Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-21 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,August 21,2012 7:00PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a.July 17,2012 5.Public Hearings a.7 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit Revision for Edgerton Elementary School, 1929 Edgerton Street b.7 p.m. or later: Wetland Buffer Variance for Michael and Kathleen Bryan, 1978 Kennard Street c.7 p.m. or later:Conditional Use Permit Revision for RSI Recycling, 1255 Cope Avenue 6.New Business 7.Unfinished Business 8.Visitor Presentations 9.Commission Presentations a.Commissioner report for the city council meeting of July 23,2012. Commissioner Desai was scheduled to attend. The items reviewed were the resolution of appreciation for Tanya Nuss and the second reading of the Turf Parking Ordinance. Staff will report on the council actions. b.Commissioner report for the city council meeting of August 13, 2012. Commissioner Arbuckle attended. Theitems reviewed were the Keller Golf Course conditional use permit and the wetland buffer waiver for restoration at the former Maplewood Dump c.Upcoming city council meeting of August 27, 2012. Commissioner Durand is scheduled to attend. The scheduled items for discussion are the conditional use permits for Edgerton Elementary School and RSI Recycling and the wetland variance for 1978 Kennard Street 10.Staff Presentations 11.Adjournment DRAFT MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012 1.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commissionwas held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00p.m.by Chairperson Fischer. 2.ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, CommissionerPresent Al Bierbaum, CommissionerPresent Joseph Boeser, CommissionerPresent Tushar Desai,CommissionerPresent Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent Lorraine Fischer, ChairpersonPresent Absent Gary Pearson, Commissioner Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent Stephen Wensman, CommissionerPresent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerBoeser.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES CommissionerTripplermoved to approve theJune 19, 2012,PCminutes as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerDesai.Ayes –Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner’s Arbuckle, Desai, Durand & Trippler Abstentions–Commissioner’s Bierbaum, Boeser & Wensman The motion passed. 5.PUBLIC HEARING a.Wetland Buffer Waiver for Restoration at the former Maplewood Dump West of Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park. i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced staff to give the presentation. July 17, 2012 1 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes ii.Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the presentation and answered questions of the commission. iii.Ron Leaf, SEH,3535 Vadnais Center Drive, Vadnais Heights,addressed and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. CommissionerBoesermoved to approve thewetland buffer waiver with the following conditions: 1.Detailed culvert plans must be completed and approved by staff. 2.Revegetation plans must be completed and approved by staff. 3.The project must comply with the city’s tree preservation ordinance. 4.The city must obtain a Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed district permit for the project. Seconded by Commissioner Wensman.Ayes –All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 13, 2012. b.Approval of a conditional use permit amendment for Keller Golf Course, 2166 Maplewood Drive. i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the presentation and answered questions of the commission. ii.Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave a presentation and answered questions of the commission. iii.Scott Yonke, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department addressed and answered questions of the commission. iv.Paul Kangas, Principal Landscape Architect at Loucks Associates, Maple Grove, addressed and answered questions of the commission. v.Chad Lockwood, Professional Engineer, Loucks Associates, Maple Grove,addressed and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend a separate motion for A.4. The use of 9½ foot wide parking spaces is approved per city ordinanceand employee parking spaces are allowed as 9 feet wide. Seconded by Commissioner Boeser.Ayes –Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner’s Arbuckle, Boeser, Desai, Durand, & Trippler Nays–Commissioner’s Bierbaum, & Wensman The motion passed. July 17, 2012 2 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes Commissioner Tripplermoved to approve the resolution approving a conditional use permit amendment for Keller Golf Course located at 2166 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by the code andsubject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1.All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2.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. 4.not The use of nine foot wide parking spaces is approved as an expansion of a legal, non- Parking stalls shall measure 9½ feet wide but employee parking stalls conforming use. may measure 9 feet wide. 5.Applicant must provide six foot tall, 80 percent opaque screening between the new parking lot near County Road B East and the single family dwellings to the east. Current vegetation meets this requirement but if existing trees are ever removed or die new screening must be installed. Seconded by Commissioner Boeser.Ayes –All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council August 13, 2012. 6.NEW BUSINESS a.Combination of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board into one commission. i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave a brief report. No motion was needed. 7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS None. 8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a.Commissioner Trippler reported on the city council meeting of June 25, 2012. The only planning commission item to discuss was the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility Proposal. July 17, 2012 3 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes b.Commissioner Pearson was scheduled to attend the city council meeting of July 9, 2012, however he was not present so staff reported on the first reading of the turf-parking ordinance and the dynamic display sign ordinance amendment. c.Commissioner Desai is scheduled to attend the city council meeting of July 23, 2012. The potential items for discussion are the resolution of appreciation for Tanya Nuss and the second reading of the Turf Parking Ordinance. 10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS a.Cancellation of the August 7, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting due to Election Training. b.Staff mentioned there is a demonstration at RSI Recycling on Friday, July 20, 2012,at 10 a.m.at 1255 Cope Avenue. 11.ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 9:05p.m. July 17, 2012 4 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Conditional Use Permit Revisionfor Edgerton Elementary School SUBJECT: (Simple-majority vote required for approval) LOCATION:1929 Edgerton Street DATE:August 6, 2012 INTRODUCTION Project Description Laura Larsen, of the Roseville Area Schools—ISD #623, is requesting approval to install a new service drive on the east side of Edgerton Elementary School connecting to Edgerton Street. This proposed driveway is needed to separate delivery truck and trash pick-up truck activity from the south parking lot to eliminate conflicts and congestion with student drop-off and regular parking needs. The applicant will also be closing the easterly curb cut to the south parking lot since it is steep and results in back-ups onto Roselawn Avenue because of its difficulty to access. The closing of the easterly curb cuts and restriping of the south parking lot will begin August 6 and should be completed before school begins. Staff considered these changes to the south parking lot minor and wanted to assist the applicant in getting started since school will open soon for the year. Staff, therefore, supported the closing of the steep easterly driveway along Roselawn Avenue and also approved the restriping of the southerly parking lot. The proposed service driveway on the east side of the building was a significant site plan alteration, warranting the revision of the conditional use permits (CUP). Refer to the attached letter from Larson Engineering, Inc. In addition to the statement from Larson Engineering, Ms. Larsen provided the following additional explanation to support the school district’s proposal: The main safety hazard we are attempting to be rid of is the east entrance on Roselawn. The entrance is currently closer to the intersection of Roselawn and Edgerton. It is at quite an angle, allowing traffic to back up to the intersection and cause accidents, especially when the entrance is wet, icy or snowy. Sometimes vehicles cannot make it up the hill. Becky, Edgerton’s Principal, can speak to the accidents and congestion that occur there, caused by the existing entrance. Becky, can you add your experiences? The possibilitiesof the plan were constrained by both the small land footprint on the south side of the building, the fact that the school is elevated so high above the street level there, as well as the location of key parts of the building. Our proposed plan makes it very difficult for large trucks to turn around in the south lot, given the small area. Creating a one-way only entrance off of Edgerton around the building to the south lot does not seem feasible given the small amount of area and high elevation. Moving student drop-off and pick-up to the north lot isn’t feasible, because the main office, nurses office, as well as the before and after school program are all at the south end of the school. For the safety and security of students and staff, all entrances are locked and all people must sign in and out during the school day, except for entry through the main office. Access to and from the building for the before and after school program are monitored by their staff. Some parking simply must be available inthis lot for security and due to the configuration of the building. In terms of the attractiveness of the delivery drive, we could certainly consider putting in shrubbery to screen the north/south running portion. In front of ½ of that would be the rain garden. We are open to suggestions in terms of how to make the new area look better. Request Revise the CUP for Edgerton Elementary School to allow the proposed service drive on the east side of the building. BACKGROUND On March 28, 1994 the city council granted a CUP to allow the expansion of Edgerton Elementary. This CUP was last reviewed and given an indefinite approval on December 8, 1997, to be reviewed again only if the school district proposes a change. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Revision Neighbors’ Concerns Staff surveyed the surrounding property owners and received eightreplies about the proposed driveway from Edgerton Street. Fiveneighbors were opposed because of a concern over an increase in truck traffic.But, they also expressed concern over harming site appearances by placing a service drive in this area as well as creating conflicts with kids’use of this lawn for playing.For the complete neighbor response, refer to Citizens’ Comments in this report. Staff asked the applicant if the number of deliveries would increase causing an increase in traffic. The applicant stated that deliveries will not increase or intensifynor will there be any change in trash pick-up. The applicant stated that currently, truck deliveryactivity per week is as follows: Recycling/trash pick-up5 times Food service deliveries7 times Coke delivery1 time Custodial Supplies1 time District Trucks10 times Total24truck visits perweek on average (approximatelyfiveper day) Ms.Larsen said that these are the predictable deliveries. If others occur, they would be by small vehicles. The applicantalsoinformed staff that most of these truck trips to the school currently use Edgerton Street, so the road use would most likely be remain the same.Staff feels that since the delivery activity would all take place within the site there should not be any significant impact on the traffic along Edgerton Street. CUP Findings for Approval The zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine that all nine “standards” for approval be met to approve a CUP. In short, these findings state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the complete wording): Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code. Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood. Not depreciate property values. Not cause any disturbance or nuisance. Not cause excessive traffic. Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection. Not create excessive additional costs for public services. Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features. Not cause adverse environmental effects. These criteria would be met. Compliance with Existing CUP Conditions The applicantis in compliance with the existing CUP conditions. Design Considerations Site The proposed changes consist of the new driveway connection to Edgerton Street, a three-foot-tall dock to unload trucks, a screening wall to hide the dock and trash dumpster and sidewalks. Landscaping One tree would be removed for the proposed Edgerton Street service driveand one due to the closing of the driveway on Roselawn Avenue.The city’s tree-replacement ordinance requires that if less than twenty percent (20%) of significant tree diameterinches is removed, the applicant shall replace one (1) tree per tree removed. Tree replacement shall be a minimum of two (2.0) caliper inches in size. By that requirement, the ordinance would require that these twotrees be replaced by twotwo-inch-caliper trees. In addition to the replacement of these two trees, Staff feels that it would be a benefit to the neighbors and the appearance of the site to provide more trees along the Edgerton Street side to screen the proposed truck delivery area. The proposed screening wall is a good enhancement, but additional plantingsalong this side would also help to buffer the area for the neighbors across the street. Department Comments Engineering Jon Jarosch, staff engineer, has reviewed the plans and submittedhis comments in the attached report. Refer to Mr. Jarosch’s report. Police Lieutenant Richard Doblar reviewed this proposal and has no concerns with this request. Building Official The applicant needs to comply with applicable building code requirements and apply for a building permit for the proposed loading dock. Summary Adding a new driveway along Edgerton Street is a reasonablerequest. According to the applicant’s explanation of current deliveries and trash pick-up, the proposed driveway would be usedapproximately five times a day. To recap, the concerns we received by residents across Edgerton Street are: Increased traffic causing hazard for a disabled person Increased traffic in general creating a safety hazard Loss of play area and outdoor lunch area for kids Loss of site aesthetics It would make Edgerton Street look like a back alley It’s unnecessary—they can simply sign the existing east end of the south parking lot for deliveries only Staff considered the above concerns and donot necessarily agree. One cannotargue that the site is more attractive nowvs. how it will look with a service driveway in place. However, Staff does not feel that the proposed driveway would be asignificant change in the appearanceof the property. To address this, the applicant has agreed to present a screening plan to install a planted buffer onthe street side of the north-south area of driveway. It is reasonable for the school district to make improvements to their site if they are experiencinginternal traffic conflicts. Staff does not see that the proposed driveway would create a more dangerous traffic situation along Edgerton Street. According to the applicant, the location of the proposed driveway would not create an increase in the numberof deliveries or trash pick-ups. Furthermore, most of their delivery trucks approach the school from Edgerton Street already. Perhaps the proposed driveway may lend to a safer situation along Edgerton Street if vehicles are slowing down to access the proposed driveway. Concerning the disabled resident in the neighborhood, the city council could recommend to the county that they install cautionary signs indicating there is a blind and deaf personin the neighborhood to alert drivers of needed caution. The speed limit along Edgerton Street, however, presently requires“20 mph when children are present” and 30 mph normally. RECOMMENDATION Adoptthe resolution approvinga revision for the conditional use permit for the Edgerton Elementary School,located at 1929 Edgerton Street,based on the findings required by city ordinance and subject to the following conditions (the additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): 1.All construction shallfollow the site plan (stamped July 18, 2012August 29, 1994) approved by the city.StaffThe Director of Community Developmentmay approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year after 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 city may require additional parking if neededas previously required by council in 1994. 5.The school district shall provide for evening car parking in the bus-loading area. The access drives to this parking area shall be open during the evenings. 6.The school district shall allow the city to construct a walkway from the city’s property to the north parking lot.The school district shall provide a landscaping plan for staff approval to provide two replacement trees and a planted screen to buffer the proposed Edgerton Street service drive. 7.The applicant shall comply with the conditions in the engineering report by Jon Jarosch dated July 31, 2012. CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 67properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments.Of the eightreplies,three were in favorand five objected. In Favor I like the proposed plan for an additional driveway from EdgertonStreet—my vote is yes. (Kramer, 1855 Edgerton Street) The plan looks ok to the St. Paul Regional Water Services. This is a wise decision. (Dupre, 474 Roselawn Avenue) Opposed I am opposed to the Edgerton Elementary school driveway proposal. I believe an additional driveway at the proposed location would be ill-advised because the entering and exiting of vehicles in an area of high bike and pedestrian traffic would be hazardous as well as the fact that the Kindergarten class room is located next to the location and the children use that area regularly. Another concern is the noise of the vehicles backing up and the dumpsters being emptied would be disturbing due to the noise reverberation off the brick building, the traffic noise level is a nuisance as it is now due to the reverberation of the noise off the brick building. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration. (Bordsen, 1960 Edgerton Street) I oppose this plan. The move would increase heavy truck traffic along Edgerton. There are already plenty of semis, school bus traffic, city bus traffic and other vehicles using Edgerton—often at speeds of 35-45 mph. The street does not need even more heavy truck traffic. With this plan, delivery trucks and waste haulers would use only Edgerton—since it would be difficult for them to turn from Roselawn. Please do not increase our traffic. (Gebhard, 2032 Edgerton Street) We oppose this proposal since it would increase traffic along Edgerton Street. We have a daughter who is blind and deaf anduses the city bus stop on Edgerton Street. Additional traffic and use of the proposed driveway would be hazardous. Is this their only alternative? This proposal would also be noisy for those across Edgerton Street. (Taylor, 1938 Edgerton Street) Johnand Nan Taylor live at 1938 Edgerton Street. Their daughter Jaime, who is both blind and deaf, lives there also. Jaime has a service dog and they take Metro buses. They get on or off either along Edgerton Street or on Skillman Avenue. The driveway proposal could make it more dangerous for Jaime and her service dog. (Chinquist, 539 Bellwood Avenue) Refer to the attached email response from Larry Land, 1946 Edgerton Street (attachment 7). REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size:4acres Existing land use: Edgerton Elementary School SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Edgerton Park South:Roselawn Avenue, a single dwelling and Good Samaritan Nursing Home West:Single dwellings East:Edgerton Street and single dwellings PLANNING Zoning:F (farm residential) Land Use Plan: G(government) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(3) requires a CUPfor educational institutions. Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to these findings listed in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE The city received all the materials for a complete application for this request on July 18, 2012. State law requires that the city council act on requests such as this within 60 days. Thatdate for final action by the city councilwould have been September 16, 2012. p:sec17/Edgerton Elementary/Edgerton Elementary CUP Revision PC Report 8 12 te Attachments: 1.Zoning Map 2.Land Use Plan Map 3.Site Plan 4.Arial Photograph 5.Applicant’s Narrative 6.Engineering report dated July 31, 2012 by Jon Jarosch 7.Email response from Larry D. Land dated August 6, 2012 8.CUP Revision Resolution 9.Plans date-stamped July 18, 2012(separate attachment) Attachment8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Roseville Area Schools—ISD #623,requested a revision to the conditional use permit for Edgerton Elementary School to revised the site plan by adding a service drive on the Edgerton Street side of the property. WHEREAS,Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for educational institutions. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1929 Edgerton Streetlegally described as: SUBJ TO STS & EX S 292.96 FT & EX N 155.04 FT OF S 448 FT OF E 468.6 FT& EX N 352.96 FT OF W 108 FT & EX N 160 FT OF E 313 FT THE S ½ OF SE ¼ OF NO ¼ OF SECTION 17 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 AND SUBJ TO AVE AND ST THE S 448 FT OF E 468 6/10 FT OF NO ¼ OF SECTION 17 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 AND SUBJ TO EDGERTON ST THE N 160 FT OF E 313 FT OF S½ OF SE ¼OF NW ¼ OF SECTION 17 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1.On August 21, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ___________the conditional use permitrevision. 2.On __________, 2012the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permitrevision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ____________the above-described conditional use permit revision for the following reasons: 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciate property values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 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 no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.All construction shall follow the site plan (stamped July 18, 2012August 29, 1994) approved by the city. StaffThe Director of Community Developmentmay approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially stated within one year after 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 city may require additional parking if needed as previously required by council in 1994. 5.The school district shall provide for evening car parking in the bus-loading area. The access drives to this parking area shall be open during the evenings. 6.The school district shall allow the city to construct a walkway from the city’s property to the north parking lot.The school district shall provide a landscaping plan for staff approval to provide two replacement trees and a planted screen to buffer the proposed Edgerton Street service drive. 7.The applicant shall comply with the conditions in the engineering report by Jon Jarosch dated July 31, 2012. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ___________, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Michael Martin,AICP, Planner Charles Ahl,Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Approval of a Variance from Wetland Buffer Requirement — Backyard Swimming Pool LOCATION:1978 Kennard Street VOTE REQUIRED:Simple Council Majority Required for Approval of a Variance DATE:August 14, 2012 INTRODUCTION Michael and Kathleen Bryan areproposing to install an in-ground swimming pool within the backyard of their home at 1978 Kennard Street. Their entire backyard is within the wetland buffer area meaning a variance would be needed to build a swimming pool in any location. Request The applicant is requesting the following: A51-foot wetland buffer variance from the Manage B wetlandon the east side of theBryan’s property. The code requires a 75-foot buffer from the Manage Bwetland. DISCUSSION Wetland Buffer Variance There is a Manage Bwetland located on the east side of the property. The city’s wetland ordinance requires a 75-foot buffer adjacent a Manage B.The entire backyard of the Bryan’s home is within this 75-foot buffer area meaning any placement of the pool would require a variance to be approved by the city council. The current status of the backyard is mowed turf grass –whichis allowed by the city’s wetland ordinance. It should be noted that none of the Bryan’s neighbor’s have nativeornaturalized bufferareas.Allthenearbyhomesmaintainmowedturfgrassbackyards.Ifthevarianceis approvedtheapplicantwouldberequiredtofollowallothercityordinancesapplicableto installinganin-groundswimmingpool.Afenceisrequiredaroundthepool.Theapplicantis proposingtoconnecttwosectionsoffencealreadyexistingonthenorthandsouthproperty lines.Thenewfencesectionswouldrunneartheedgeoftheexistingwetland.Staff’s opinion is an in-ground swimming pool at this location will not be any more detrimental to the adjacent wetland than a mowed backyard. Staff is supportive of the proposed wetlandbuffer variance for the following reasons: 1.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanentstructures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. 2.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. 4.The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plans and had no concerns and does not require a permit. Engineering Comments Refer to the report by Randy Lindblomof the Maplewood Engineering Department dated July 26, 2012.Mr. Lindblom’sconditions noted in his report should be made conditions of this project. Building Official’s Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: Must meet pool code for safety fence. Environmental Planner’s Comments Shann Finwall, the environmental planner, had the following comments: No use of rip rap. Mitigation of variance with buffer plantings. Consider bringing east fence location closer to the pool and home. Must comply with city’s tree preservation ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution approving awetland buffer variance from the Manage Bwetland on the east side of the site. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. 2.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additionalbuffer plantings. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. 4.The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plansand had no concerns and does not require a permit. Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Randy Lindblom andthe comments made by Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official and Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner, made within this report. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 0.28acres Existing Use: Single family home SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Single family homes South:Single family homes East:Wetland and single family home West:Kennard Streetandsingle family homes PLANNING Land Use Plan: LDR(low density residential) Zoning: R1(single dwelling) Findings for Wetland Buffer Variance Approval Section 12-310of the city code allows the city council to grant variancesto wetland buffers. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes. The council may grant a wetland buffer variance according to the language below: (1)Procedures. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: a.The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. b.Before the city council acts on a variance, the environmental and natural resources commission will make a recommendation to the planning commission, who will in turn make a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing for the variance. The city shall notify property owners within 500 feet of the property for which the variance is being requested at least ten days before the hearing. c.The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer alteration impacts with the approval of a variance, including, but not limited to, implementing one or more of the strategies listed in subsection12-310(e)(4) (mitigation). d.To approve a variance, the council must make the following findings as depicted in Minn. Stats.§ 44-13: 1.In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; 2.Consistent with the comprehensive plan; 3.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. APPLICATION/DECISION DEADLINE City staffreceived the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 13, 2012. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The deadlinefor city action on this proposal is September 11, 2012. If needed, the city is able to extend this review deadline by an additional 60 days p:sec15\1978 Kennard Street\1978 Kennard Pool Wetland Buffer Variance_082112 Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Future Land Use Map 3.Zoning Map 4.Wetland Map 5.Site Plan 6.Applicant’s Letter of Request dated July 9, 2012 7.Engineering Plan Reviewdated July 26, 2012 8.Variance Resolution Attachment 1 1978 Kennard 1978 Kennard Street Location Map Attachment 2 1978 Kennard Street Future Land Use Map LDR - Low Density Residential Attachment 3 1978 Kennard Street Zoning Map R1 - Single Dwelling Attachment 4 Manage B Wetland 1978 Kennard Street Wetland Location Map Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: 1978 Kennard backyard swimming pool OWNER: Michael E. Bryan & Kathy M. Bryan COMMENTS BY: Randy Lindblom,Senior Engineering Technician DATE: 7-26-2012 PLAN SET: Sketch by Atlantis Pool/Ecowater REPORTS: Home OwnerNarrativeto Michael Martin A single family homeowner is requesting to building a backyard swimming pool. There is a Manage B Wetland just east of the property which requires a 75 foot setback. The house currently sits around 67 feet from the wetland edge. It is not possible for the property owner to build a pool anywhere on site without a variance. A 51-foot variance is being requested to site the pool. The closest the pool would be to the wetland is 24 feet, the farthest 28 feet. The applicant needs city approval for wetland buffer variance. The following are engineeringreview comments and act as conditions prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits: Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)It appears that there are no easements for storm sewer on the property. The pond and wetland drain to the south across Frost Ave. An agreement between the homeowner and City shallbeagreed to detailingthat the City is not liable for any damage to the pool in the case offluctuating ground water, or if the pond ever backed up enough to have encroachment into the pool or any appurtenances to the pool. 2)Itisadvised that a boring or test holes be dug and investigated prior to the pool being constructed. If there is evidence of ground water an engineer shallbe hired to advise on the construction of the pool. Grading and Erosion Control 3)All disturbed areas shall be graded to slopes of 3H:1Vor less. This may require the use of retaining walls. Should retaining walls be necessary, they shall be placed as close to the pool area as possible. 4)Erosion control shall be provided at the edge of the wetland being either bio-roll or silt fence. Permanent restoration of alldisturbed areas shallbe restored within 10 days of completion of grading activities. Attachment 7 Other 5)The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies. 6)All dewatering operations shall direct water to the street in front of the property. Dewatering into the wetland is not allowed. All waters shall be de-chlorinated prior to discharge. Attachment 8 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Michael and Kathleen Bryanapplied for a variance from the wetland protection ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property located at 1978 Kennard Street. The property identificationnumberfor thisproperty is: 15-29-22-14-0026 WHEREAS, Ordinance Section12-310, the Environmental Protection and Critical Area Ordinance dealing with Wetlands, requires a wetland protection buffer of 75feet in width adjacent to Manage B wetlands. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing wetland protection buffers of 24feet, requiring a variance of 51feet, from the Manage B wetland. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1.On August 20, 2012, the environmental and natural resources commission reviewed this variance and recommended __________. 2. On August 21, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ______the variance request. 3. The city council held a public meeting on August 27, 2012, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________the above- described variances based on the following reasons: 1.Strict enforcement ofthe ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. 2.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. 4. The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plansand had no concerns and does not require a permit. Attachment 8 Conditions of Approval Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Randy Lindblom and the comments made by Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official and Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner, made within this report. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on _________, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manger Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for RSI Recycling SUBJECT: Services LOCATION:1255 Cope Avenue DATE:August 16, 2012 INTRODUCTION Project Description Troy Halverson, of RSI Recycling Service, is requesting approval to remodel the former Wipers Recycling property at 1255 Cope Avenue as a metals recycling business. This use will require a conditional use permit(CUP)for a materials recycling business. Mr. Halverson’s proposal includes the following: Place three roll-off dumpsters in the westerly parking lot for material processing and storage. This area would have equipment for placing scrap metal in these bins. Provide an eight-foot-tall poured-in-place, pattern-embossedconcrete screening wall around theoutdoor dumpster area. Place a can-storage trailer in the existing dock area. Provide landscaping on the north and south sides of the proposed screening wall. Install three garage doors on the south elevation and three correspondinggarage doors on the north elevation to allow customers to enter the building on the south side and exit on the north. This would facilitate dropping off materials inside the buildingwith a drive-thru exit. Install a service door on the front (south side) along with the three overhead garage doors. Remove the existing canopy on the south side of the building Install a driveway on the north side of the building for customers’ to exit after dropping off materials inside the building. Install a new curb cut on Cope Avenueat the easterly side of the sitefor a direct access into the building. Remove eight parking spaces on the south side of the building for the proposed driveway and garage door access. Requests Mr. Halverson is requesting the following approvalsfor this proposal: A CUP for a material recycling facilityand for exterior materials storageand recycling activities.City code requires a CUP for outdoor activities that are within 350 feet of residential property, other than parking. Anyoutdoor vehicle activity or transport of materials that goes beyond simple parking would require a CUP. Since the site already has a CUP for a previous use, this request would also be a revision of that previous permit. Siteand building remodeling planapprovals. The community design review board has already reviewed the plansand forwarded their recommendation. BACKGROUND July 5, 1979: The city council approved plans for the building on this site as a racquetball club. The building was later remodeled for Northern Hydraulics in 1991 and most recently as Wipers Recycling in 2007. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Neighbors’ Concerns Staff surveyed the surrounding propertyowners and received ninereplies. Six neighbors were opposed to this proposal. The following is a summary of theirconcerns: (Refer to the Citizens’ Comments section and the attached replies for complete response.) Noise impacts Traffic increase Industrial use is not compatible with commercial and residential Visual impacts The applicant has addressed these impacts and would be handling these concerns as follows: Noise: the majority of the recycling drop-off activity would take place inside the building. This is the reason for the installation of the three new garage doors, toenable customers to pull into the building to drop off materials. Drop offs that are too large for the indoor bins would be dropped off at the westerly dumpsterarea by the crane apparatus. Staff expects that this may be the noisiest activity at the site. The applicant estimates that 20 percent of their business would entail drop offs at these outdoor bins. Refer to the picture of the type of crane which would be usedto drop metals into the bins. The actual one would have a claw end rather than a bucket scoop. The applicant stated that noise from inside the building should not be significant, even though they would keep overhead doors open for ventilation on hot days. Staff is concerned about noise as well, but cannot state that noise will be a definite problem. Traffic:The applicant stated that they anticipate 85 to 135 vehicle trips per day to the site. On a per hour basis, this would amount to 15 vehicle trips per hourin a nine-hour day.(The applicant proposes to be open 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and 8 to noon on Saturday.)As stated, 20 percent would be by vehicles going to the outdoor bins to be unloaded. The majority, 80 percent, of these vehicles wouldunload inside the building. The full bins would be replaced with empties generating about five truck trips per day to the site. If vehicle stacking into the street becomes a problem, the applicant should revise their internal traffic flow or make othersuitable changes to prevent this from happening. Zoning of Property:Some neighbors commented that this use is not appropriate in this area. They see this neighborhood as retail and residential, certainly not industrial. This lot, in fact, has been zoned M1 (light manufacturing) since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1965. Recycling uses are listed as “conditional uses” meaning that they are appropriate in an M1 district, provided the city council approves a CUP for the proposed business. Visual Impacts: Staff is also concerned that there be proper landscaping and screening. The applicant has submitted a proposal for an eight-foot-tall screening wall around the outside bin area and additional landscaping in front of this wall and along Cope Avenue for enhanced screening.Refer to the plans. Staff feels that the proposed landscaping/screening plan should utilize primarily evergreen trees for year-around screening along the Cope Avenue frontage. A variety of landscaping in front of the proposed wall is a good idea for aesthetics and to break up the appearance of the massive wall. CUP Findings for Approval The zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine that all nine “standards” for approval be met to approve a CUP. In short, these findings state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the complete wording): Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code. Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood. Not depreciate property values. Not cause any disturbance or nuisance. Not cause excessive traffic. Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection. Not create excessive additional costs for public services. Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features. Not cause adverse environmental effects. To address these criteria: The plan would comply with the comprehensive plan and zoning. It would maintain the neighborhood character since it would be a light industrial use. Staff does not see that there would be any impact on property valuessince there seems to be a sufficient distance from the residential district to the south.I have contacted the Ramsey County Assessor’s office for their opinion and am awaiting a reply. If operated as proposed, it would not cause any disturbance or nuisance. There would not be excessive traffic—the anticipated 15 vehicle trips per hour is not excessive. It would be served by public facilities and police and fire. It would not create excessive additional costs for public services. It would preserve the majority of the existing trees and provide additional ones. It would not cause adverse environmental effects. Architectural Staff has no design concerns about the addition of the proposed garage doors, service dooror the removal of the building awning.The building needs paint in areas. The applicant should touch up peeling areas of building paint as needed and repaint beneath the awning after its removal. Site Considerations Screening WallLocation The proposed screening wall would wrap around the north, west and south sides of the outdoor material handling area. The westerly section is shown as an area “to be determined”since the applicant may request the purchase of the Atlantic Street right-of- way if it is vacated for the Highway 36 improvements. If that occurs, the applicant would extend his screening wall and materials handling area into the Atlantic Street alignment. This makes sense should that opportunity become available. The applicant’s screening plan looksto be a good start. Staff would recommend the plan be revised to incorporate heavy use of evergreens along the Cope Avenue frontage. This would mean removal of the existing deciduous trees which provide no effective screening. Evergreens should be planted reasonably close together to form a tight screen. A variety of plantings on the west and south side of the proposed wall is a good idea for more of a varied appearance and to break up the appearance of the large wall. There seems to be no benefit from providing additional plantings on the north side of the proposed wall since the existing trees provide foliage. Should the wall be extended into the Atlantic Street right-of-way after itsvacation, landscaping should be provided on the north side of this extension. Trash Enclosure Screening The applicant indicated that he would be agreeable to extend the southerly part of the screening wall around the south and east sides of the trash dumpster area. Staff feels this is a good idea for screeningthe outdoor bin area and to screen the businesses trash and cardboard recycling dumpsters. Tree Removal The applicant would remove seven trees on the north side of the building to install the proposed rear driveway. Hewould also remove two trees for the proposed easterly curb cut as well as a mature pine bushadjacent to the front parking lot. In terms of tree replacement, the landscaping needed in frontof the screening wall would be sufficient replacementmaterial. Parking The applicant would provide 15 parking spaces. There are 12 spaces proposed on the south side of the building and three on the west side. There are four parking spaces shown on the site plan west of the building, however, thisarea only has room for two regular parking spaces, one handicap space and the striped handicap-accessible loading aisle. The applicant has stated that they would havea maximum of ten employeesat a given time. Customers would not park since they would drive into the building, drop off materials and then drive away. There is no code requirement for parking for a recycling facility such as this one. If there is a need for additional parking spaces in the future, the applicant would need to look at site plan alterations to provide additional stalls.A change over in use in the future could prove to be detrimental for parking needs since parking stalls are short in supply on this site. Staff, however, does not feel the applicant should be penalized since there would be enough spaces to suit his purposes. Pavement The parking lot is worn and weedy. A condition of approval should be to repaveand restripe the parking lot.The CDRB required the full repaving of the parking lot. Department Comments Police There are no real issues regarding the design other than the possibility of noise being generated when dealing with scrap metal. It appears they have addressed this with a noise barrier. There is some concern with a possibility of the turn-in of stolen metals. The applicant should work with the police department regarding this concern. Assistant Fire Chief Theapplicant will be required to have the fire protection system serviced and certified for the proper coverage, this needs to be done by a licensed contractor. They will need to have the alarm system monitored by a UL list company and shall be tested by a licensed contractor prior to operating. They will need to pull permits for this work and any changes would require plans. There is currently a fire department lock box on the building that will require a master key put inside so when/if we need to enter after hours. Engineering Please refer to the Engineering Plan Review by Jon Jarosch, staff engineer. Condition 6 requires that the applicant dedicate a five-foot-wide sidewalk easement to the city for the extension of the sidewalk from the neighboring property. The city will build this sidewalk as part of the upcoming Highway 36 and English Street area improvements. Building Official I would require a complete building code analysis from a design professional. There may be a requirement for a floor drain with a flammable waste if they are bringing vehicles into the building. Noise could be an issue with this type of operation. Installing a tall fence around this property I have some concern about the exiting to the public way and the Fire Department access. Verification of the fire sprinklers system for this use of the building will be required. Accessibility issues will be addressed once it is known how much of the building would be remodeled. The plumbing will need to be reviewed by the MN State Department of Labor and Industry. All the doors out of this building should be looked at for code compliance. (Accessibility, landing, door hardware,etc.) It would be a good idea to have a meeting with design professional. Environmental Planner They are cutting down trees with the expansion of the drive aisle toward the freeway. They should show us a more detailed tree removal and tree replacement plan. Conclusion Staff feels that the largest issue is that of a noise potential. The applicant feels strongly that noise will be controlled and that the highway noise is more overpowering than his business generate. Also, the proposed hours of operation would be 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and 8 to noon on Saturday. This would comply with the city’s noise protection ordinance which requires noise to cease after 7 p.m. The applicant did mention that if business is good, they would like to have the building open for a second shift. This, however, would not entail being open to the public. It would be for the handling of materials inside the building.Should the applicant propose to extend their hours of operation, this should be reviewed by the city council. COMMISSION ACTIONS July 24, 2012: The CDRB recommended approval of the site and building remodeling plans with the following additions: The repair of the parking lot shall constitute the removal of paving, the installation of new paving and striping. The revised screening plan shall include the addition of landscaping in keeping with the existing westerly curb cut location. RECOMMENDATION a.Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for 1255Cope Avenue to allow a materials recycling facility. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1.All construction must comply with the site plan, received by the city on September 24, 1990. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The city council must review major changes. 2.The city council shall review this permit one year from the date of approval, based on the procedures in the city code. 3.There shall be no outside storage of good, materials or trash. 4.The owner shall have the roof-top equipment screened as required by code. 5.The owner shall keep the pole light, at the northwest corner of the site off or reorient it so it will not glare onto streets or other properties. 6.The canopy shall not be illuminated. 7.The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday-Friday; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Sundays. 8.There shall be no overnight parking of trucks. 9.Grade and sod the weedy strip next to Englewood Shops by July 1, 1991. Sod the entire lawn by September 15 if the owner cannot control the weeds by then. 10.Irrigation shall be made operational if present. 1.All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped August 15, 2012. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.The citycouncil shall review this permit in one year. 3.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend thisdeadline for one year. 4.The permitted hours of operation shall be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 to noon on Saturday. Extended hours may be considered by the city council should the applicant wish to add a second shift. 5.If vehicle stacking into the street becomes a problem, the applicant should revise their internal traffic flow or make other suitable changes to prevent this from happening. 6.Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened if required by code. 7.Site lighting shall complywith city lighting requirements. Pole height is exempt if they exceed 25 feet in height. 8.The applicant shallwork with the police department to monitor and guard against the potential for stolen materials being sold at the proposed facility. 9.The applicant shall install an eight-foot-tall concrete screening wall on the north, west and south sides of the outdoor dumpster bin area as shown on the plan. The following variations shall be required as well: The southerly wall shall be extended around the south and east sides of the trash and cardboard recycling area to provide screening for those dumpsters and to help conceal the activity at the roll-off dumpsters. The construction of the westerly section of screening wall may be postponed until the city has vacated the Atlantic Street right-of-way since the applicant proposes to acquire this for his site. This would avoid the costs of construction of the wall just to demolish it for later expansion. The deadline for this land acquisition and completion ofthe screening wall shall be two years from the date of this CUP approval. The city may require the installation of a temporary fence in the interim based on disturbances, unsightliness and complaints. 10.The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted for design board approvalproviding for: Removal of the deciduous trees along Cope Avenue and replacement with eight-foot-tall spruce trees. Matching landscaping on the west side of the screening wall to match the landscaping proposed on the south side. Except for these items, the landscaping plan is approved with the other landscaping details proposed. b.Approve the plans date-stamped July 9, 2012 for the proposed building and site improvements to 1255 Cope Avenue East. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1.Comply with the requirements of the building official and the assistant fire chief listed in the memorandum and those in the city’s engineering report prepared by Jon Jarosch, staff engineer.The applicant should work with Mr. Jarosch in the city’s engineering department regarding the dedication of the sidewalk easement. 2.Repair and restripe the parking lot. With the exception that there shall only be two regular spaces, one handicap spaceand a handicap-accessible loading aisle on the west side of the building. All regular spaces shall be 9½ feet wide as code requires.The applicant shall comply with handicap-accessible parking requirements.Repair of the parking lot shall constitute removal of paving the installation of new paving and striping. 3.Revise the screening wall plan for approval by the community design review board. This would include the addition of landscaping in keeping with the existing westerly curb cut location. The screening wall shall be extended to this new curb cut. 4.Paint the front elevation of the building after removal of the awning.Any peeling paint shall be touched up. 5.The existing trash enclosure shall be cleaned up, repaired and repainted. 6.The applicantshall provide cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the landscaping and other site improvements that may not be installed by occupancy. An irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions: The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand. The letter of credit shall have a stipulation indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city by certified mail a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration. 7.The 15 parking spaces are approved for this use, however, the applicant shall provide additional parking spaces should the need arise. 8.The applicant shall comply with city sign requirements. CITIZENS' COMMENTS City Staff surveyed the owner of the 31properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments about the proposal. Of the nine replies, onewasin favor and six objected and two expressed concerns but did not statefor or against. In Favor The seller, Premier Bank fully supports the proposal. The protected boundaries will mitigate neighborhood impacts. The jobs the new East Metro location will provide are an important aspect as well. The speed of approval is also of utmost importance due to the upcoming English and 36 construction impacts ahead. Thank you for your consideration and swift processing.(Sean O. Regan, Premier Bank, property owner) Opposed First of all our home will drop in value. The place is too damn small. Traffic will be unbearable and the noise we do not need here. It’s a nice neighborhood don’t screw it up. (Frank Wegleitner, 1252 Cope Avenue) Refer to the email response from Gary Flasch, 1268 Cope Court. Refer to the letter from Tom Shock, and Mary Jane Shock, 1276 Cope Court. Refer to the letter from Mary Jo Cocchiarella, owner of Baby Zone child day care next door to the east. We at the dental office directly across the street are most impacted. We protest this proposal. We feel our area to be residential/retail,not industrial. (Paul Wallin DDS, 1270 Cope Avenue) This is exchanging one junk yard for another. A larger lot and building is available at the Minnesota Marble site east of here on Cope Avenue. (Roger Franz, 1282 Cope Court) Concerns Expressed Noise is a concern from the outdoor activity during our business hours for our clinic. The grounds need to be kept neat, not like the last facility. (Dr. Lille, Keller Lake Animal Hospital) Refer to the email response from Tracy. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.44 acres Existing land use: The former Wipers Recycling (now vacant) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Highway 36 South: Cope Avenue, Keller Lake Animal Hospital and Dental Health of Maplewood East: Multi-tenant commercial center West: Atlantic Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial) Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing) CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-637(a)(4) of the city ordinances requires a CUPfor material recycling facilities, provided it is located at least 350 feet from any property the city is planning for residential use. Section 44-637(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. APPLICATION DATE The application for this request was complete on July 9, 2012. State law requires that the city decide on land use applications within 60 days. The deadline for council action, therefore, is September 7, 2012. P:Sec9/RSI Recycling PCReport#2812 te Attachments: 1.Land Use Plan Map 2.Zoning/Location Map 3.Site Plan 4.Floor Plan 5.Building Elevations 6.Applicant’s Narrative 7.Brochure of the type of crane to be used on site 8.Engineering Plan Review by Jon Jarosch dated July 16, 2012 9.Email response from Gary Flasch 10.Letter from Tom and Mary Jane Shock 11.Letter from Baby Zone, Mary Jo Cocchiarella 12.Email response from Tracy 13.Resolution 14.Plans date-stamped August 15, 2012 (separate attachment) Attachment 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Troy Halverson, of RSI Recycling Services, requested a revision to the conditional use permit for the property located at 1255 Cope Avenue to operate a materials recycling business. WHEREAS, Section 44-637(a)(4) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for material recycling facilities. WHEREAS, Section 44-637(b) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for exterior activities in a M1 (light manufacturing) zoning district that are conducted within 350 feet of a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1255Cope Avenue, legally described as: WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1.On August 21, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and presentwritten statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ___________the conditional use permitrevision. 2.On __________, 2012the city council discussedthe proposed conditional use permitrevision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ____________ the above- described conditional use permit revision for the following reasons: 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciate property values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 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 no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1.All construction must comply with the site plan, received by the city on September 24, 1990. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The city council must review major changes. 2.The city council shall review this permit one year from the date of approval, based on the procedures in the city code. 3.There shall be no outside storage of good, materials or trash. 4.The owner shall have the roof-top equipment screened as required by code. 5.The owner shall keep the pole light, at the northwest corner of the site off or reorient it so it will not glare onto streets or other properties. 6.The canopy shall not be illuminated. 7.The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday-Friday; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Sundays. 8.There shall be no overnight parking of trucks. 9.Grade and sod the weedy strip next to Englewood Shops by July 1, 1991. Sod the entire lawn by September 15 if the owner cannot control the weeds by then. 10.Irrigation shall be made operational if present. 1.All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped August 15, 2012. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4.The permitted hours of operation shall be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 to noon on Saturday. Extended hours may be considered by the city council should the applicant wish to add a second shift. 5.If vehicle stacking into the street becomes a problem, the applicant should revise their internal traffic flow or make other suitable changes to prevent this from happening. 6.Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened if required by code. 7.Site lighting shall comply with city lighting requirements. Pole height is exempt if they exceed 25 feet in height. 8.The applicant shall work with the police department to monitor and guard against the potential for stolen materials being sold at the proposed facility. 9.The applicant shall install an eight-foot-tall concrete screening wall on the north, west and south sides of the outdoor dumpster bin area as shown on the plan. The following variations shall be required as well: The southerly wall shall be extended around the south and east sides of the trash and cardboard recycling area to provide screening for those dumpsters and to help conceal the activity at the roll-off dumpsters. The construction of the westerly section of screening wall may be postponed until the city has vacated the Atlantic Street right-of-way since the applicant proposes to acquire this for his site. This would avoid the costs of construction of the wall just to demolish it for later expansion. The deadline for this land acquisition and completion of the screening wall shall be two years from the date of this CUP approval. The city may require the installation of a temporary fence in the interim based on disturbances, unsightliness and complaints. 10.The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted for design board approval providing for: Removal of the deciduous trees along Cope Avenue and replacement with eight-foot-tall spruce trees. Matching landscaping on the west side of the screening wall to match the landscaping proposed on the south side. Except for these items, the landscaping plan is approved with the other landscaping details proposed. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ___________, 2012.