entering the property shined lights into their windows. One neighbor mentioned that the property was messy and needed to be cleaned up before issuing a home occupation license. There also was a concern raised by a neighbor about safety as there are small children in the neighborhood (an adjacent residence runs a children's day care) and there is no screening or fencing between the two residences. Other Comments David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, stated, "Verify the garage meets the State Electrical Code. Separate circuits may be required for the refrigerators needed for the bait shop and ground fault protection may be required around the minnow holding tanks. A back flow prevention device is required for any hose spigot used to fill the minnow holding tanks. Provide a three-foot door for egress out of the garage. Provide a fire extinguisher in the garage." Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, stated that he had no issues with the home occupation license. Dan Soler, with Ramsey County Public Works, stated that he did not foresee any traffic or other problems with the number of customers that Ms. Dow stated she received daily. License Requirements Article II, Section 14-56(b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license (see attached requiremems on pages 13 through 15). Requirement number six states, "No more than 20 percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off site unless approved by the city council." Since this home occupation is unique and consisting wholly of resale goods, the city believes that this section of the code is not applicable to this particular home occupation. The applicant is acting on good faith and not selling goods for a commercial business partner (see attached applicant license request summary on pages 11 through 12). The applicant has a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and is acting solely as a small business operator in this location. SUMMARY The city is not aware of any approvals in the past for a home occupation for a live bait shop. Currently, there are no bait shops in the city. One of the factors for this application was the closing of Larry's Live Bait located at 2626 White Bear Avenue. However, as stated above, there are many neighbor concerns and building code standards that the applicant should address. (See state and international codes on pages 16 through 17). To continue with this home-based business, the owners should correct these matters as outlined in the recommendation to the satisfaction of city staff. RECOMMENDATION Approve the home occupation license for Ms. Dow and her minor son, Nick Dow, of 1477 County Road C East to have a bait shop in their detached garage. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Meet all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. This includes: 2 4. 5. 6. 7. a. No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. b. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. c. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation that creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses offthe lot. d. There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited to: a. May through September, Tuesday through Sunday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. b. October through April, Tuesday through Sunday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. There shall be no more than 50 customers visiting the home per week. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. Provide a ten-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the garage. Meet the state electrical code for refrigerators and minnow holding tanks. Meet the state plumbing code and provide a back flow prevention device for the minnow holding tanks. Provide a 3-foot egress exit door out of the garage. Provide screening along the west edge of the lot line, from County Road C north to the southwest edge of the garage, in the form of a 6-foot high solid fence or with the planting of thick shrubs. 10. Trim the existing sets of shrubs (see attached site plan on page 10) located opposite the driveway entrance to the property to improve the line of sight for customers exiting onto County Road C. 11. Clean up the outdoor storage areas west and north of the garage. 12. The city council may add additional requirements that it deems necessary to ensure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. 13. The city council shall review this home occupation license again in one year. II IL CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of 40 properties within 500 feet of this site and received 11 written replies. The written replies were as follows: For 1. No objection to operation of this business from the family home garage, as outlined in your Neighborhood Survey dated 8/20/2004. (Stone - 2727 Hazelwood Street) This sounds totally fair. We applaud their efforts and wish them the best. We live at 2640 Barclay, which is right next to their property. We do not see this as an issue whatsoever. They are not only outstanding neighbors, but also caring people. We support them 100% in their efforts to make an honest living. The business has caused us no harm or inconvenience. I hope you allow an honest law abiding citizen a chance to make a living. (Towle - 2640 Barclay Street) 3. We are just fine with the bait store on County Road C. (Miettunen - 2688 Barclay Street) Against With regards to having a bait store in the neighborhood I would have to say no. We have a residential area and this type of year round business is inappropriate for the location requested. (LaCasse - 2673 Hazelwood Street) 5. No, we don't want that in the neighborhood. Have them take it to a commercial area. (Danna - 2649 Barclay Street) This is a residential area. Also, 3-6 sales a day is not sufficient business to warrant a license. How old is the person? Sounds like a child from the written scratched out letter. The license is not necessary. (Lawver- 2679 Barclay Street) It has been our stance, since moving into this property, that it remain a residential location. Our only concern with the proposed home license is the potential it may provide for more "business" in the area. Ultimately, we dislike the thought of this area becoming commercialized and jeopardizing the value of our property as well as increasing the current traffic level it now has. (Pearson- 1495 County Road C) o It appears there is an abundance of business property in this area, to the east - White Bear Ave., to the south - Hwy 36, to the west - Hwy 61 and to the north - Beam Ave. I would prefer the small amount of land between remain residential. (Johnson - 2669 Hazelwood Street) 9. (Stafford - 2652 Barclay Street, see attached) 4 10. (Motz - 2658 Barclay Street, see attached) 11. (Blaeser - 2670 Barclay Street, see attached) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: Single-Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES Single-Family homes to the north, south, east and west PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Article II, Section 14-56(b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. Application Date The city received the application for this home occupation license on August 6, 2004. City staff completed the application by acquiring the addresses of residents within 500 feet of the applicant as well as floor plan drawings on August 17, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends October 15, 2004. Therefore, city council is required on this proposal by October 13, 2004. P/sec03/1477 County Road C Home Occupation License Atta¢lunents: 1. Home Occupation Questionnaire 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant License Request Summary 6. Home Occupation Ordinance 7. Minnesota Plumbing Code 8. International Residential Code 9. Survey: Stafford- 2652 Barclay Street 10. Survey: Motz-2658 Barclay Street 11. Survey: Blaeser-2670 BarelayStreet Attachment 1 HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE (Attach a separate page if additional space is needed) Describe your home occupation: o ° How many nonresident employees would work on-site? nonresident employees would work off-site? ~ employees visit your home? (~ How many How often would off-site What percentage of each level of your home's floor area, including the basement, would you use in conducting the home occupation? (~ If the business would be in an ac,ce, ssory building, what percentage of that structure's floor area would be used? '/'-(' (.~ o,..('%~ ~' , Where on the premises would the home occupation be conducted? Describe any changes in the outside appearance of the building or property, other than one wall-mounted sign of not more than two square feet? What percentage of gross sales would come from the sale of a product(s) produced off- site? How many customer or employee vehicles would be parked on the premises at any one time? Describe the type, payload capacity and number of each type of vehicle to be used in the home occupation and where they would be parked. ~2~ 10. 11. What wo~,ld,..,l~e the average number of customers expected to visit the premises each week? '~k'~ The average number of employee/subcontractor visits to the premises each week? I What time of day and which days of the week would you expect these visits to occur? Describe any delive~ vehicles that will make deliveries or ship products from the prope~. Include the ~pe, amount, hours and frequency of deliveries. ~ ..... - I - II 12. Describe the type of equipment, including ventilation systems, which would be used. Describe how...,vou would keep the use of this equipment unnoticeable to your neighbors. :}~j~'~ C~ ~ I~ , ~ ~r)t~l ~ ~ 13. Descdbe the amount and type of any chemicals, gasoline, hazardous substances or similar material that would be used. Also, describe where these materials will be stored. Describe how you would dispose of any hazardous materials. 14. Revised: 12203 P\com_dvpt\word\homeocc,app 7 Attachment 2 1495 2681 2673 2669 1505 2661 1519~ ----':::::": County Road C Location Map $ 8 Attachment 3 i / Kohlman Avenue R1 1495 ~ 1505 2669 .. ;:: [ 2661 1519~ "':----PUD Xv .... "X/ N S ning M P 2652 Attachment 4 2646 2640 Site Plan 10 Attachment 5 II il [ -,:~a,.e ..~,3.% (5 0 F' 12 Attachment 6 DMSION 9.. HONIE OCCUPATIONS Sec. 14-56. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license approved by the city council if any of the following circumstances would occur more than 30 days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. (2) Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. (3) Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or materials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle assodated with the home occupation which is classified as a Light commercial vehicle. (5) A vehicle used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. (6) If the home occupation produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. Co) Home occupations requfl-ing a license shall be subject but not l~rn~ted to the followq_ng requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street par~mg shall not exceed more than three off-street parMmg spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parkq,g spaces required by the residents. CD14:14 13 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 215 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 /first/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217_full BUSINESSES ~ LICENSING § 14-57 (2) No more than one nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off the premises may be allowed to visit the premises. If an on-site employee is parking on site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on site, one off-site employee vehicle may be parked on site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this subsection. (4) An area equivalent to no more than 20 percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off the premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one sign meeting the requirements of the c/ty sign code in chapter 44, article [fi. (6) No more than 20 percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses offthe lot. If electrical interference occurs, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray p~tiug, machine shops, welding, ~mmunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knives or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Machine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that operate on more than 120 volts of current. (10) Any noncompliance with this subsection shall constitute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The city may waive any of these requirements ffthe home occupation is located at least 350 feet from a residential lot line. (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to ensure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. (Code 1982, § 17-21) Sec. 14-57. License application approval procedure. An application for a home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of C0mm~mlty development shall prepare a recommendation to the p]~uni,g commission. The p]~nuing comr~ssion's CD14:15 14 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 216 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 /first/pubdocs/mee/3/11217_full § 14-57 MAPLEWOOD CODE reco~-,~endation shall be forwarded to the city council for a public hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the owners of all properties located wi~.b~- 350 feet of the home occupation at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall also be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the date of hearing. (Code 1982, § 17-22) Sec. 14-58. License renewal, revocation. (a) Each person holding a license to conduct a home occupation shall apply to the city clerk each January for renewal. Prior to issuance of a Hcense renewal, the city shall deter~-e that all licensing conditions and city ordinances are being met. (b) The city clerk shall revoke the license where compliance with the licensing conditions or city ordinances ca--ot be obt~i-ed or where the home occupation has been discontinued. Revocation may occur at any time that compliance with license conditions or dty ordinances c,-not be obtained. (Code 1982, § 17-23) Sec. 14-59. Appeal of license revocation. The owner or his assign of a home occupation whose license has been revoked by the city clerk may appeal the decision to the city council. To request an appeal, a written letter or request must be submitted to the city clerk witb~- 30 days of the license revocation. The city council may revoke, approve or add additional conditions to the license. The city council shall hold a public hearing, using the notification procedures in section 14-57, before deciding on the appeal. (Code 1982, § 17-24) Sec. 14-60. Transfer of Ucense. No license granted for a home occupation shall be transferable from person to person or place to place. (Code 1982, § 17-25) Secs. 14-61--14-85. Reserved. CD14:16 ~5 Attachment 7 4715.2000 WATER OUTLETS. A potable water system shall be protected against backflow and back-siphonage by providing and maintaining at each outlet: A. an air gap as specified herein between the potable water outlet and the flood level rim of the fixture it supplies or between the outlet and any other source of contamination; or B. a backflow preventer device or assembly to prevent the drawing of contamination into the potable water system. STAT AUTH: MS s 16B.62; 326.37 to 326.45 HIST: 19 SR 590 4715.2010 MINIMUM REQUIRED AIR GAP. Subpart I. Measurement. The minimum required air gap shall be measured vertically from the lowest end of a potable water outlet to the flood rim or line of the fixture or receptacle into which it discharges. Subp. 2. Requirement. The minimum required air gap shall be twice the effective opening of a potable water outlet unless the outlet is a distance less than three times the effective opening away from a wall or similar vertical surface in which cases the minimum required air gap shall be three times the effective open- ing of the outlet. In no case shall the minimum required air gap be less than shown in subpart 4. Subp. 3. Effect of walls, ribs, and similar obstructions. Side walls, ribs, or similar obstructions do not affect air gaps when spaced from inside edge of spout opening a distance greater than three times the diameter of the effective opening for a single wall, or a distance greater than four times the diameter of the effective opening for two intersecting walls. Vertical walls, ribs, or similar obstructions extending from the water surface to or above the horizontal plane of the spout open- ing require a Heater air gap when spaced closer to the nearest inside edge of spout opening than specified in this subpart. The effect Of three or more such vertical walls or ribs has not been determined. In such cases, the air gap shall be measured from the top of the wall. Subp. 4. Minimum air gaps for plumbing fixtures. Minimum Air Gap Affected By Affected Fixture Near Wall (1) By Near (Inches) Wall (2) (Inches) Lavatories and other fixtures with effective opening not greater than I/2 inch diameter 1.0 1.50 Sink, Laundry ~rays, gooseneck bath faucets and other fixtures with effective openings not greater than 3/4 inch diameter Over rim bath fillers and other fixtures with effective openings not greater than I inch diameter 1.5 2.25 2.0 3.0 Drinking water fountains 1.0 1.50 Effective openings greater than one inch 2x diameter 3x diameter of effective of effective opening opening STAT AUTH: MS s 326.37 to 326.45 4715.2020 DEVICES OR ASSEMBLIES FOR THE PROTECTION OFTHE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY. Approved devices or assemblies to protect against backflow and back-siphonage must be installed at any plumbing fixture or equip- ment where backflow or back-siphonage may occur and where a minimum air gap cannot be provided between the water outlet to the fixture or equipment and its flood level rim. STAT AUTH: MS s 16B.61; 16B.62; 326.37 to 326.45 HIST: 15 SR 76; 19 SR 590 4715.2030 APPROVAL OF DEVICES OR ASSEMBLIES. Before any device or assembly for the prevention of backflow or back-siphonage is installed, it shall have first been certified by a recognized testing laboratory acceptable to the administrative authority. Devices or assemblies installed in a building potable water supply distribution system for protection against backflow shall be maintained in good working condition by the person or persons responsible for the maintenance of the system. STAT AUTH: MS s 16B.62; 326.37 to 326.45 HIST: 19 SR 590 1 6 47 Attachment 8 -~ SECTION R311 EXITS R311.1 Exit door required. Not less than one exit door con- forming to this chapter shall be provided from each dwelling unit. The required exit door shall provide for direct access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the exterior without requiring travel through a garage. R311.2 Type of lock or latch. All egress doors shall be readily openable from the side from which egress is to be made without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. R311.3 Type and size. The required exit door shall be a side- hinged door not less than 3 feet (914 mm) in width and 6 feet, 47 8 inches (2032 mm) in height. Other exterior hinged or sliding doors shall not be required to comply with the~se minimum dimensions. R311.4 Hallways. The minimum width of a hallway shall be not less than 3 feet (914 mm). R311.5 Exit facilities. Exterior exit balconies, stairs and simi- lar exit facilities shall be positively anchored to the primary structure to resist both vertical and lateral forces. Such attach- ment shall not be accomplished by use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal. 17 DAVID J STAFFORD KAREN P STAFFORD 2652 BARCLAY ST MAPLEWOOD MN 55109-1999 Together We Can Attachment 9 8/20~2004 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY: BAIT STORE HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE REQUEST - 1477 COUNTY ROAD C E. What is Being Requested? Ms. Jacqueline Dow is requesting that the city approve a home occupation license for her son's bait store, which is currently being run out of their resident garage. This property is located in a primarily residential neighborhood located at 1477 E. County Road C. Refer to the enclosed maps and the home occupation questionnaire for an explanation of the proposal. Why this Notice? The city staff wishes that you be informed about this proposal and seeks your input in any of the following ways: Mail your comments to mel Please write any comments you have below or on the back of this letter. I have enclosed a return envelope for your use to mail in your comments. Please note that any letters and attachments that you send to the city are considered public information and city staff may use them in staff reports that go to the planning commission and city council. 2. Call me at (651) 249-2308 or email at rose.lorsun,q~ci.maplewood.mn,us 3. Attend the planning commission and city council meetings and give your comments. City staff will notify you of these meetings by mail, once the city has scheduled it. VV~~ou mail or phone in comments, please do so by August 28, 2004. ROSELORS- G~ -P~NNINGINTERN ' Enclosures 1. Applicant Explanation 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Room Plan Detail Comments: Rose Lorsung Pl@-~ning Co~ssion ~.s a property owner whos~ back yard is located less than 40 feet from the Bait Store,my wife and I have many concerns. Because of the location -o-~--~--~.--~.~on .... ~ ~ deck, '.~ ....... spend ~_c~,: ~ .... ~king ~ .... ~ ........ S~ winter and summer~ we see and hear all customers and vehicles and deliveries. ~e are retiree aha nome ~s where we spend our time. Backyards shou[d be T~ mn8 p~ace~u]1~ not an invasion o~ our ori~c~ with stranzers driving in and o~t loo~ng directly into our house ~nd property. (over) OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · 651- 770- 4560 · FAX: 651- 748-3096 CiTY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B 18 MAPLEWOOD, MN $$109 We are concerned with the value cf our property. If we were to put our property on the market, the value of our home would be lower than other comparable homes in the area(as per a Friend of mine who ~s a Real Estzte Agent). There is also the traffic on County Road C that has been increasing over the past seven years, we do not need a ~nwanted increase of 5 to 6 cars a day and more, as most people in business would want to grow their business, as they have requested 12 hour days, 7 days a week, early spring, fall and winter with longer hours of darkness and increased volume we are concerned with lights of cars shining into our home. Even normal activity from their home shines in our windows. THere are many small children who live next to ~e property where there are no barriers between properties. The children sometimes are on the property playing, hopefully there will never be an accident with an unknowing customers car. We would think there is no way this property should be granted a license for a Bait Store or any other business as it is very upsetting to the neighborhood. Thank you, D~vid znd Karen Stafford 19 DAVID A MOTZ KATHLEEN A MOTZ 2658 BARCLAY ST N MAPLEWOOD MN 55109-1999 Together We Can Attachment 8/20/2004 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY: BAIT STORE HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE REQUEST - 1477 COUNTY ROAD C E. What is Bein.q Requested? Ms. Jacqueline Dow is requesting that the city approve a home occupation license for her son's bait store, which is currently being run out of their resident garage. This property is located in a primarily residential neighborhood located at 1477 E. County Road C. Refer to the enclosed maps and the home occupation questionnaire for an explanation of the proposal. Why this Notice? The city staff wishes that you be informed about this proposal and seeks your input in any of the following ways: Mail your comments to mel Please write any comments you have below or on the back of this letter. I have enclosed a return envelope for your use to mail in your comments. Please note that any letters and attachments that you send to the city are considered public information and city staff may use them in staff reports that go to the planning commission and city council. 2. Call me at (651) 249-2308 or email at rose. orsun,q~ci.maplewood.mn.us 3. Attend the planning commission and city council meetings and give your comments. City staff will notify you of these meetings by mail, once the city has scheduled it. Wheth ou mail or phone in comments, please do so by August 28, 2004. ROSE LORSUNG - PLANNING INTERN Enclosures 1. Applicant Explanation 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Room Plan Detail Comments: CITY OF MAPLE:WOOD · 1830 EAST~'~O'"NTY ROAD B · MAPLE:WOOD, MN 55109 il [ Attachment 11 City of Maplewood Office of Community Development 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Bait store license request at 1477 County Road C E Dear Ms. Lorsung, I am writing to you about the letter we received regarding the license request from Ms. Jacqueline Dow for a bait store at her home. I have a few issues with this request. First off, the area is zoned residential. While our property does back up to theirs, what we look at is the trees at the back of their property, so I do not have to look at the mess that is already in their yard. Adding more to their already messy yard is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. There are enough commercially zoned areas in the city of Maplewood and surrounding cities that would support this business, and that this request should not even be considered. Second, I believe Ms. Dow and not her son will be nmning this bait store. I believe he is in the 10-12 year old range, and would be in school during most of the hours the store would be open. This is not as represented to me when I called the city of Maplewood about this store. I was told he was running it, which I f'md out is not the case. Thus, they have misrepresented themselves already. Thirdly, I cannot see how having a bait shop in the area would help our neighborhood. How would dead bait be disposed of?. In the woods behind their house---close to my back yard where I would have to smell the stench of rotting fish? Believe me, that would not go over very well with my neighbors either. In summary, I would like to say that I do not believe this is a good idea, and hope you will take these things into account and deny the request for a bait shop in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Crreg and Rim Blaeser 2670 Barclay Street N. Maplewood, MN 55109 22 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Lot Division, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Ramsey County Suburban Courts Building 2150 White Bear Avenue August 27, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description David Chase of Kraus-Anderson Construction and Ramsey County, is proposing to build a 15,150 square-foot suburban courts building on the vacant city-owned property at 2150 White Bear Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 10 and the maps on pages 11 - 19. The proposed building would replace the existing county court space in the building at 2785 White Bear Avenue. As proposed, the extedor of the courts building would have colored concrete block, EIFS, metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. In addition, it would have two courtrooms, office space, meeting rooms and associated space for the suburban courts operation. Refer to the project plans. Requests Mr. Chase is requesting that the city approve: 1. A lot division to create a new, separate lot for the courts building. (Please see the site survey on page 14.) 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a public building. Section 44-1092 of the city code requires a CUP for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district. 3. The project design, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2004, the Maplewood City Council agreed to offer the city-owned property south of the Maplewood Community Center to Ramsey County at no cost for a new suburban court facility. On May 11, 2004, the Ramsey County Board picked the site south of Maplewood Community Center for the new suburban court facility. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this permit. The proposed building should be affractive and would be an improvement for the courts over their existing space. This would benefit the county by improving their courts space and facilities and would be a complimentary facility to the city and county's campuses. Design Considerations Lot Division As I noted above, the city council agreed to donate the land for the new courts building to the county. To accomplish this land donation, the city must approve the splitting of its property to create a new, separate parcel with its own legal description. However, the proposed parcel (as shown on pages 13 and 14) would be landlocked. Because of this, the city and the county should enter into maintenance and access agreements for the use of the existing parking lot that is between White Bear Avenue and the new building. These agreements should clarify who is to repair the parking lot, plow the snow from the driveways, sidewalks and trails, liability responsibilities and that the users or visitors to both the community center and to the courts building may use the parking lot for ingress and egress purposes. Parking The city code does not have a specific parking standard for this type of facility. The city code, however, would require 76 parking spaces if the city considered this building as all office space. As proposed, the site plan shews 21 parking spaces to the south of the new building that the county has designated for the courts staff. In addition, the plan shows about 60 parking spaces in front of the proposed building for 81 total spaces next to or near this building. The project architect provided city staff with a narrative (on page 20) explaining the expected parking needs for the court facility. This narrative notes that the county now reserves 100 spaces at their current facility and that they expect to need a similar amount of parking with the new building. As I noted above, there will be at least 81 spaces near the building, which should be enough parking for most days at this facility while leaving enough parking for the community center. In addition, there should not be any reason for any parking on the landscape areas or along the driveways. Building Elevations It is important that the new court building have a design and materials that are close to or complimentary to the style and materials in Maplewood City Hall and in the Maplewood Community Center. This is especially critical on the west and north (pond) sides of the building as they will be the most visible elevations. For reference, Maplewood City Hall has an exterior that is primarily bdck and tan rock-faced block and the extedor of the community center is bdck, tan colored concrete block and with small areas of metal siding. The proposed exterior building materials raises some concerns for staff. As proposed, the building would have a variety of materials and colors. (See the plans on page 18 and the enclosed project plans.) They include red, dark tan and light tan concrete block, tan-colored burnished concrete block, gray corrugated metal siding, areas with EIFS or Hardi panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. Specifically, the architect has proposed to use the corregated metal siding on a large portion of the building's elevations. Since city hall and the community center have exteriors with brick as the predominant material, it is city staff's preference that the exterior of this building have brick and possibly more red-colored concrete block and much less (if any) metal siding. The project architect should revise the elevations accordingly. Sprinkling/Irrigation Code requires that the developer or owner install an in-ground sprinkler system for any new landscaped areas. The city can waive the spdnkledng requirement if there is an alternative method for watedng plantings. In this case, however, the county should have the project contractor install an in-ground irrigation system for the new sod and landscape areas near and around the new building. This is a requirement that the city has for all new commercial and institutional buildings. Landscaping The county had a landscape plan prepared for the site. (See the landscape plan on page 17 and the attached plan date-stamped August 3, 2004.) This plan shows the county planting a variety of plant materials around the new building, including maple, linden and black hills spruce trees, lilac, spirea and juniper shrubs and a variety of annuals and perennials. Staff would like to compliment the county's plan, as it appears that the proposed landscaping should be a nice addition to the building and to the campus. It would be a nice addition to the site to have outdoor seating areas in front of the building (for public use) and on the east side of the building (for building staff use). The applicant should incorporate such amenities, with additional landscaping for screening and shade, into the final landscape plan. Dumpster Enclosure The project plans do not show how the county would handle or store the trash from the building. The city should require Ramsey County to install a dumpster enclosure that matches the building as a part of this project to meet current code standards. Lighting The county did not supply city staff with an outdoor lighting plan for the building and for the area around the building. It is important that the city review and approve such a plan before the contractor starts the site construction. Other Comments Building Official A building permit is required. We suggest having a meeting with the architect and the owner and will be happy to work with them. Fire Marshal 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system is required. 2. Provide and maintain 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access to the building and to the site. 3. The contractor shall install a fire protection (sprinkler system) that is monitored. 4. The contractor shall install a fire alarm system that is monitored. 5. The contractor shall install a fire department lockbox on the building. The owner or contractor may get the request form for the lockbox from the fire marshal. Police Department Lieutenant Dave Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department stated that the only issue that he identified with the proposal has to do with the impact on traffic. He noted, 'the increase in the 3 number of vehicles trying to turn in and out of or into the parking lot at the court building will add to the problem" (of traffic flow on White Bear Avenue). He also noted that there are a fair number of accidents on White Bear Avenue involving vehicles waiting to turn into the parking lot and that it is not an easy task to safely make a left turn onto White Bear Avenue. He concluded with "1 would like to see the traffic issues given some consideration, however, even with no lane or other traffic control changes, keeping the court in Maplewood is a benefit to the police department." Ramsey County Public Works Dan Soler, the Ramsey County traffic engineer, reviewed the proposal. His comments are in the memo on page 23. In summary, Mr. Soler does not think any traffic control changes to White Bear Avenue or to the existing parking lot are warranted at this time. He did tell me on the telephone that he expects that the county will eventually need to add a r~h lane to the section of White Bear Avenue from Frost Avenue to County Road B. This section of road would then have a design similar to the parts of White Bear Avenue south of Frost Avenue and north of County Road B. City Engineering Department Chris Cavett and Edn LaBeree have reviewed the proposal. Their comments are on pages 21 and 22. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the lot division shown on the survey on page 14. This lot division creates a new, separate parcel for the Ramsey county Suburban courthouse facility at 2050 White Bear Avenue. This lot division approval is subject to the city and the county signing access and maintenance agreements for the property and for the parking lot(s). Approve the resolution on pages 24 and 25. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the Ramsey county Suburban Courts facility at 2150 White Bear Avenue. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Any future expansions or major changes to the site or to the building require the approval of a revision to the conditional use permit by the city council. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Co Approve the project plans date-stamped August 3, 2004, for the Ramsey county Suburban courts building at 2150 White Bear Avenue, subject to the findings required by the city code. The county or the developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and ddveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: 4 (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and lO0-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and south sides of the site to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (3)* All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer decides it is not necessary for drainage purposes. (4) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (5) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated August 11, 2004. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) The planting of native grasses, flowedng plants and Iow-level shrubs around any storm water pond(s). These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of each pond. (2) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for any rainwater gardens on the site. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. 5 Submit a detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting for city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the building would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. g. The applicant shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) The deeds creating the new lot for the courthouse. (2) A thirty-foot-wide permanent easement for the public trail across the east part of the lot. (3) The ingress and egress easement agreements between the two properties. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling enclosure, if the county is going to have an outdoor dumpster. These shall include a revised site plan to show the location and elevations of all four sides of the enclosure. The gates shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new courts building. This plan shall be subject to city staff approval. Revised building elevations that show the use of bdck as the predominant building matedal and more red-colored concrete block and little, if any, metal siding. Meeting all the conditions of the city engineering department as outlined in the memo dated August 11, 2004. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install new property irons to designate the comers of the new lot. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectodzed stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from White Bear Avenue. (city code requirement) Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the 6 materials and colors of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground or driveway. Install all required landscaping. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install on-site lighting for secudty and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All extedor lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. j. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 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. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. All signs need permits from the city. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval does not include any future additions on the east end of the building. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB and the city council for their approval before the city may issue a building permit for such an addition. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 11 properties within 500 feet of this site and received one reply. Ms. Ira Schroeder at 1997 White Bear Avenue expressed concerns about the loss of green space and the possible negative impacts to traffic on White Bear Avenue. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: About 2 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Maplewood Community Center and ponding area Ponding area and Maplewood City Hall Ramsey County Campus across the DNR Gateway Trail Multi-tenant commercial/industrial building across White Bear Avenue PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: G (government) Zoning: F (farm residence) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL CUP Section 44-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed in the resolution on pages 24 and 25. Design Review Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete applications for this request on August 3, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends October 2, 2004. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by October 2, 2004. p:sec14/Ram Co Court bldg - 2004.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Une Map 5. Site Survey 6. Site Plan (Proposed) 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Landscape Plan 9. Proposed Building Elevations 10. Proposed Floor Plan 11. Architect's Parking Narrative 12. Erin Laberee's comments dated August 11,2004 13. Dan Soler's comments dated August 13, 2004 14. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 15. Architectural plans date-stamped August ,2004 (separate attachment) 16. Landscape plan date-stamped August ,2004 (separate affachment) 9 Attachment 1 Conditional Use Statement The intended property use would serve as the new location for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts Facility. It would replace the existing facility currently located in Maplewood several miles to the north of the proposed property. This property allows for continued location and operation with in the City of Maplewood with easy access and accessibility from the surrounding areas on a site that is appropriate in size and scale for such a judicial facility. The facility will include two courtrooms as well as administrative offices and services to the public from Maplewood as well as other surrounding areas. This property use would compliment the adjacent public functions provided by the City Hall and Community Center while also further developing and enhancing the area. It is asked that a conditional permit be granted for this property to allow for this particular use in addition to the proposed property division as suggested on the provided survey. Additional preliminary information is provided as scripted out by the conditional use and community design review applications. It was predetermined that no photometric plan would be necessary at this time given the agreed shared use of the existing parking lot. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 10 Attachment.2 LOCATION MAP 11 Attachment 3 6 1732 1746 1754 17581764 1774 73t t737 1747 1755 t76~ t-771 BURKE AVE 1732 1742 1750 1760 2!25 2055 -q m m m COUNTY ROAD B COMMUNITY CENTER 1850 't858 1866,, 18,84 , 1896 CITY HALL 1721 DNR TRAIL 1731 1720 1732 1726 1695 1959 1955 1949 1947 ~x 1997 1989, 1975 C E M COUNTY CAMPUS LAND USE MAP 12 1820 Attachment 4 L T COUNTY ROAD B + ~ . 2 MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER POND MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL SITE ....~'" ']~-'"" ~__ COUNTY CAMPUS PROPERTY LINE MAP 13 Attachment 5 PARKING LOT POND ++ + SITE Porc~ 2 ~T Found Romley County M~ument DNR TRAIL SITE SURVEY 14 Attachment 6 · PUBUC PARKING 15,150 SF FOOT PRINT STAFF PARKING POND )PROPOSED SITE PLAN SITE PLAN 15 Attachment 7 PDN~] PROPOSED GRADING 16 PLAN Attachment 8 LANDSCAPE PLAN 17 Attachment 9 ~E~.S,~T EXTERIOR ELEVATION ['REAR~ (~o.,u~-n-i EXTERIOR ELEVATION (SIDE] BUILDING ELEVATIONS Attachment 10 ~P~..E, LJM,^R¥ ~.OOR PLA, FLOOR PLAN 19 Attachment 548 Apollo Drive, Suit~ to Uno Labls, Mlnnes~a 550t4 11 0 6 200 Parkinq Narrative E C E I V E D One of the attractive offerings of this proposed property was the ability to utilize existing parking in a,joint venture with the City of Maplewood. It was understood by both parties that although this parking could not be solely dedicated towards the courts specific use it would be feasible for shared use given the high use times would not likely overlap. The Courts operational hours are weekdays between 8am and 5pm. On evenings and weekends where the most likely use of the Community Center would involve higher concentrations of people, the Courts Facility is not in use. For certain dates when the Community Center may need maximum parking the Courts could adjust the case loads as needed to reduce the likely hood of conflict. A certain amount of lead time is necessary to accomplish this however such an event would likely be well planned prior to its occurrence allowing coordination to occur, It is believed that the parking requirements for the proposed Ramsey County Suburban Courts Facility are as follows, Currently the Courts reserve 1OO total spaces for staff, legal professionals and the public at the existing facility. Little change is expected with relocation to the proposed property. Staff specific parking will be added to accommodate the current needs of the facility. Currently (21) stalls proposed. Future needs could increase this requirement to a maximum of (25) stalls. This includes spaces for: (14 to 18) dedicated staff, (6) for two Judges and each of their two personal staff and (1) HCAP. This area will be accessed through the existing parking lot but be separate and secure from the public. Legal professionals and the public will utilize the existing parking. Under normal circumstances (4) total public defenders and or prosecutors would utilize the existing parking in addition to any private attorney's representing any given number of clients whose court appearance was scheduled that day. Other users would include individuals paying fines, utilizing hearing services or appearing in court. This number fluctuates daily depending on case loads, and is typically highest on Monday and Thursday mornings. These needs appear to be accommodated by the Courts existing parking provisions as addressed above. The southern most area of the parking lot consists of (31) stalls (2) of which are HCAP. The area located immediately in front of the proposed property would serve as the facilities primary parking and would likely be utilized fully during operating hours. The area to the north would serve as overflow parking as needed, enrichi~, Fage 2ol 2 2O Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Ramsey County Suburban Courts PROJECT NO: 04-19 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: August 11, 2004 Attachment 12 Ramsey County is proposing to construct a 15,150 square foot suburban courthouse on a site just south west of Wicklander's pond on the city hall campus. The site is now a community garden used by the nature center. Ramsey County also is proposing the construct additional parking spaces south of the proposed building. The proposed plans show storm water runoff discharging from the site into Wicklander's pond. The applicant or their representative's shall address the following issues: DrainaRe The city is working on plans to retrofit the existing storm sewer system on city hall campus with best management practices. These could include using treatment structures and infiltration basins to treat runoff before it discharges into Wicldander's pond. To improve the water quality in Wicklander's pond, runoff from the proposed site shall be treated before it discharges into the pond. The county shall use best management practices, such as infiltration basins, treatment structures, grass swales or other methods, to meet this requirement. For example, do not attach roof scuppers to the storm sewer, rather, have them drain out over a turf area. The project engineer shall provide drainage calculations for the type(s) of best management practices used. Utilize a concrete ribbon curb along the southern edge of the parking lot where runoff from the proposed parking lot will sheet drain over the curb and into a grass swale. Utilities 1. The contractor shall directionally bore the sanitary force main to preserve the wooded areas. The project engineer shall submit plan and profile drawings of the force main construction. This shall include all existing utilities and utility crossings. The project engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the city at~er the contractor has completed the construction of the force main. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements for the sanitary sewer force main from the City of Maplewood and from the MN DNR (for the area by the Gateway Trail). 21 Misc 1. The project engineer shall verify with Ramsey County the plans for the installation of the water service. The applicant should assume that the contractor will need to directionally bore the water service. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. The contractor or applicant shall submit a traffic control plan to Ramsey County for their approval for the water main construction on White Bear Avenue. 3. The Gateway Trail fight of way shall be shown on the plans. 22 Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 * (651) 266-2600 * Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us Attachment 13 ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 * Fax 482-5232 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM Ken Roberts City of Maplewood Dan Soler~-~/x'~ Ramsey County Public Works Ramsey County Court Building 2050 White Bear Avenue August l3,2004 AUG ! 7 200h RECEIVED The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed conditional use permit and site plan for the proposed Ramsey County Court Building at 2050 White Bear Avenue. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. The County is proposing to construct a new court facility at the south end of the existing Maplewood Community Center site. The addition of the new building is not anticipated to create operational problems on White Bear Avenue. The existing roadway has adequate capacity to handle additional trips generated by the site. Two access points currently serve the Maplewood Community Center on White Bear Avenue. Access to the court building will be from the south Community Center driveway. This access should be adequate for the new building. 3. The proposed project will require a utility permit from Ramsey County for work within White Bear Avenue right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. 23 Minnesota's First Home Rule Eouty printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% pest-consumer content Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit to build a new suburban county court facility. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2150 White Bear Avenue. The proposed legal description is: The south 183 feet of the East 420 feet of the West 633 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Subject to a permanent easement for drainage and utility and pedestrian trail purposes over the East 30 feet thereof, together with a permanent easement for ingress, egress and parking over, under and across the South 183 feet of the West 213 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, subject to White Bear Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 8, 2004, the planning commission held a public headng to review this request. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The commission gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On September 27, 2004, the city council discussed and considered this proposal. The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. They also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and from the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, 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: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Any future expansions or major changes to the site or to the building require the approval of a revision to the conditional use permit by the city council. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2004.