Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/20041. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 1, 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. October 18, 2004 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Conditional Use Permit- Phoenix Group Home (1936 Craig Place) 7:15 Lot Width Vadance and Lot Division (2323 Case Avenue) 8:00 Conditional Use Permit Revision - University Auto (1145 Highway 36) o New Business None . Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations October 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson November 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Tdppler November 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 6'03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Daniel Lee Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Rose Lorsunq, Intern Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for October 4, 2004. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for October 4, 2004. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING (6:06 p.m.) a. Home Occupation License - David Grupa Photography (1994 Duluth Street) Ms. Rose Lorsung said Mr. David Grupa is requesting that the city approve a home occupation license to operate a digital photography studio. If approved, the photography studio would occupy the entire detached garage located on his property at 1994 Duluth Street. Mr. Grupa would then be required by the city to obtain a building permit to remodel the structure. Mr. Grupa also will be making exterior improvements in the backyard of the residence to accommodate clients. These improvements will include a six-foot fence for screening and landscaping. Commissioner Dierich motioned for a five minute recess due to lack of technical support at 6:10 p.m. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - All Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order again at 6:13 p.m. Commissioner Pearson wanted to make sure that if the applicant were to sell his home with the home photography business located in the garage that the license for a home occupation would no longer be valid. Ms. Lorsung said that is correct. If the applicant were to sell his home the home occupation license would no longer be valid and if the new homeowner wanted to have a home occupation license they would have to apply to the city for a new license. Commissioner Trippler said in the opening presentation staff stated that the hours of operation would be Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and an occasional weekend appointment. In the applicant's letter it stated an occasional evening appointment. Which is correct, an occasional weekend or an occasional evening appointment? Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa has stated there would be very few weekend appointments with no overlapping appointments. Commissioner Trippler said he wanted to make it clear that if this passes with the city council with the conditions listed as Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an occasional weekend appointment that there are no misunderstandings. He asked if there were evening appointments after 5:00 p.m. or weekend appointments could his permit be pulled because it wasn't in compliance with the criteria as stated by city staff. Mr. Ekstrand said if there were a violation of the rules staff would talk to the applicant. If they were proposing a change to the rules that had been established by the city council then staff would bring the item back to the city council for a revision. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -3- Commissioner Trippler said if the applicant turned the garage into a photography business where would Mr. Grupa park his car? According to Sec. 14-57 item (3) it states no vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shaft be parked on the street or block sidewalks or pubfic easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shaft not be included in this subsection. Commissioner Trippler asked if that meant the applicant could park on the street. Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa would have limited vehicles per client and those clients would park on the driveway. There is enough space in the driveway for approximately four vehicles so there should not be a need to park on the street. Commissioner Trippler said his next question is regarding Sec. 14-57 item (4) which states: An area equivalent to no more than 20 percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shaft be used in the conduct of a home occupation. In his estimation the garage is more than 20% of the upper level of the house. Ms. Lorsung said the city staff has calculated the square footage and it slightly exceeds 20% at 21½ %. Mr. Grupa is applying for this home occupation to be located in his garage due to the physical limitations of the home. The home is about 1600 square feet and 800 square feet are not finished in the basement. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff calculated both the upper and lower level together. Mr. Trippler thought it should be calculated based on each level. Ms. Lorsung said she believed the code stated the calculation of the entire square footage of the house including the non-finished square footage. Behind the garage is a screened porch that does not include the interior square footage of the detached garage. The screened porch is around 8' X 6' and the garage roughly measures 24'.9 X 22'. Commissioner Trippler said according to Sec. 14-57 item (5) it states: There shaft 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 city sign code in chapter 44, article III. Mr. Trippler said if the applicant removes the garage door, puts siding on the garage and a three-foot wide garage door facing the street, the garage would definitely appear to be no longer a standard garage. Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa is proposing to remove the garage door and side that area of the garage to accommodate the home occupation business and the entrance door would be located on the south side of the garage not the front side of the garage. Commissioner Bartol said Commissioner Trippler raised some excellent points. He asked if the division 2 home occupations were rules or guidelines. Sec. 14-57 item (5) that Commissioner Trippler quoted regarding the garage door does not make sense to him. If the applicant went before the commission for approval for the building and before the design review board for approval of the sign which means a home occupation is here, item number (5) doesn't make sense to him. Maybe it makes sense as a guideline but as a rule it doesn't seem appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -4- Ms. Lorsung said for a home occupation sign the guideline is the sign has to be 2' X 2' and can be posted in front of the home with the required setback. Mr. Ekstrand or Ms. Coleman would have to address the issue of this being a rule or a guideline. Staff reviews the home occupation licenses every year to ensure the applicant is following the conditions. Commissioner Bartol said reviewing the home occupation license every year is a good idea but that does not answer if these are guidelines or rules. Ms. Coleman said these are guidelines and city staff can alter them to address the concerns of the home occupation in the neighborhood and the impacts. If the commission is concerned about visibly changing the character of the garage the commission can recommend that the garage should look like a garage. There are many home occupation signs in the city and city staff has not had problems with them. Ms. Coleman said single family homes are not required to have a garage, so that information could be factored into the equation as well. Commissioner Bartol said he understands people are not required to have a garage but they could have a large storage shed which would not have a typical garage door on it. In his opinion, there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about a garage door. The fact that Mr. Grupa is going to remove the garage door and replace it with a much smaller door as well as siding is no less aesthetic, it would simply imply that cars are not parked in the garage. Ms. Coleman said it's a subjective item for the commission to consider. On a side note she said she purchased a home with a tuck under garage with two garage stalls where the previous owner had a home occupation. The previous owner parked their cars outside of the garage and stored the garage doors in the shed, however, she wanted to park cars in the garages. When she purchased the home they told her the doors could easily be put back on the garages. Those types of architectural details can be changed and she just wanted the commission to be aware of that. Ms. Coleman said the situation with Mr. Grupa's garage could be a buyer beware situation if Mr. Grupa were to ever sell his property. Commissioner Bartol had no knowledge of the city's fencing guidelines and requirements. He said Mr. Grupa did not point out where the fence would go on his plan and asked if staff could give further information on the fencing guidelines and the fence plan. Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa is proposing to have a fence on the south side of the yard and use it for screening as a backdrop and to appease the neighbors. City staff has told Mr. Grupa that the fence can be no higher than six feet tall otherwise a building permit is required along with permission from the city. He would also plant large trees or shrubs for additional screening. Commissioner Dierich said she believed codes were not a suggestion but were rules for the city to live and build by. She would hate to see codes considered a suggestion rather than the law. The city chose and selected these codes and she does not see these as guidelines. And for that reason she believed there should've been a variance with Sec. 14-57 number (4) and (5). Ms. Coleman said the home occupation is a license the city issues. Although it is contained in the city code the city has varied the whole process of the license and conditional use permit. The city can alter it to make it work for the neighbors, the city staff reviews the home occupation license every year which gives the city staff additional control. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -5- Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Ms. Coleman but if the commission is uncomfortable with this maybe the city should have a variance for Sec. 14-57 item number (4) and (5) or some type of exemption or prevision in the code. Ms. Coleman said the city staff could propose ordinance changes to make it more flexible. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. David Grupa, the applicant residing at 1994 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he has lived in this home for one year and is looking to move his photography studio from a retail location in North St. Paul to his home. As the immediate past president of the Minnesota Professional Photographers Association and a state counselor to the Professional Photographers of America, recent data provided to them showed that nearly 50% of member photographic studios are home based. This trend is continuing nationally on an upward climb as the economy drives small business owners to become more financially responsible with their resources. He operates a Iow volume photographic studio. He does wedding photos and portraits. He won't be doing any photo processing at this location. If he is allowed to have his home occupation business he would be an extra set of eyes watching out for the neighborhood while other residents are at work during the day which would increase safety in the neighborhood. His business is done by appointment only and his appointments last about 1 hour to 1-1/2 hours. This is his home and he intends on making this a warm and welcoming place for people to visit and his business wouldn't degrade the neighborhood. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible for the applicant to have the home occupation business without making the garage look like a business is being run there? Mr. Grupa said he can't have the garage look like a garage. If people pulled up to his garage and it looked like someone was doing business out of a garage it would affect people's opinion of the quality of his product. He has been in the industry for 28 years and has operated out of retail shops in the past because retail space was available at a reasonable rate. He is currently conducting business in a 2,400 square foot space that charges $3,000 a month for rent and he can't afford that. He needs space to shoot photography, space to meet with clients and space to assemble wedding albums. The garage space would work well for this but would be a major change for him from what he is used to. The entrance door could be in a few different places depending on what the building code says. He spoke with the building department at the City of Maplewood and was told he has to have a minimum door size of 36-inches wide. He has been looking at doors and thinks he may want a 42-inch wide door for ease of getting things in and out of the space. The current entry door is only 30 inches wide and is too narrow. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if he read the conditions in the staff report and if he had any questions and if he was comfortable with the report? Mr. Grupa said the only issue he sees is that he sees customers one evening a week, which is normally on Tuesday evenings. This is for customers that work during the day and can only come in the evening. Because he wants to spend more time with his children his hours end at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Bartol asked how old his children were. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -6- Mr. Grupa said he has a 15 and 13 year old son. Commissioner Bartol said whether or not this passes, he applauds Mr. Grupa for wanting to work from home to be closer to his children during the critical years, his goals are admirable. Commissioner Dierich said she would recommend that the width of the door be widened for wheelchair accessibility. In the past the city has had home occupation license hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and she does not see any problems with extending the working hours. Ms. Coleman said she believes Commissioner Dierich is correct and the city looks at things on a case by case basis. Keep in mind that this is a public hearing and if people testify one way or another their feelings of hours of operation could be a factor for the commission. Commissioner Dierich asked if this item was going to go to the CDRB for design review? Ms. Coleman said no; it only goes to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Commissioner Dierich asked the applicant if he would be amenable to putting windows in place of the garage door? Mr. Grupa said he cannot put windows on that side because it faces west and the lighting would be a problem. The north side is the side for lighting and is what a photographer dies for. He would like to put a bay window in with a seat so he can use window light in addition to studio lights. Chairperson Fischer asked others in the audience who want to speak regarding the home occupation license at 1994 Duluth Street to address the commission. Mr. Wayne Nelson, 1995 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He stated the screened porch on the backside of Mr. Grupa's garage will be used for storage but was not included in the calculation of the proportional development as part of the proposal even though it would be used. He and his wife are outraged that this proposal has gotten this far. He has discussed this with the surrounding homeowners and four out of five neighbors are against this proposal. When Mr. Grupa announced he was seeking a license to have a photography business in his basement he said he would support this as long as it would be looked at every year by the city so the neighborhood did not become commercialized. Tonight's proposal is not what Mr. Grupa told the neighbors he planned to do. Mr. Nelson said now Mr. Grupa is proposing to run his photography business out of his garage, make it taller than the other garages in the neighborhood, and make the front of the garage appear differently than the other garage doors in the neighborhood. He doesn't see how Mr. Grupa is going to move from a 2,400 square foot space to a 440 square foot garage space and make it appear he is not running a business out of his garage in a residential neighborhood. He said when he looks out his living room window he would be looking at a garage that is turned into a home business if this proposal gets approved. Mr. Grupa said he would have four to five customers a week. This is a ridiculous understatement, in order to have a successful business he would have to have more than four to five customers a week. Mr. Grupa has two teenage boys that will be driving soon and where will they park their cars if customers park on the driveway. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -7- Mr. Nelson said Mr. Grupa is the newest neighbor to move into the neighborhood and he is the one that wants to change the image of the neighborhood. Last year Mr. Grupa put many bright holiday lights up which shined into Mr. Nelson's windows at night. If he was that inconsiderate to not ask if the lights were a problem what might Mr. Grupa do with the lighting for this home occupation? If Mr. Grupa were to do a mass mailing to increase his customer base and it draws more business, where would those customers park. He is irate about this proposal and said the city should be on notice that if this home occupation license gets approved he would be moving. He researched neighborhoods before moving here and relishes the quietness and darkness of the neighborhood. He has done substantial home improvements to his home and will be getting a home evaluation to see what his home is worth. If this home occupation business gets passed and it lowers the price of his home there will be a lawsuit against the city of Maplewood. Mr. Russ Birkholz, 1989 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said that he has a problem with this proposal as well. He moved into his house 13 years ago and has a 2½ car garage. He has a problem with a business operating out of a garage because the neighbors will have to look at it. He hopes Mr. Grupa has a very successful photography business, but elsewhere. If he did have this photography business in his home maybe he could add onto his home to run this business. This is a great neighborhood to raise kids, there is very little traffic in the neighborhood and it is very quiet. His property backs up to Keller golf course, it is very quiet and you can enjoy the stars. Leave the garage structure as it is, he has no problem with the privacy fence, and if Mr. Grupa wants this business here he should have it inside the house so no one can tell a business is operating there. If he would've known that someone could operate a home occupation from their garage he might not have bought a house in this neighborhood. This home occupation would not make him move out of the neighborhood because he recently built an addition on the house and likes the neighborhood and the school district. If there were nine neighbors "against" this and six "for" this proposal this should be a sign to the city council that the neighborhood does not want this to go forward. Ms. Suzanne Anderson, 2001 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. The concern she and her husband have is the look of the garage. Once the garage is converted she believes it would be tough to sell the home as a residential home and no garage. It would be very difficult to put a garage door back on the structure after you have made substantial changes. She also believes this change would affect the value of the surrounding homes as well. Commissioner Bartol said he wonders what is so aesthetically pleasing about a garage door and what is so grotesquely pleasing about a bay window? He's at a loss after hearing the neighbors concerns. The original presentation made by Mr. Grupa was appropriate. With this home occupation Mr. Grupa would become a lookout for the neighborhood, the applicant is cognoscente of the appearance of his property and would maintain the appearance. He is willing to add additional landscaping to enhance the property which would also help his business. Commissioner Bartol said he would anticipate more traffic and obtrusiveness from a home daycare center than what this home business would generate. He wonders why this home occupation could lower property values. If Mr. Grupa were to sell his property in the future it would be in his best interest to make his property marketable with whatever measures were needed to sell the property. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -8- Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't think people are against the photography business as a whole. He has a group home next door to his house that was built two years after he built his home. Nobody asked him for his opinion. They assured him traffic would not be a problem, it is. They assured him cars would not be parked on the street, there are. He was assured the group home would not disrupt his life, it has. This neighborhood is a single family, quiet residential neighborhood and every house and garage look like a house and a garage. He thinks the objection the commission hears is people don't want a business across the street from where they live. It may be more aesthetically pleasing to have a nice garage door on the garage. After speaking to the neighbors they were apparently under the impression that when they were first contacted this business would operate from Mr. Grupa's basement. After the application came out the neighbors discovered the business would be run from the garage and that the garage would be altered to look like a business is operating there. Commissioner Bartol said it sounds like if the business were run from the basement the neighbors would be more agreeable to this and if it's in the garage then it's not okay. What is the difference if Mr. Grupa escorts the customers to the basement or to the garage? The level of traffic hasn't changed, the signage hasn't changed, and the only thing that would be different is whether or not the garage door is there. A garage door is not necessarily an attractive feature. People would make appointments to see Mr. Grupa and he would have a relatively small sign outside his business so people know they are at the right place. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't think the issue is what the garage "door" looks like. The expectation is that when the neighbors moved here this was a residential neighborhood. Whether it's a daycare in the home or another business run out of the home it is an intrusion for the neighbors. The city council will have to make the final decision based on the number of neighbors that have voiced their concern against the proposal and how many neighbors are okay with this proposal. She doesn't see this home occupation as a problem. She is not concerned with how the garage door looks like, she doesn't see traffic as a concern, and she suspects it boils down to what the neighbors want or don't want. That is the right every one of us would want in our own neighborhood which is the right to say "yes" or "no" to something in the neighborhood. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the home occupation license for Mr. Grupa of 1994 Duluth Street to have a photography studio in the detached garage. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: (deletions are stricken and additions to the motion are in bold.) 1. Meet all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. This includes: a, b, co d, No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. 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. 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 off the lot. There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 10-18-04 2. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited to: Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to ,~7 p.m. 3. There shall be no more than 20 appointments at the business per week. 4. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. 5. Provide a five-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the garage. 6. The garage and studio wiring shall meet the state electrical code. 7. Provide a 3-foot egress exit door out of the garage. 8. Obtain a building permit before construction. 9. Provide screening along the south border of the backyard from the southeast corner of the house to the south edge of the lot line and extending at least 10 feet along the east lot line. This screening is to ensure privacy and lessen the intrusion for the residence located at 1211 Ryan Avenue. This screening should be in the form of a 6-foot-high solid fence or with the planting of thick shrubs or large trees. 10. There shall be no processing or developing of film on site. 11. 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. 12. The city council shall review this home occupation license again in one year. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer Nays- Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler The motion has failed due to a tie vote and therefore is denied. This item goes to the city council on November 8, 2004. Commissioner Pearson said the planning commission has had other home occupation license applications come before them in the past but none that have altered the appearance of a building in order to do business. Because this doesn't meet the fifth requirement of the Maplewood city code he will not be supporting this proposal. There is a 90% chance that with the future sale of this property something else could go in this location. The garage is going to be altered to the point that it will never look the same again. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-18-04 -10- Commissioner Trippler said he too will not be supporting this proposal because it violates two of the conditions that are stipulated in the code Sec. 14-57 (4) and (5) and he believes that based on the fact that the applicant stated he was going to have weekend appointments that is against the recommendation being proposed. Finally he is not supporting this because the neighbors have voiced rather strong objections to having this business in the neighborhood. When there are nine people opposed to this he believes the commission has to honor the neighbor's objections. Commissioner Dierich said if the planning commission were to see another application like this she would recommend staff require a variance for Sec. 14-57 number (4) and (5) of the code for the planning commission to vote comfortably. Commissioner Bartol said he would agree with Commissioner Dierich however, he heard from staff that these were guidelines and not the letter of the law. Because these were guidelines he thought it was the city's responsibility to apply some judgment or some built in variances to it. He doesn't think what makes or breaks a neighborhood is whether the percentage of the property being used for the business is 15%, 20%, or 30% or whether it is a basement or garage. He doesn't think it has much to do with the appearance of the garage. If the property were to change hands and Mr. Grupa were to sell the property somebody could not move in and start another business there without coming before the city council. The best the planning commission can do is to provide citizens of Maplewood with sound and quiet neighborhoods but also the opportunity to bring their businesses home. Home offices and home schooling are on the increase. People are trying to reduce their commute times and the consumption of energy. He is not convinced it is wrong to bring home businesses into our neighborhoods. People have garage doors opened, they are tuning cars, cars are running and fumes are everywhere, some garages are a mess inside and in his opinion garages are not the euphoria. VI. NEW BUSINESS (7:27 p.m.- 9:43 p.m.) Gladstone Neighborhood Planning Process Presentation Ms. Melinda Coleman, Mr. Tom Ekstrand, and Ms. Shann Finwall gave a presentation on the Gladstone neighborhood and the planning process. Ms. Coleman thanked the HRA and Parks Department members for attending tonight's discussion. After the Gladstone presentation, Chairperson Fischer opened the discussion up to Maplewood residents and members of the Gladstone Coalition. Mr. David Gageby of ERS Development, LLC also spoke regarding the revitalization planning process. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was to be the planning commission representative at the October '14, 2004, city council meeting; however there were no planning commission items to discuss. X. Xl. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 10-18-04 b. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the October 25, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the reconsideration of the Summerhill Senior Cooperative building at 935 Ferndale Street and the Conditional Use Permit for Avis Rent-a-car at Sears at the Maplewood Mall. c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the November 8, 2004, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is the home occupation license for a photography business for Mr. David Grupa at 1994 Duluth Street. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Conditional Use Permit- Phoenix Group Homes 1936 Craig Place October 26, 2004 INTRODUCTION Mr. Craig Ost, representing Phoenix Group Homes, is requesting that the city approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 1936 Craig Place. This request is to allow Phoenix Group Homes to have up to eight residents live in their residential facility (group home) on this property. (Please see the letter on pages six and seven and the maps on pages eight through ten). State law allows Phoenix to have up to six residents living in the group home without city approval. To have more than six residents in the home, the city must approve a CUP for the property. DISCUSSION The city regulates land uses and activities in residential areas to help insure that residential properties stay residential in use and in character. Having up to eight residents in a single dwelling in a residential area could create a disturbance to the neighbors or could change the character of the neighborhood. That being said, a house with ddving teenagers (with their vehicles and their fdends vehicles coming and going) also has the potential for disturbing the neighborhood. In fact, while this facility has been in operation (since 1994), staff is not aware of any major problem or significant disturbance that the residents have caused. As long as the owners continue to keep and operate the facility in a careful and respectful manner, the addition of two more residents should not cause any additional problems. For the city to approve a CUP, the city must find that the proposal would meet several findings. I have listed the required findings in the resolution starting on page 19. My review of these findings shows that the proposal would meet all the findings, except possibly number five (about traffic and congestion). Several of the neighbors expressed a concern about vehicle parking on Craig Place near the facility, especially on visiting day. They commented that the street can get crowded and sometimes it is difficult to get their own vehicles through on the street. Because of these concerns, I had the city engineer review the situation, including the existing street configuration. He provided me with the following comments: "We determined that a limited 'No Parking' zone would be effective to improve visibility for on- coming cars at the curve on Craig Place. If there are no major objections from the adjacent property owners, it is recommended that the city council approve a 'No Parking' restriction along the inside curve of Craig Place (adjacent to 2196 Craig Place). The 'No Parking' zone would extend about 60 feet from the beginning of the curve to the end of the curve." OTHER COMMENTS Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal and noted that he did not find any significant public safety concerns. (Please see his memo on page 12.) Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, reviewed this proposal and noted "as the fire marshal I have been in this house and would not advise to add more people to the location as it is a tight fit already." If it is approved, the operators need to ensure that there are proper emergency exits and they must have state or city approval. SUMMARY This request presents challenges for the neighbors, city staff and for the city council. The city must review the proposal and determine that it would meet the findings required by the city code. In addition to the standards in the city code, the city must balance the interests of the owner, the operator and those of the neighborhood when considering this request (and all requests). In this case, seven of the 12 neighbors that responded to our survey were against the expansion of the group home. The addition of two more supervised residents in this home should not cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. To help insure that the additional residents do not cause problems, city staff is proposing several conditions of approval, including a city review of the CUP in one year. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Phoenix Group Homes to have up to eight residents living in their residential facility at 1936 Craig Place. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the facility doing the following: ao Parking the vans or vehicles for this facility on the driveway or in the garage. There shall be no parking of the vans or vehicles of the facility on a public street. b. There shall be no more than eight residents living in the facility. . The owners or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of their vans on the public street. . The operator shall get the necessary licenses or approvals from Ramsey County or from the State of Minnesota. 4. The owner or operator shall ensure that the house has the proper emergency exits. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. a. Approve a 'No Parking' zone along the inside curve of Craig Place (adjacent to 2196 Craig Place). The 'No Parking' zone should extend about 60 feet from the beginning of the curve to the end of the curve. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 75 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the 16 replies, three were for the proposal, eight were against and five had comments about the proposal. For 1. You have my whole-hearted approval for Mr. Ost's request. I did not even realize the group home existed there until recently, so that speaks volumes in regard to how well Mr. Ost monitors and manages the adolescents residing there. I also had the honor of working for a short time with Mr. Ettesvold at Tartan high school several years ago. He is an excellent chemical health counselor and I had the great opportunity to attend several of his lectures as well as speak with some of the high school students he works with who had completed a recovery program and were back in school. I have great respect for his knowledge and devotion to these teenagers and their recovery and I support his recommendation. I firmly believe Mr. Ost's request should be approved. (Douglass- 1936 County Road B) 2. My husband and I do not see any problem with them getting a permit. In fact, a couple of years ago a couple of the boys came to help me shovel snow. The group home is doing good for these boys and I think they deserve this permit. (Wormley - 1986 County Road B) 3. My husband and I have been Maplewood residents on German Street since 1988. Many of our neighbors have not been aware that they have a group home next door. I am sure this lack of knowledge is due to their great reputation and friendliness. Anything at all negative would be grossly exaggerated and spread amongst a few. Many of us are extremely proud of the young residents. Everyone benefits from their enthusiasm. (Hansen - 2215 German Street) Objections 1. See the e-mail from Bruce Funk on page 13. 2. See the e-mail from Randy Forsman on page 14. 3. See the e-mail from Jina Hendrickson on page 15. 4. Please remember that laws are made for a reason. If six is the law the law makers decided, I am sure they knew what they were doing. If there are so many children needing group homes as to require variances for 8 children, maybe there is a need for another group home. Overcrowding does not seem to be the answer. (Block - 2210 Hazel Street) 5. No way!! No how! This area now shoulders more than its fair share of troubled souls. Please stop this madness. (Tait - 2225 Hazel Street) 6. I do not object to the group home. My concern would be to increasing the number of total people to 8 people plus staff. I assume one bedroom would be for staff. That would put 8 recovering residents in 3 rooms. I feel 2 people per room is the maximum. I object to the increase. (Willson - 1877 County Road B) 7. No! Already have loud music, trash in the street on a busy comer so it is a danger when visitors park there. Residential zoning and it would not be in character. Suggest another location. This vadance request has no medt. It just isn't dght in this locale. (Anonymous) 8. I am against increasing the density of the group home. I believe that in a residential neighborhood the number of 6 residents is high enough density and that 8 are too many. (Wray - 2167 Stanich Street) Com mentslQuestionslConcems 1. See the e-mail from Tyler Messerole on page 16. 2. See the e-mail from Marie Holmgren on page 17. 3. See the letter from the Judds on page 18. 4. We have not experienced any problems with the boys - however, I think there are already enough troubled youth in our immediate neighborhood. I also would ask that they leash their dog when he is outside. (Anonymous) 5. If this increase of persons shows to be a problem in the near future, it should be withdrawn. Increases in school class sizes are said to be bad - how is an increase in residents good? Is there an additional increase in salary to the facility operator?. How much? Is this the reason for the resident increase? Be watchful so as to protect the real reason for the project. Do not ruin it for 2 more people. The program is good! (Olson - 1942 County Road B) REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 13,068 square feet (0.30 acres) Existing Land Use: single dwelling and attached garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Houses on Craig Place East: Houses on Craig Place South: Houses on County Road B West: Houses on Craig Place CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 19 and 20.) PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on October 4, 2004. State law requires the city to take action on this request by December 2, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Attachments: 1. Applicant's Letter 2. Location Map 3. Area Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. 2-27-04 letter from David Ettesvold (lSD 622) 6. 10-11-04 memo from Lt. David Kvam 7. E-mail dated 10-8-04 from Bruce Funk 8. E-mail dated 10-10-04 from Randy Forsman 9. E-mail dated 10-11-04 from Jina Henddckson 10. E-mail dated 10-8-04 from Tyler Messerole 11. E-mail dated 10-17-04 from Marie Holmgren 12. Letter dated 10-11-04 from Wade and Nancy Judd 13. Conditional Use Permit Resolution PHOENIX GROUP HOMES, INC. Attachment 1 Business Office: 6060 - 50th Street N., Ste.4 Oakdale, MN 55128 (651) 777-3811 Fax (651) 777-3818 Business Locations: 1936 Craig Place Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 773-1142 Fax (651) 773-5894 10977 5 l0TM Avenue Bricelyn, MN 56014 (507) 653-4346 Fax (507) 653-4246 54778 35th Street Bricelyn, MN 56014 (507) 653-4125 Fax (507) 653-4130 Phoenix Group Homes, Inc 6060 50th St. No. Ste. #4 Oakdale, MN. 55128 October 1, 2004 City of Maplewood Attn: Ken Roberts 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN. 55109 Dear City of Maplewood: I am writing this letter to accompany our application for a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit will be necessary for us to accommodate up to 8 residents at our Maplewood group foster home. The Minnesota Department of Corrections will issue a variance to serve up to 8 residents provided we obtain approval (C.U.P) from the city of Maplewood. Phoenix Group Homes, Inc. is a private non-profit 501 (c) 3 organization providing residential services to adolescents recovering from alcohol/drug addiction. We are licensed through the Minnesota Department of Corrections as a "group foster home" and have a licensed alcohol and drug counselor on staff. Phoenix Group Homes- Maplewood is located at 1936 Craig Place in Maplewood and has been open since May of 1994. Residents are males between the ages of 14 and 18. Residents have completed in-patient CD treatment, are required to be clean and sober and are subject to random UA's. Most residents are on probation for minor offenses such as: minor consumption, truancy etc. We do not accept sexual perpetrators or violent offenders. Our residents attend Pease (Peers enjoying a sober education) Academy in Minneapolis. Pease is a sober high school located in the dinkytown area. Our staff maintains very close contact with Pease staff as to student progress. Pease Academy requires students to be clean and sober and conducts random UA's. Residents not attending high school either have received a GED or will work towards that goal. Residents not attending high school APPLICANT'S LETTER or studying for their GED are required to work. Some residents work at Rebuild resources in St. Paul, others work in the Maplewood area. Our group home at 1936 Craig Pl. has 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms and comfortably accommodated 8 residents and staff. There is always at least one staff on duty and residents are under supervision at home and in the immediate neighborhood. The house is equipped with an alarm system that is located in staff bedroom and goes off when any door or window is opened; the alarm system is always armed and monitored by staff from lights out until wake up. Mission statement: It is the mission of Phoenix Group Homes, Inc. to provide education, structure, and guidance to adolescents and their families in their struggles with substance abuse and criminal behaviors. The desired outcome of our program is a productive young adult in recovery from drug addiction. All staff at Phoenix Group Homes, Inc. is academically, vocationally, and/or personally experienced with recovery from addiction. Staff receives 12 hours annually of continued education units (training) through in-service training provided by qualified trainers on our staff or training provided by other sources. Phoenix staff is qualified to provide appropriate supervision of residents, both ensuring a positive community in the group home and productive members of our Maplewood community. Phoenix Group Homes, Inc.- Maplewood does the vast majority of its business in the local community, including; accounts at Oasis (gas), Ace hardware (No. St. Paul), and Cub on White Bear Ave. We have maintenance on our van done at Flemming repair. Our Residents perform community service: at Goodwill and Second Harvest, doing garbage pick-up along Gateway trail, speaking at 1 st offenders class at Community center and speaking to health classes at John Glenn middle school and St. Paul No. High school. For additional information refer to our Website at phoenixgh.com. Please call or e-mail with any questions or comments. I can be reached at my office ~ 651-777-3811 or crai go st ~comc ast.net. Thank you for considering our request. Craig Ost Facilities supervisor Phoenix Group Homes, Inc. cao Attachment 2 H FGhHWA¥ 3~ .... z 3> ..... -4 ~N SITE bARK -AVE URKEA-VE -- CITY HALL LOCATION MAP Attachment 3. [] 2260 22~ 2242 2241 2__~4 22~ ~ _~ 1~95 22,5~,~ -4 .._ ~ m > ' 'E-A0~RIE RD < ~ z - ~220 z> ~2230'~ 2225 ~ >'-r 2F~ 22,~ ~ N ~ ~8 2 m 210 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2215 ~ r ~ ~~ ~2 2 ~ :~0~ ' ~ 2194 2201~ , .~' 22E ' ~~% ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~ ~ ~2:186118~1877 ~ ~ 190,u~7~~'-~1~1 ~2 2~ 1800 1810~ 1850 ~1866. ~ 18;6 1912 19301936~421950 _ 1902 PUBUC WORKS 2100 1830 2050 AREA MAP III · Attachment 4 2260 m~_.255 D 2242 42 ~ 2230 R12225 ~ ~., C~UNTY ROAD B 2215 2201 2194 186~ 1877 218 217~ 1866 m ~ ~---- 896 1830 i 1912 i 193o t B1936 1902 22( PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP 10 Attachment 5 S hool District 622 NORTH HIGH SCHOOL NORTH ST, PAUL - MAPLEWOOD - OAKDALE 2416 E. 1 l'r" AVENUE, NORTH ST. PAUL MN 55109 2-27-04 Dear Maplewood City Council, My name is David Ettesvold and I'm the Chemical Health Specialist at North High. I have been in this District since 1996. The purpose of this letter is to show support for Phoenix Group Home to be licensed for up to 8 adolescents. When I first moved here over 10 years ago I was hired as the house manager of the same Phoenix Group Home. We had to expand and get a waiver to exceed the number to 8 on several occasions. It was actually easier to manage 8 occupants' verses 3 or 5. Even numbers seemed to help pair up the kids as they interacted. The house has plenty of room and they are on the go most nights. As far as the programming of Phoenix I believe the guidelines set are strict and very focused to promote recovery. They are active on our community doing volunteer work. Anytime that I need a recovering youth for a project, all I have to do is call them for a teen willing to share recovery with others. I have called upon them too many times to remember. They have helped out with Maplewood Chemical Awareness Classes, staff in-services, as well as speaking to Health classes on a regular basis. Please consider approving their license to expand to 8, as this will only help them make a difference to more youth afflicted with the disease of addiction. Please feel free to use this letter in any way and to call upon me for any additional information. Promoting Healthy Lifestyles, David Ettesvold, Chemical Health Specialist, 1SD #622 (651) 748-6043 11 OFFICE: (651) 748-6000 FAX: (651) 748-6091 GUIDANCE: (651) 748-6030 ACTIVITIES: (651) 748-6020 A community partnership where learning and citizenship come first Attachment 6 Memo From: Date: Re: Ken Roberts v/'/ Lt. Dave Kvam 10/11/2004 Project Review, Phoenix Group Homes, 1936 Craig Place To this date in 2004, our records system shows four case numbers generated at 1936 Craig Place. Although this is significant in comparison to the average residence, considering the addictions faced by the adolescent residents, that is not surprising. Two more residents are unlikely to add significant strain to the police department or neighborhood safety, however, some residents in that area have already expressed their displeasure with other nearby housing developments. Their perception might be that increasing the number of occupants in a neighborhood group home will only lead to further problems. 12 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 7 Ken Roberts From: bfunk@attglobal.net Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:13 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Pheonix group homes BFC Hi Ken, Thanks for taking the time to get our input on the Phoenix group home expansion. Debra and I are opposed to the expansion of the home for the following reasons. The housing density in this area is ridiculously too dense! The city of Maplewood has packed as many housing "units" in this area as it can all ready. As a recovering CD person myself (for 23 years last June) I am aware of the struggles the tenants face. I'm also fully aware that the "halfway house" tenants are the most likely to relapse. We have our share of housing density. Let the Phoenix Group move to another area and let a family of 6 buy the house and bring more owner ship to our neighborhood! Thanks again, Bruce L Funk Debra A Reid Maplewood, MN, 55109 V: 651-773-0726 F: 651-779-6978 Due to the amount of SPAM I have been getting You will have to include "bfc" anywhere in the subject line. If you don1 your message will be blocked by my mail filter. 10/8/2004 13 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 8 Ken Roberts From: Randy Forsman [Forsm@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 8:37 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Phoenix Ken, ! live at 1940 Craig Place, right next door to the Phoenix house. First ! worked in adolescent chemical dependency for 20 years. Lets be straight about this. Phoenix house is not licensed by the Department of Human Services under rule 29 or 43. They are not a licensed chemical dependency treatment center. They are in fact licensed under the department of corrections. That makes them a correctional treatment center. The common denominator to all their residents is juvenile delinquency. A resident could not be at Phoenix House if they were not involved in the justice system. I have been a good neighbor of the Phoenix house. I have no problem with the residents even though my property value has undoubtedly been effected. Having six residents has kept them somewhat of a family like atmosphere. However, the police have been there a number of times (check your records), parking is impossible, they allow juveniles to smoke (we have young people in the neighborhood), and every Monday their garbage is overflowing. This house just can't take 8 residents. If ! have to, ! will go to the press on this one. This is just unacceptable. There must me a setting that would be more conducive to this type of treatment center. We have a lot of kids in this neighborhood and this would push it beyond what we should have to take. ! would like the IVlayor to see my e-mail. How about putting this next door to his residence. Please let me know what ! need to do so that ! am assured that ! have done everything possible to stop this. Thank you for listening, Randy IVl. Forsman 1940 Craig Place 10/11/2004 14 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 9 Ken Roberts From: jina hendrickson [beanzier6@msn.com] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 8:02 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Phoenix group Home Dear Ken Roberts, This is in regards to the notice we received on the Phoenix Group Home, located at 1936 Craig Place. My husband and ! reside at 1909 E. County Road B and have lived here for 10 years, in the past two to three years this neighborhood has seen a lot of changes which have made a negative impact on this area. We do not feel that adding potential problems to this area would be in the best interest of the neighborhood. We do understand they are only asking for two more people in the house, but that is two more people who need to be supervised and the notice did not state that there would be any more supervision than there already is. We do not know how supervised the residents are when they are in the neighborhood, but there has been a lot of problems in the past few years, which may or may not pertain to any of the residents of the Phoenix Home..lust last September we were robbed, and the police said it must be kids based on what was stolen, again this may or may not pertain to the residents of the Phoenix Home. We are asking you to please consider the impact on this area before making your decision. Thank-you for taking the time to read our input on this and feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Thank-you, ]ina Hendrickson Dave Hendrickson 651-779-7515 10/12/2004 15 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 10 Ken Roberts From: Tyler M. Messerole [tmesserole~cpride.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 12:46 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Phoenix House Survey Mr. Roberts, Thank you for giving the residents in our neighborhood a chance to comment on the Phoenix matter. Based on the information provided in your mailing I don't think it would be a logical decision in increase the number of kids at the group home. The house has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Isn't that a reasonable capacity for six residents and a supervisory staff member? Two individuals to a bedroom is cozy enough for sleeping arrangements. We have a family of four, two bathrooms are barely enough for us on some mornings. I have another comment I hope you will share with the management of the home. Why are their ddvers always in such a hurry? I see their big passenger van zipping by the front of our house quit often. I think an increase in capacity at the home might require they be in an even bigger hurry to get from one place to another. I don't want to see anyone get hurt. Things have been going reasonably well for the last two years. I hope you view the situation as I do, let's leave well enough alone. Crowding two more young kids with dependency problems into the home will not be a benefit the kids. Thanks for the chance to comment. Will we be provided notification if there is an approval for an increase in the number of kids? Tyler Messerole Community Pride Bank 1441 Bunker Lake Blvd NE Ham Lake, MN 55304 763-862-6500 Phone 763-862-6600 Fax Confidentiality notice THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE E-MAIL MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY PLACED ON NOTICE THAT YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, (763-862-6500) OF YOUR INADVERTENT RECEIPT. PLEASE RETURN THE MESSAGE BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON, AND THEN DELETE THE MESSAGE FROM YOUR INBOX, SENT MAILBOX, AND DELETED MAILBOX. 10/8/20O4 16 Page 1 of 1 Attachment ll Ken Roberts From: Marie Holmgren [perryholmgren@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 4:06 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: 1936 Craig Place Phoenix Group Homes I have one concern if this is a 4 bedroom home and currently there are 6 residents plus one staff with a bedroom. Currently, that would leave two boys to a room plus the staff bedroom. With the new proposal of adding in two more boys, where will the extra bedroom come from and were will the staff person sleep? If the alarm system is always armed and monitored by staff from lights out until wake up, does this mean you have 24 hour/7 days a week staffing to releave the person that was on their shiPt? Thank you for your time. Fin~d_the_nmsig_you love on MSN Music. Start downloadingBow_ ! 10/18/2004 17 Attachment 12 Dear Mr. Roberts 10/11/04 Thank you for the information about 1936 Craig Place and the opportunity to express our opinion. My wife and I have only lived at our current address (2203 Craig Place) since February of this year. We are three doors down from 1936. Since we have lived here, we have had no problems nor cause for complaint about the group home. In talking to a couple of my neighbors, I have found out there have only been a few minor problems over the years which have since been addressed. Hence, we have no problem with raising the amount of residents to eight as long as any complaints or problems that may arise are addressed by the city in a prompt manner. Also, we feel that the police should be made aware of, and be sensitive to, the fact that our street houses a "special" home. Furthermore, we have had some trouble further down Craig Place with a drag dealer (you can check the police report for details). An extra police "drive by" now and then would be greatly appreciated. These are our thoughts on the matter. Again, we appreciate the chance to voice our opinions. Sincerely, Wade and Nancy 18 Attachment 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION - PHOENIX GROUP HOMES WHEREAS, Mr. Craig Ost, representing Phoenix Group Homes, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit to have up to 8 residents live in the residential facility (group home) on the property at 1936 Craig Place. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1936 Craig Place. The legal description is: Smith and Taylor's Addition, that part of Lot 13, Block 2, in Lark Park lying southerly of the following described line: beginning at a point on SL of said Lot 13 and 57 feet west of SE corner, then NELY to a point on NELY line of said lot, 60 feet NWLY of SE corner of said lot and there terminating and in said Smith and Taylor's Addition, the North 100 feet of the East 125 feet of the west 215 feet of the East % of Lots 1 and 2, Block 31. (PIN 11-29-22-34-0029) WHEREAS, this history of this conditional use permit is as follows: . On November 1, 2004, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone 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 this permit. . On November 22, 2004, the city council discussed this request. The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: . The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. . The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. . The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 19 . , . . . 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. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the facility doing the following: a. Parking the vans or vehicles for this facility on the ddveway or in the garage. There shall be no parking of the vans or vehicles of the facility on a public street. b. There shall be no more than eight residents living in the facility. 2. The owners or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of their vans on the public street. 3. The operator shall get the necessary licenses or approvals from Ramsey County or from the state of Minnesota. 4. The owner or operator shall ensure that the house has the proper emergency exits. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 22, 2004. 20 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Rose Lorsung, Planning Intern Lot Width Variance Tom and Barb Colosimo 2323 Case Avenue October 26, 2004 INTRODUCTION Variance Description Tom and Barb Colosimo, representing Ray Colosimo, the property owner, are requesting that the city approve a variance to create a new, 67-foot-wide lot for a new single family home. The request is for the property on the east side of the house at 2323 Case Avenue. The city code requires lots for houses to be at least 75 feet wide, so this is a request for an 8-foot variance to have a narrower lot. (See the applicant's statement and the maps on pages 5 through 10). BACKGROUND October 2, 2003: The city approved a lot division for Mr. Ray Colosimo for his property at 2323 Case Avenue. This division created a new lot on west side of the property (2317 Case Avenue) and was subject to 3 conditions (see previous property line map, site plan and city approval letter with conditions on pages 13 through 16). DISCUSSION The previous lot division for the applicant was approved administratively and without a variance. Section 44-106 of the city's zoning code states that, "the minimum lot area in a R-1 residential zoning district shall be 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width at the building setback line shall be 75 feet." Section 44-1132 of the city's zoning code states that, "the city council hereby authorizes the director of community development or such other qualified person as designated by the city manager to grant variances in areas of the city zoned R-1 and R-2 wherein the following situations exist: (2) where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet or less." In order to comply with the state land use law, the city is required to make two findings before granting a variance: (1) Strict enforcement of the city ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that: (a) You cannot put your property to a reasonable use under city ordinances. (b) Your problem is due to circumstances unique to your property that you did not cause. (c) The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. (2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Neighborhood Comments Staff surveyed the property owners within 500 feet of this residence. Of the 32 neighbors surveyed, there were 8 responses, 3 were for the proposal and 5 were against. (See the neighborhood survey results map on page 12). SUMMARY The proposed new lot would require an 8-foot variance, with a new lot width of 67 feet. The new area of the property would be 32,830 square feet (due to the 490 foot depth of the lot) which would meet the requirements in Section 44-106 for lot dimensions. The variance request for reduced width is significantly larger (3 feet greater than an administrative request) than most requests involving a lot division. The city calculated the surrounding properties average lot width which included 21 properties on Case Avenue. The average lot width on this residential street is 117 feet, with many properties well over the average width. Only 3 properties on Case Avenue have the city minimum width of 75 feet including the applicant's recently subdivided lot. In order to meet state land use law requirements, the applicant must prove a hardship that is unique to the property. In the applicant's statement, the hardship noted is that the lot is significantly deeper than it is wide and that the proposed new lot is in keeping with the overall character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. However, staff disagrees with this opinion and would argue that the development of the proposed lot with an 8-foot variance would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Deny the variance request to have a 67-foot-wide lot (an eight-foot variance) for a new single- family home to the east of 2323 Case Avenue. The city is basing this denial on the fact that the proposed lot width would not be in character of the existing lots in the area, as well as the inability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for this variance request that meets state law requirements. CITIZEN COMMENTS For 1. I approve of the variance, looks good to me. (Danich- 2307 Stillwater Avenue) . We believe the variance should be given. I have elderly parents and I would not want to live with them, but if we could be close by and be able to be there for them, it is something that should be done. I know of Ray Colosimo, from an old neighbor and he is a fighter. But, if he having a son next door gives him peace and comfort, along with help and support, then I hope all works out for them. (Rutherford - 2341 Stillwater Avenue) 3. We have no objection to the variance being permitted. (Stark- 2296 Case Avenue) Against 1. I am against the request, it is too tight and not in character with the neighborhood. (2318 Case Avenue) 2. I say no, too tight for a lot split and variance. (2351 Case Avenue) . I would oppose this request on the basis that city planners, wiser than all of us, created such variances for a reason. These guidelines are most probably more relevant now than when they were created. Fewer trees, more driveways, additional haulers, traffic and simple loss of unaltered space is critical to our environment in Maplewood as we see more and more property being developed. I would encourage you to deny this request. (Plumbo- 2249 Case Avenue) . We feel that city codes are put in place for a reason and that the city should not grant a variance to Ray Colosimo. We think that putting another home in such a close proximity to the other homes would reduce our property value and also alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood. (Engelen- 2357 Case Avenue) . A house in the proposed location does not really effect us, however, I think a third house on Colosimo's property is really going to look very crowded and not in keeping with the other yards in this block. (Ludington- 2350 Case Avenue) 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 The city approves variances administratively where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet or less. For variances greater than five feet, state law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance. These are: (1) Strict enforcement of the city ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and (2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Application Date The city received the application for this variance request on October 8, 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 December 7, 2004. P/sec25/2323 Case Variance Attachments: 1. Applicant Statement 2. Location Map 3. Property Line Map 4. Area Map 5. Site Plan 6. Enlarged Site Plan 7. Grading Details 8. Neighborhood Survey Results 9. Previous Property Line Map 10. Previous Site Plan 11. Approval Letter Previous Lot Division Attachment 1 Variance Findings 10/08/2004 Address: 2323 Case Avenue, Maplewood, MN Legal Description: The West 25 feet of Lot 4, Lot 5 except the West 175 feet thereof, Block3, Beaver Lake Addition, City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. We believe that this variance is applicable and appropriate and is keeping with the general sprit and intent of the zoning regulations. The proposed dwelling has been modified to fit into the reduced width lot size. Because of the deepness of the lot, we believe that this dwelling is suitable for the lot and will have minimal impact to the community. We will abide by all other zoning requirements that apply to this property. This variance would not alter the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. We believe that it will not adversely affect adjacent properties nor will it diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. It is our intent to build a dwelling that blends into the neighborhood and have a positive impact on the area. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT Attachment 2 BEAVER LAKE E-_A-V_E -_ ..... GERANIUM AVE ... _- _ Geranium Park MAGNOLIAAVE . _-fl-tARV-EST_E ~R_A_V_E~ --- ¥_ -_-_ .... _ ~. _ -'¢ m ' :~ ..... > "r /_.1 ' ................ ' _ ;;o.. 68 I--f ' '- oo ,...-q n,- .... "-¢, Gethsemane Park -SEVENTH-ST .... . . LOCATION MAP Attachment 3. BEAVER LAKE 2249 2275 228L~ '.291 2311 _. q3 A'S E-A VE 946 2280 2296 2300 2316 2318 2347 2351 235l ~ ~63 ~84 2371 987 ~ 2277 2~3 29 z ~ ~Y2280 10 10 1043 lO: 6 10' ~ lO. l10~ 24~ ~ :~46 2438 ':J 0 934 ~928 ~ _ 914 [] ~0 24~ ~ 888 24( ¢882 PROPERTY LINE MAP '9 2317 ~ /~:ii~:',!i ../_~ 2410 ~;::%~a/ /~':'?': ~ ~ 868 (':¥/ ~?~:% ¢0 Gethsemane Park Attachment 4 BEAVER LAKE 15 49 2275 2287~ PROPOSED LOT 2291 2311 6 2280 2296 2300"'~ 2277 DIVISION I SITE CASE AVE 2316 2318 2317 AREA MAP 2347 2351 2340 2357 ._ 2341 2363 2371 2361 2351 0 O, Attachment 5 Robert Creager ///' /i//// / /l //ho~ x --75.00-- CASE Beaver Lake PROPOSED LOT DIVISION Ray Colosimo ----149.88--- --22~.88-- N 89'07'57" E I25ft Proposed Lot I 67.1 ft t I I Proposed dwelling 42 fl FOUND 1/2' RON · BENCHMARK:  /~- TO~ RIM OF MANHOLE E. LEV = 1001.67 Legal Description: · c West 175 feet ~oreo[ Block 3 BEAVER LAKE ADDITION, City of Maplewood, Ramsey Co~ty, Minnesota SITE PLAN Attachment 6 997.5 Robert Creager t7 x 10Ol.5 "MAPLE 1.1 '5.00-- 1000.3 X 996.6 PROPOSED LOT DIVISION xlO01.2 t1002.4 Ray Colosimo /o,/ 1003.0 :~oa i --149.88~~.,~ --224.88-- N 89'07'57" E Proposed Lot I 67.1 fi Proposed dwelling ll2fi I .~ 42 ft 5 [ { 21.4 I FOUND 1/2" IRON - -... 77.1 fi 1001.2 '1'1001.9 1001.1 X lOOl .7 BENCHMARK; (~'/' TOP RIM OF MANHOLE F_LEV = 1001.67 ENLARGED SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 7 ...-2357 Grading Details This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. N 11 Attachment 8 Beaver Lake 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 7 8 9 1 9 5 7r-~i 1 1 ~ :: NOFi .... ~T 8 6 0 A.:,E ,-A 2 ~ ~ 9 ~ ~0~.~ 1 1 O= ~ 6 ~]0 6 ~ YES 2 3 1012 ~ 1000 : 994 ~'984 ~ ~. 2407 968'" 23~ lYES ~ :~.. O eth serna n e P ark Neighborhood Survey Results 12 Attachment 9 PREVIOUS PROPERTY LINE MAP Attachment 10 FOUND 1/2' IRON · z 75.0 BEAVER LAKE APPROXIMATE MARSH AREA  d,, & ak. & PROPOSED SPLIT LINE ~ 1o432.5 g<.:~ 14" MAPL~ ' lOO1.1 i , PROPOSED LOT SPLIT I I '-2323:0 ' I --149.88-- --224, BB-- N 89'07'57" E iOOl ./--- BENCHMARK: 999.5 ........ 1001.7 ~ TOP RIM OF MANHOLE F-LEV = 1001.67 CASE A VENUE bJ m',-- I z 14 Together We Can Attachment ll O~ober2,2003 Mr. Ray Colosimo 2323 Case Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 LOT DIVISION - 2323 CASE AVENUE, MAPLEWOOD The city has approved the lot division shown on the enclosed maps. The lot division is not final until the city stamps your deeds and you have them recorded at Ramsey County. You do not need to have the city stamp the deeds until you are ready to record them. This approval is subject to you completing the following conditions: 1. Finish removing the existing garage and clean up Parcel A. 2. Have your surveyor prepare a plan showing a proposed house pad and the existing and proposed contours for Parcel A. (Please contact Chds Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, at (651) 249-2403 for more information.) The city will need to approve this plan before we may issue a grading or a building permit for Parcel A. 3. Recording the new deeds within one year. You may appeal any of these conditions by wdting me a letter within ten days. Your letter should state what you are appealing and why. The city council will decide any appeals that you might make. I will put the city's stamp of approval on your deeds after you have completed Conditions One and Two. You may then have your deeds recorded at the_ Ramsey County Courthouse. Ramsey County will not accept your deeds without this approval and signature. Before Maplewood issues a building permit, you must provide proof that the county has recorded the deed for Parcel A. You or the contractor also must submit a signed certificate of survey, including the proposed grading plan, with the building permit application for Parcel A, OFFICE Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 15 651-770-4560 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 City OF [~APLEWOOD · 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B Mr. Ray Colosimo Page 2 October 2, 2003 The city may require a cash escrow before issuing a permit to connect to sanitary sewer or city water. This escrow is to guarantee that your contractor propedy repairs the street. Please call me at (651) 249-2303 if you have any questions. / KENNETH ROBERTS - ASSOCIATE PLANNER kr/Itrr2323 Case Avenue.ltr Enclosures cc: City Clerk Assistant City Engineer Building Official Dennis Peck MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner University Auto Sales and Leasing 1145 Highway 36 East October 25, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Hossein Aghamirzai of University Auto Sales and Leasing is proposing to expand University Auto's motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Refer to the plans on pages 8-11. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: Amendment to their existing used motor vehicle sales conditional use permit (CUP) in order to expand the sales lot. 2. Design review. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2001, the city council approved a CUP for used motor vehicle sales at University Auto Sales and Leasing. On June 24, 2002, the city council reviewed and renewed the CUP for used motor vehicle sales at University Auto Sales and Leasing. November 24, 2003, the city council approved an amendment for the expansion of University Auto's existing CUP for used motor vehicle sales, a new CUP for motor vehicle repair, and design review for an addition to the building to house a new motor vehicle repair facility. January 2004, University Auto purchased .22 acres of land from the City of Maplewood for the future expansion of their used motor vehicle sales lot. The land was previously unused right-of- way along the frontage road. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit University Auto's existing used motor vehicle sales lot contains 63 used motor vehicle parking spaces, 10 customer parking spaces, and 3 employee spaces. With the proposed sales lot expansion the parking lot will contain 93 used motor vehicle parking spaces, 5 customer parking spaces, and 3 employee spaces. Since opening the used motor vehicle sales business in 2001, University Auto has been in compliance with all CUP conditions and city code CUP standards. However, there is one outstanding issue which keeps reoccurring on the site each time city staff reviews the CUP. The issue has to do with parking of motor vehicles in front of the entrances. When the business is closed, University Auto will park motor vehicles in front of both entrances, presumably to block the entrance and exit to would-be auto thieves. Also, University Auto has been parking motor vehicles on elevated display ramps along the side of the drive aisles as a way to advertise their motor vehicles. Both of these are considered a violation of the city's ordinances as the motor vehicles are either totally blocking the drive aisles, which is a fire-safety issue, or are reducing the width of the drive aisles, which is a traffic-safety issue. Therefore, city staff recommends a new condition to University Auto's motor vehicle sales CUP which states that no motor vehicles may be parked within the drive aisles. If University Auto wishes to block their drive aisles when the business is closed, the city's fire marshal, Butch Gervais, suggests that they install a gate with a pad lock. The city's fire department can easily cut through the paddle lock if they need to gain access for a fire, as opposed to towing away a motor vehicle. If University Auto wishes to display motor vehicles on the raised ramps, they must park the ramp in one of the designated used motor vehicle display parking spaces. Once the applicant resolves the issue of parking of motor vehicles within the drive aisles, staff finds that the proposed expansion of the used motor vehicle sales lot would meet all city code CUP standards as specified in the attached CUP resolution on pages 14-15. Design Review Building Addition As stated above, the city council approved an addition to University Auto's building on November 24, 2003. The addition will be used as a motor vehicle repair facility. The 1,040- square-foot addition is currently under construction and is located on the north side of the building. There are two garage doors proposed on the addition, one on the east and one on the west side. The western garage door will allow exit of motor vehicles onto the proposed expanded motor vehicle sales lot. Site Plan City code requires that a parking lot maintain a 15-foot setback to the front and a 5-foot setback to the rear property lines. University Auto's site plan shows the expanded motor vehicle sales lot with a 15-foot front-yard setback and a zero rear-yard setback. A condition of approval should include that the new parking lot maintain a 5-foot rear-yard setback as required by city code. Landscaping There is minimal landscaping on the existing site consisting of a few Iow-lying shrubs located in front of the building. City staff explained to Mr. Aghamirzai that the city's community design review board (CDRB) ordinance requires the submittal of a landscape plan for the expanded motor vehicle sales lot. City staff suggested the planting of several trees and shrubs along the front of the new sales lot. University Auto submitted a site plan with the location of one "plant box" on the northwest corner of the new site, which was their submittal of the required landscape plan. Mr. Aghamirzai explained that they do not wish to plant any trees or plants along the front of the sales lot which will screen the view of their used motor vehicles from the street. City staff explained to Mr. Aghamirzai that this plan was unacceptable and suggested that University Auto work with a landscape firm to ensure an adequate plan for review by the CDRB. University Auto 2 October 25, 2004 To date, University Auto has not submitted an adequate landscape plan for the expanded motor vehicle sales lot. As such, a condition of design review approval should include the submittal of a landscape plan which shows the planting of at least 7 deciduous trees (one tree per 30 feet) or 14 ornamental trees (one tree per 15 feet), 30 shrubs, and several perennial plants to be planted along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot, and shrubs within the existing planting bed along the west side of the building. All other areas must be sodded or seeded with grass. The required landscape plan must be submitted to city staff prior to the city issuing a grading permit for the expanded sales lot. In addition, city code requires that all new landscaping have underground irrigation to ensure adequate watering. The CDRB may waive this condition if it is a hardship for the applicant and they agree to water the landscaping. City staff finds the addition of an underground irrigation system along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot to be a financial hardship as the cost of implementing a new irrigation system in an existing, older building would make this project cost prohibitive. Therefore, city staff recommends that the CDRB waive the requirement for underground irrigation. Li.qhtin.q There are currently eight outdoor lights on the property including three freestanding parking lot flood lights, three roof-mounted parking lot flood lights, and two roof-mounted flag spotlights. Mr. Aghamirzai indicates that no new lights are proposed for the expanded motor vehicle sales lot. If new lights are ever proposed for this area, city code requires the submittal of a photometrics plan which will ensure that the new lights do not exceed .4 foot-candles of light illumination at all property lines, and that the maximum height of new freestanding lights does not exceed 25 feet. The existing outdoor lights described above are an older style flood light, mounted on metal poles. The metal poles are painted white, but have chipped and peeling paint. Because the expanded motor vehicle sales lot requires design review, the city should ensure that the existing facility is in good repair. As such, a condition of design review approval should include the repainting of all existing metal light poles white to ensure no chipping or peeling paint. Trash Enclosure During a recent inspection of site, staff noticed a trash dumpster located on the exterior of the property. This may be due to the fact that University Auto is currently constructing an addition onto the building. In the past, University Auto has stored their trash dumpster inside the building. If they now propose to store the trash dumpster outside, University Auto must construct a trash enclosure to screen the dumpster. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high, constructed of materials compatible to the building, and have a 100 percent opaque gate. Grading/Drainaqe Chuck Vermeersch of the city's engineering department states in his memorandum attached on pages 12-13 that the sales lot expansion will increase the impervious area on the property by approximately. 17 acres. The applicants are not proposing any water quality improvements as part of the expansion, and Mr. Vermeersch states that there is little opportunity to do so on this property as water runoff from the entire site drains through a long series of roadside ditches before discharging into Keller Lake. However, Mr. Vermeersch recommends several grading and drainage improvements to the plan including ditch improvements. A condition of approval should include all engineering conditions being met prior to issuance of a grading permit. University Auto 3 October 25, 2004 OTHER COMMENTS Lt. Kevin Rabbett of the city's police department states that there are no significant public safety concerns with the expansion of University Auto's motor vehicle sales lot. However, due to the number of auto thefts from this location in the past, Lt. Rabbett suggests that the owners install proper lighting and a high-quality video surveillance system. RECOMMENDATIONS . Adopt the resolution on pages 14-15, this resolution approves an amendment to University Auto's conditional use permit for a used motor vehicle sales business at 1145 Highway 36 East in order to expand their used motor vehicle sales lot. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code and shall be subject to (any amendments to original conditions noted): a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. b. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. c. The city council shall review this permit in one year. d. The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. e. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. g. The hours of operation of this used motor vehicle sales business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The used motor vehicle sales business shall be closed on Sunday. h, There shall be no parking of motor vehicles within the drive aisles, either blockinq the drive aisles for security when the business is closed or parked along the side of the drive aisles on display. . Approval of the site plan date-stamped September 17, 2004, for the expansion of a motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: University Auto 4 October 25, 2004 ao Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the expanded used motor vehicle sales lot, the applicants must submit the following to staff for approval: 1) A grading and drainage plan which addresses all conditions required in Chuck Vermeersch's memorandum dated October 18, 2004. 2) Revised site plan showing the expanded motor vehicle sales lot maintaining a 5-foot setback to the rear property line. 3) Landscape plan showing the planting of at least 7 deciduous trees (one tree per 30 feet) or 14 ornamental trees (one tree per 15 feet), 30 shrubs, and several perennial plants to be planted along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot, and shrubs within the existing planting bed along the west side of the building. All other areas must be sodded or seeded with grass. The CDRB waives the city code requirement for underground irrigation. 4) Trash dumpster enclosure plans for the outside trash containers if used (code requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure. Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building. 5) Photometrics plans for any new outdoor lighting. The plan must include the light illumination at all property lines not exceeding .4-foot-candles and all freestanding lights maintaining a height of 25 feet or less. 6) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. C, Complete the following prior to the city conducting a final grading inspection on the site, unless the city holds the above-mentioned cash escrow or letter of credit to ensure completion of the work: 1) Painting all new and existing parking space stripes. 2) Construction of a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used. 3) Repainting of all existing light poles white to ensure no chipped or peeling paint. 4) Installation of all required landscaping. do All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. University Auto 5 October 25, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing land use: 51,836 square feet (1.19 acres) University Auto (Used Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Second Harvest Highway 36 with Menard's and CountrySide Motors located across the highway Highways 36 and 61 interchange Commercial Pools PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: M1 (Light Manufacturing) M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 44-512(5)(a) requires a CUP for the sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. Sections 44-1091 through 44-1105 state that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution on pages 14-15. Section 2-290 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. University Auto 6 October 25, 2004 Application Date The city received the complete application for this proposal on September 21, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by November 20, 2004. p:sec9\university auto 2004 cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan 5. Engineering Memorandum 6. Used Motor Vehicle Sales Conditional Use Permit Resolution University Auto 7 October 25, 2004 2411 Attachment 1 GERVAIS AVE __ 1175 19¸ HIGHWAY 36 --_ -_ _ lq S SERVICE RD 1200 .. Location Map 2411 Attachment 2 GERVAIS AVE 1175 19 __ -__ 1180 Zon, i ng Map 2411 A[f~achment 3 GERVAIS AVE HIGHWAY 36 1200 Land Use Map l0 Attachment 4 Bg .3 210, 0I' ~ ~ ~ ? Stor/ concrete ~ ~ kqme commercial ~ ~ ~ bu/Zding ........................ 210' N Site Plan 11 Attachment 5 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: University Auto PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch DATE: October 18, 2004 Grading and Drainage Plan: The sales lot expansion proposed will increase the impervious area on the property by approximately 0.17 acres. The entire site drains to the adjacent road ditch. There are no water quantity issues due to the increased runoff volume. The applicants are not proposing any water quality improvements as part of the expansion, and in fact, there is little opportunity to provide such improvements on this property. The site drainage flows through a long series of roadside ditches before discharging into Keller Lake. The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments: 1. The work of filling and preparation of the base for the expansion was completed without a permit. The applicant will be required to obtain a grading permit for the work already completed, and pay double the normal fee. 2. While the city will not require water quality improvements as part of the expansion, the applicant will be required to provide ditch improvements (see attached figure). The existing "field" entrance and culvert shall be removed and all ditches adjacent to the property shall be regraded and restored. 3. Since the entire site sheet drains to the ditch, restoration shall be with sod, or seed and erosion control blanket. The ditch bottoms shall be sodded. 4. The two existing entrances to the property have culverts as well. If they are not already in place, the applicant will install flared end sections on the existing culverts. 5. There are three sanitary manholes in the ditch alignment. These manholes may require adjustment in connection with the ditch grading. This work must be coordinated with Ed Nadeau, the city's utility superintendent. 6. An alternative to removing the "field" entrance and culvert would be to construct an entrance to the sales lot there. The applicant should be aware that this would require the removal of one of the other entrances. 12 Downstream culvert under driveway "Field" entrance and culvert Attachment 6 USED MOTOR VEHICLE SALES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Hossein Aghamirzai, of University Auto Sales and Leasing, applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to expand a used motor vehicle sales business. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1145 E. Highway 36. The legal description is: ALL OF BLOCK 21 EXCEPT THE EAST 480 FEET THEREOF, CLIFTON ADDITION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 36/118, AND STATE HIGHWAY 61/1. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On November 1, 2004, 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 everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. . On November 8, 2004, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit request and considered recommendations by the planning commission and city staff. After review, the city council approved this permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described conditional use permit based on the site plans. The city approved this permit because: . The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. . The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. , The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. . The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 14 , The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. . The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (and amendments to the original conditions noted): . All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. . The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. , The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. o There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. . Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. . The hours of operation of this used motor vehicle sales business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The used motor vehicle sales business shall be closed on Sunday. o There shall be no parking of motor vehicles within the drive aisles, either blocking the drive aisles for security when the business is closed or parked alonq the side of the drive aisles on display. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 8, 2004. 15