Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/2004MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 15, 2004, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 1, 2004 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Conditional Use Permit - Mapletree Group Home (2831 Southlawn Drive) 6. New Business Concept Plan Review -The Woodlands PUD (McMenemy Street) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations November 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler November 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai December 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule 12-6 PC Meeting: Tuesday 12-7 or Wednesday 12-8? 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:01 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 Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Absent Present at 7:11 p.m. Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Staff Absent: Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ahlness moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Grover, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for October 18, 2004. Mr. Roberts had given the commissioners a revised version of minutes that have a longer discussion of the Gladstone redevelopment area. Commissioner Trippler said at the bottom of page 9 it states the motion has failed due to a tie vote and therefore is denied. It should say after the word therefore it is recommended to be denied. Staff agreed the wording should reflect that. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for October 18, 2004, as amended. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 11-01-04 Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Grover, Trippler Abstention -Ahlness Mr. Ahlness said he had submitted information to staff prior to the last meeting and for the record he would like his comments added regarding the public hearing for the home occupation license for David Grupa's photography business at 1994 Duluth Street. He strongly disagreed with placing the home occupation business in a residential neighborhood. Over 56% of the existing neighbors disagreed with the proposed home occupation out of Mr. Grupa's garage. Although he was not present at the meeting, he would have voted nay along with some of the other commissioners. He would like Commissioner Trippler to forward his comments at the upcoming city council meeting. Mr. Ahlness would pass a copy of his comments to Mr. Trippler for his representation at the city council meeting. He said he forwarded his comments onto staff but they were not included in the minutes. Staff said they would try to find the comments sent into staff and pass the information along. V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Conditional Use Permit -Phoenix Group Home (1936 Craig Place) Mr. Roberts said 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. 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. Commissioner Trippler said on page 2 of the staff report staff in the summary it states seven of the 12 neighbors that responded were against the expansion but on page 3 and 4 of the staff report it states of the 16 replies there were 3 for the proposal and eight against and five with no comments. In addition to that he doesn't understand how anyone could interpret the letter on page 16 of the staff report to be anything but a letter of objection. Mr. Tyler Messerole writes based on the information provided in your mailing 1 don't think it would be a logical decision to increase the numberofkids at the group home. Later on in the letter it states 1 hope you viewthe situation as 1 do, let's leave well enough alone. Crowding two more young kids with dependency problems into the home will not be a benefit for the kids. To Commissioner Trippler that letter is in opposition and not just "a concern". He knows it's difficult to decide when the letter doesn't come out and say I am opposed. Mr. Roberts said it should have read 16 responses in the summary and not 12. As far as interpreting the letter, he understands what Commissioner Trippler is saying and agrees the letter voices more of an objection rather than just a letter of concern. Commissioner Trippler said on page 2 of the staff report Butch Gervais, Fire Marshall stated if it `s approved, the operators need to ensure that there are proper emergency exits and they must have state or city approval. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff could make it mandatory that the exits have to be in place before two more young adults can live in the Phoenix Group Home. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 11-01-04 Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Ahlness said he agrees with Commissioner Trippler's concern regarding the exits in the home. As you look at the resolution on page 19 of the staff report he wondered what staffs comments were regarding statement number 3. the use would not depreciate property values? Mr. Roberts said it was a subjective opinion of his based on the fact that there has been a group operating from this location since 1994 and staff wasn't aware of any major issues there. He wasn't sure at this point that adding two more residents would change the mind of someone looking to buy a house in this neighborhood. Mr. Roberts said the legal obligation is to disclose the fact that there is a group home in the neighborhood but he wasn't sure if you needed to disclose how many residents are living in the home. Acting Chairperson Desai said he read in the staff report there are 6 young adults with 1 caretaker to care for the 6 young adults. Adding 2 more young adults' means there would be 9 people living in the home. Mr. Roberts said that is correct, however, the one staff member doesn't live in the house 24- hours-a day, seven-days-a week. Acting Chairperson Desai said in order to monitor security there should be a room for the caretaker to stay. Mr. Roberts said his understanding was there is a room there. He hasn't been inside the house but that would be a good question for the applicant. Commissioner Bartol needed clarification regarding the letter from Mr. Ost in the top paragraph it states 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 a 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. This contradicts the fact that a staff member is not spending the night in this group home. Mr. Roberts said what he was trying to relay was that it was not necessarily the same person that is at the home 24-hours-a day seven-days-a week. He believes there is staff that comes and goes in shifts. Acting Chairperson Desai said staff's recommendation is to have no parking signs and he asked if there was any follow up to see if there were problems for the residents if no parking signs went up? Mr. Roberts said staff hasn't polled the residents regarding the no parking signs and he would like to think this would not create a major concern but the neighbors that are present in the audience can voice their concerns one way or the other. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 11-01-04 Mr. Craig Ost, representing Phoenix Group Homes, 1936 Craig Place, Maplewood, residing at 1270 LaFond Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the commission. He said Phoenix Group Homes has always received a variance to go up to eight residents in the past. He said the procedure to have 8 residents is changing. They are licensed through the department of corrections as a group foster home with up to six residents. They followed the same procedure up until six to eight months ago when he sent an a-mail to Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager, expressing their desire to increase their capacity from either six residents to seven or seven to eight residents. He was given approval via a reply from her a-mail and has several of those requests and approved replies in his files at the office. He then took Melinda Coleman's reply which was an affirmative of his request and faxed that to the licensing agent Julie Snyder with the Department of Corrections along with a variance request. Usually they went from 90 days. When he went to do the request Julie Snyder said she couldn't do process it and that she would have to go through a different procedure. At this time he questioned why a different procedure had to be followed and is still not clear on the reasoning. He asked what the next step was and what the proper procedure was. That brings him to this point. When he started this process he told Mr. Roberts Phoenix Group Home had already had up to eight residents. He was the House Manager for 2'/2 years, has been the Facility Supervisor of the three group homes for 2'/2 years and has been with Phoenix Group for five years. They have been able to have up to eight residents almost that entire time and has the paper work to prove that. Mr. Ost said he has read the letters of concern and said there are some valid concerns in the staff report. In terms of heavier traffic that is a mood point. They have already had eight residents living here in the past and there was no problems then. He read both the positive and negative letters to his application and one letter in particular is from the neighbor at 1940 Craig Place on page 14 of the staff report. He read the letter aloud. He said they are licensed through the Department of Corrections and specialize in recovery from CD. He said they probably don't get paid what they should because they do a really good job at this center. The letter states a resident couldn't be at the Phoenix Group Home if they weren't involved in the justice system. That is not true, the resident has to have a case manager from the county to make sure they are placed appropriately at the Phoenix Group Home from the case manager from the referring county to ensure the resident is there because they are supposed to be there and not to just get the young adult out of their parents hair. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about the living arrangements at the facility. As he understands the applicant's letter the house has four bedrooms and he read something about a staff bedroom. So that means three bedrooms for the residents and one bedroom for the staff member. That equals 8 people in three bedrooms. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant could give rough room dimensions so he has an idea of the amount of bedroom space. Mr. Ost said one bedroom located in the basement is partitioned off to make two bedrooms and there is room for four people on each side of the partition. Then there are two other bedrooms that are fairly small that are 8 X 10 roughly. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be a hardship to add additional emergency exits? Mr. Ost said he was there whey the fire marshal was there for inspections and based on what was shared with him and being present for the process of being licensed through the Department of Corrections he doesn't think it's necessary to add more exits. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 11-01-04 Commissioner Trippler asked why there was a need to increase the residents from six to eight people? Mr. Ost said it's necessary to provide the service for people that need it. Because they do such a good job with the residents, they currently have a waiting list for new residents. Commissioner Bartol said when Mr. Ost gave his presentation he stated the neighbors shouldn't expect additional noise with the addition of two more residents. He asked if Mr. Ost meant they already have eight residents? Mr. Ost said they currently have six residents but they have in the past had eight residents. Commissioner Bartol said he doesn't know how you couldn't notice an increase in noise, garbage, traffic with the addition of two more residents, it's got to have an impact. Mr. Ost said the point he was trying to make was that until six months ago they were at eight residents but now the procedure changed. This means if they needed to increase residents from six to eight they would like permission from the city but that doesn't necessarily mean they would maintain eight residents all the time. Commissioner Bartol said Mr. Ost said a few moments ago that there was a waiting list and he doesn't see how they would decrease the number of residents if the city gave them permission to have eight residents. He asked if the city gave permission what's to say Phoenix won't come back and ask to have another two residents making a total of 10 residents? He believes it's a good thing to ask for the neighbors input and asked Mr. Ost if he would agree it was a good thing to get the neighbors approval and input. Mr. Ost said yes it's good to get the neighbors approval and input and he is fine with the process. Commissioner Bartol said he got the feeling that Mr. Ost wasn't comfortable with the change in procedure. Mr. Ost said he was sorry if that was the perception the commissioners received because that was not what he was trying to relay. He is just trying to point out that because they previously had eight residents living in the home he doesn't see this request as a problem. Commissioner Bartol said he thinks the service the Phoenix Group Home provides is a great one and a necessary one. He is sure every time they open a home they run in to a certain amount of resistance from the neighborhood. This is unfortunate because this type of home is a necessity. He would like to think that across Maplewood the city keeps these types of homes as pleasant and successful as possible so each time a home is opened there is the least amount of resistance as possible. He would like to see the number of residents kept at six to keep this group home as low profile as possible. Commissioner Trippler's comments regarding the size of the rooms and the number of rooms were well taken and are a very critical element. Mr. Ost said they look at the feedback from the neighbors as good information because they want to be good neighbors and this is a good process. It forces them to look at themselves and how things are run and it helps them to be a better run operation. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 11-01-04 Commissioner Ahlness said if they have the ability to house up to ten people in the home. What assurance do the neighbors have as to the total number of people that could live there? Mr. Ost said the only reason they can house up to ten people is because they have bunk beds. They would never have that many residents living there because it would not serve the residents or the staff. Commissioner Ahlness said he understood it was a state guideline if you have six residents in a group home you don't need permission from the city how does having eight residents fit into that? Mr. Ost said they make guidelines for six residents with the variance to go up to seven or eight residents. It's reasonable to say they did that for a reason. The question is where is the optimum care and how can staff supervise the residents. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there was a state or federal guideline as to how many square feet of living space is required for each resident? Mr. Ost said he didn't think so if there was they have always met that guideline. There is a thorough process they have to go through and the licensing agent keeps track of those things when she gives them their license. Acting Chairperson Desai asked staff if they knew of any guidelines for square footage requirements? Mr. Roberts said he doesn't know. He asked Mr. Ost if he could review the licensing process for the commissioners. Mr. Ost said they are inspected on a bi-annual basis which was done with all three of the group homes this past spring and summer and they are current with the Department of Corrections. They inspect the facility and make sure the residents each have a case manager from their referring county. It is an extensive inspection, they look at doctor, dental visits, personal visits, and grievances with staff. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if Mr. Ost shared with the Department of Corrections that they wanted to increase residents from six residents to eight residents on a permanent basis? Mr. Ost said yes they have been talking with Julie Snyder regarding this the entire time. Commissioner Bartol asked if the six residents was a guideline or a law? Mr. Ost said they have a permanent variance to have eight permanent residents in their group homes. It may be that the other group homes are in a rural area though. Mr. Roberts said it's in the rules that are set down from the state agencies that the city is mandated to follow but he didn't believe it was written in the state statute as a law. Commissioner Bartol asked if the first paragraph in the introduction section of the staff report was an overstatement because it stated State law allows Phoenix to have up to six residents. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 11-01-04 Mr. Roberts said if it is not a state law it is in the state regulations or in the state rules but they are not guidelines, they are very firm. As he understands it, the rules essentially become the law. He said Commissioner Trippler could probably attest to that. Commissioner Trippler said he thought what Mr. Roberts was referring to was that atone time he was a rule writer for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and if anything it is in the statutes, it's not a guideline, it is a law. Commissioner Grover said Mr. Ost stated that there has been an ongoing process through the city to get these temporary variances. It would've been helpful to have documentation showing the ongoing approval for temporary variances as part of the planning documents because that is new information to the commission which wasn't provided in the staff report. This would be helpful as part of the decision making process to be made by the planning commission. Mr. Roberts said when staff updates the report for the city council he would try to include as much information as possible. Unfortunately he doesn't have that information at his fingertips tonight. Acting Chairperson Desai said before this goes to the city council he would be interested in knowing if this law has gone into effect recently or has it been there all along. Mr. Roberts said he has worked at the city for 15 years and it has been effect at least that long. At one point Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager, counted over 200 group homes with various styles and sizes throughout the city and most have 4 to 6 residents. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there have been other cases who have asked for a conditional use permit like this? Mr. Roberts said this is the only one he is aware of. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the commission to come forward and sign in for the record. The following people spoke at the public hearing for Phoenix Group Homes, 1936 Craig Place: Randy Forsman, 1940 Craig Place, Maplewood. He said he has been a good neighbor, a good citizen and has gotten along fairly well with the kids at this home. He has issue with three things. In all due respect, Mr. Roberts' analysis is a joke. How can you say what is going on in a house won't affect its value? This group home certainly affects the value of his home. They could've had a new neighbor move in with five or six rowdy boys and that would be just your luck or misfortune. But anyone can access the information that there is a group home located here with a conditional use permit because it is public information. This affects the value of his house and none of the commissioners live here. Mr. Ost doesn't live in this neighborhood. Parking is a serious problem. It is such a problem that if he has any visitors they can't parkin front of his house and if they put no parking signs up on the other side of the street where could his visitors park then. Eight residents is a big difference compared to six residents. Mr. Ost said they have already had eight residents live in this home and there should not be any noticeable changes? Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 11-01-04 Mr. Forsman said the home is licensed for six residents and if they get approval for eight residents they will try for ten residents. He likes the kids and he talks to the kids. He doesn't want the CUP granted. He worked in adolescent CD for 20 years with kids just like this. He is chemically dependent himself and understands the disease. He doesn't have an issue with that. He sat in front of this commission 13 years ago and got a CUP for an outpatient clinic on Cope Avenue for Fairview Hospital. It was different though because that was a commercial area, there was plenty of parking and it did not have an impact on residents or children because it was retail property. That particular clinic was licensed by Department of Human Services under rule 43 as a chemical dependency treatment center. Why isn't Phoenix Group Home licensed that way, because the staffing requirements, square footage, bathrooms and healthcare would be much stricter. This is to get more residents living here so they can bring in more money. He bets the commission can't see the financial records of the Phoenix Group Home to see how much money they are making and what's being done with the money that is made. This center is in a residential neighborhood with many young children. This group home is not licensed by the Department of Human Services as a chemical dependency treatment center. If it were there would be more staff and square footage guidelines. They are not bad kids living here but if you knew what he knows working with kids who abuse drugs and alcohol you would be surprised by their shaded history. They did not require a CUP when it opened because the state legislature did not require CUP's for facilities like this because they wanted a family home environment for the young adults to live in. They wanted small family units so the kids could relate to a family instead of an institution. Mr. Forsman said when he found out as a resident there was nothing he could do to change having this home next to his, he was very angry. He was scared and the kids have not impacted his life in a bad way other than the problem of parking and the noise at night some things that all kids do. Don't kid yourself, if they ask for eight residents now they will ask for more later. This home is not built to house eight to ten residents. There is at least one staff member there at all times. He doesn't know how many bathrooms this house has but would guess that the staff member doesn't share his bathroom with the other six or eight residents. He would ask that the commission does not grant this CUP. If you decide to grant it, he would ask that the commission go to visit the site. Look at the square footage, the size of the rooms, and consider whether you would grant 8 to 10 people to live there. Sunday is family day and there is at least a dozen cars parked outside, plus the staff and the residents. He has personally seen the interior of the house and would welcome the commission to visit it as well. Nancy Jude, 2203 Craig Place, Maplewood. Ms. Jude said they moved into their home in February. The group home was a concern of theirs until she talked to the neighbors, they had nice things to say about the group home. Now her concern is that she found out a drug dealer lives on the other end of the street. She has no problems with the kids at the Phoenix Group Home. The drug dealer's friends have driven down the street and hooted and hollered at her and made her feel very vulnerable. The kids at the group home have been nothing but respectful, their very quiet, and when they walk down the street they don't meddle in what you are doing. It's irrelevant to her how much money they are or aren't making. The point is the kids are responding to the program and that is what is important. Ms. Jude said everyone needs a second chance if they are willing to be held accountable. Another neighbor who could not be present asked her to speak and she has never had a problem. She lives on the same side of the street and hasn't had any traffic problems but then she doesn't have people that need to park on the curb either. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 11-01-04 Ms. Jude said kids in this home deserve to have visitors at the home that they live in. The kids themselves don't drive and she is happy with the way things are going now. She is concerned about the property values but it certainly doesn't seem to affect people buying houses on the street. Mr. Ost said he takes offense to the fact that people think they are out to get rich from housing as many residents as possible. Any raise they receive comes from Ramsey County not from having a certain number of residents in a group home. When you work in this field it is not to make money it is for the kids. Jon Brandt, 2837 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood. He said he is not here to offer support or denial of this CUP. He operates a group home in Maplewood and would like to offer some additional information regarding group homes and the rules and regulations. He also wanted to inform the commission he will be coming before the commission in two weeks. Regarding the number of kids in a group home, the state law was designed to make sure that group homes were not zoned out of every community. If that were the case there would not be group homes in most communities. Most neighbors don't want a group home in their backyard. About four years ago a state law was passed so as long as a group home operates with six residents or fewer, the city in which it is located cannot keep it from operating there. It is not an endorsement for small facilities it is designed to make sure group homes can exist. There is a square footage requirement for bedrooms which is 80 square feet per room or 60 square feet per resident. Commissioner Pearson asked if some of these regulations went back to when Mrs. Humphrey was establishing group homes for some of the mentally challenged kids at that time? Mr. Brand said he wasn't sure how Mrs. Humphrey was involved with group homes. He said he was a county social worker and he licensed foster homes for nine years. He is aware that in the 1960's the state laws were amended to allow foster homes and group homes to exist with up to six residents without any city interference. Commissioner Trippler said he would like to change condition 4 on page 2 and condition number 4 on page 20. To say the owner or operator shall provide proper emergency exits to accommodate up to eight residents. All emergency exits shall be inspected and approved by the fire marshal prior to increasing the number of residents beyond six. Commissioner Pearson said he would not be supporting this proposal. The fire marshal has been inside the house and stated he would not advise adding additional people in the house as it is a tight fit already. That is sufficient enough information to him. Mr. Roberts said he believes what Mr. Brand was saying was that a bedroom for a single person has to be at least 80 square feet and if it is a bedroom that is occupied by more than one person there has to be at least 60 square feet per person in that bedroom. For two people it has to be at least 120 square feet. Commissioner Bartol asked if the city knew if the Phoenix Group Home was in compliance? Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 11-01-04 Mr. Roberts said we do not know but if the state has licensed them since 1994 he would hope everything would have been checked within the last 10 years. As a side note, the state has to approve the variance request as well. Commissioner Trippler said he wasn't sure how he was going to vote on this but he agrees with Commissioner Pearson's assessment. He was afraid the city council would approve this proposal anyway and he wouldn't want to see this approved without the proper exits. He lives next door to a group home. He is not opposed to group homes, it sounds like this one is operating very well and he thinks it would operate better with six residents as opposed to the request for eight residents and he is going to vote against the proposal as well. Commissioner Bartol said he thinks it is important to keep group homes as successful as possible in order for other group homes to be successful. He will be voting against the request to increase the number of residents from six to eight. Commissioner Pearson moved to ap~eve deny the resolution to approve a conditional use permit for Phoenix Group Homes to have up to eight residents living in their residential facility at 1936 Craig Place. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Grover, Pearson, Trippler Reasons for the denial were based on the recommendation from the fire marshal not to increase the number of residents to eight because of overcrowding and the neighborhood opposition to adding more residents because of the impacts on the neighbors. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on November 22, 2004. b. Lot Width Variance and Lot Division (2323 Case Avenue) Mr. Roberts said 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. Commissioner Grover asked what the dimensions would be for 2323 Case Avenue if the variance were approved to create a new lot 67-feet wide lot? Acting Chairperson Desai said according to page 9 of the staff report the width of the lot would be 149.88. Commissioner Grover asked what the reason for the 10 feet between the properties was? Mr. Roberts said the 10-foot side yard setback shown on page 10 is the minimum setback required by the zoning code from a wall of a house to the property line. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 11-01-04 Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Tom Colosimo, son of Ray Colosimo, 2323 Case Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He grew up in this neighborhood and whether or not this variance is granted he would never do anything to decrease the property value or the aesthetics of this neighborhood. This is a very personal matter for him and he understands that the city is looking out for the best of the city of Maplewood and the community along Case Avenue. However, he and his wife Barb disagree with the staff recommendation to not go forward with this variance request. It is their plan to build a smaller than average one-story home that would blend into the neighborhood. By design most of the foot print of this home would be to the depth of the lot and not to the width. Because of his roots in this location they would take extra care not to destroy the scenery or the ecological value of the area. His love of the natural beauty of beaver lake and the surrounding area of the land in question supports his quest for not doing damage to the landscape. They have been diligently working with a reputable builder to build a modest home that fits into the neighborhood, one that does not stand out but rather blends in with the existing structures. They would like to address the five neighbors that disagree with the variance request. They feel that because of the style of the home they are considering to build that only the neighbors that live immediately adjacent to the location would be impacted from this construction. These people would be his dad Ray Colosimo to the west and Mrs. Cove to the east. Neither has any opposition to this variance. The letter was sent out to 32 people and five people responded negatively to their request. Three people responded positively and 24 people did not respond at all. The 24 people that did not respond do not care or do not disagree with this request. Most neighbors are not opposed to this request and they ask that their variance be considered in a favorable way. Commissioner Trippler said the lot was subdivided by Ray Colosimo in October 2003. He asked why the applicant didn't get the lot at 2317 Case Avenue and why he waited until there was not enough room to build a house there. Mr. Colosimo guessed it was his misfortune, bad timing, or a misunderstanding. At the time he was not ready to make that type of move and it was a decision that his dad had made. Mrs. Barb Colosimo, wife of Tom spoke and said she has known Tom Colosimo for 20 years. She said they were always told that the lot was large enough to build. Because of this there was the misconception on everyone's part and thought there would not be a problem. Basically this was a surprise to them. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if anyone wanted to speak to come forward and address the commission. Mr. Warren Wessel, 2311 Case Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. His lot was the most effected by the sale of Ray Colosimo's lot where another gentleman is building a house. He has enjoyed having Ray for a neighbor and misses having him right next door to him. He has nothing but good things to say about him as a neighbor. However, he does not agree with Ray's decision to split off his land. They bought their home 8 years ago and one of the main reasons they bought the home was because of the large lots and the lake. Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 11-01-04 Mr. Wessel said in Tom and Barb's statement they stated they didn't think it would change the characteristics of the neighborhood. He would respectively disagree with that statement. Since Ray sold his lot at 2317 Case Avenue it has already negatively affected the neighborhood. The house that was approved has a height difference of about 15 to 20 feet. The gentleman decided to take down 3 of the large pine trees between the new house and his and it has really impacted the whole look of the house and what the view. To squeeze another house in there is too tight and it would negatively affect the neighborhood in his opinion. Jeff Engelen, 2357 Case Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he respectively opposes this lot width variance. He doesn't know Ray as well as some of the other neighbors but Ray is definitely set in his ways. He doesn't know why Tom and Barb did not buy the lot when the lot was available. If you drove through the neighborhood you would see the lots are large, away from everything, and private but that is detracted from this new house. It doesn't directly affect him, but the road traffic would increase with another house built here. He opposes this variance, he talked to the neighbors and whether or not they sent in a form everybody he spoke was opposed to this. Most of the neighbors are not here and he doesn't know why because they were told about the meeting. Dave Mammenga, 2351 Case Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He has been a resident of Maplewood for 30 years now. He built his house on Beaver Lake on a 100-foot lot and has known Ray Colosimo for quite awhile. He thinks the reason Carol Cove does not object to this is because she has her house for sale. Ray had a beautiful lot and he split it and he is not sure why he split the lot but now he wants to split it again. The reason the garage is in front of the house on the plan is because 67 feet wide is way too small for a house to be built. He opposes the variance. Joe Sullivan, 2275 Case Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He also spoke with the neighbors as Jeff Engelen did and confers that they are all opposed. The Plumbo's are involved in political campaigning and the other neighbors that are opposed have lived here for 40 years, are very elderly and had a relative's birthday to attend. They expressed their opposition and said they could not be present so he is speaking for them. He agrees with staff's comments that this would not be in character of the neighborhood. It may not seem like a big deal on paper but if you went to the site and saw how close this would be, you would understand the opposition. Commissioner Grover asked how common it was to ask for and receive a lot width variance from the city? Mr. Roberts said it is not very common and after people find out what they have to go through to get a variance they often chose not to pursue the idea. Sometimes a one, two or three foot variance is not that uncommon for a setback or lot width variance, but more than three feet is very rare. Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 11-01-04 Commissioner Ahlness said he remembers a few years ago when someone came to the city and asked for a lot split to build two houses side by side on County Road C which was granted. Those houses were built very close, they are tall homes and now block the view of the lake by the other neighbors. He regrets having granted this request now as he drives by this location on County Road C. This negatively impacted the neighborhood and is embarrassed by the fact that the variance was granted. As he considers this variance this is going to impact his decision regarding how he votes on this. Commissioner Pearson said as he looks at this he is not sure the city made the right decision to split off the west lot because it has definitely changed the character of the neighborhood. But at least the west lot was able to meet the 75 feet. In addition, the placement of the house is going to be far enough back to change the privacy of the neighbor on the east side and even Mr. Ray Colosimo's house should he decide to sell in the future. Commissioner Pearson moved to 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. Commissioner Ahlness seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Grover, Pearson, Trippler The motion was approved. This item goes to the city council on November 22, 2004. c. Conditional Use Permit Revision -University Auto (1145 Highway 36) Mr. Roberts said Hossein Aghamirzai of University Auto Sales and Leasing is proposing to expand University Auto's motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Commissioner Trippler said one of the conditions listed was to not have vehicles parked blocking the entrance to the dealership. He said he lives in the neighborhood and he assured the city that none of the car dealerships pay any attention to the issue of parking motor vehicles in front of the entrances to the dealerships. Transport trucks park on the street and unload the cars every day blocking traffic on the frontage road, on Highway 61, and other locations of the dealerships located in Maplewood. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Mohsen Aghamirzai, General Manager, University Auto, addressed the commission. He said they have never had a truck trailer at their property unloading cars in the three years they have been there. Their cars have either come on a flat bed truck one car at a time or by tow truck. They have never had a trailer there. They just don't have the volume of cars coming and going. They probably sell 15 cars staggered throughout the week. He plans to make sure that the car display platforms do not encroach onto the entrance. Planning Commission -14- Minutes of 11-01-04 Mr. Aghamirzai said they used to use the car display platforms to block the entrance to the parking lot but now they use chains. The platforms were primarily used for safety because there were several cars driven off the lot when they used the chains at the entrance to the parking lot. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks what the city was recommending was that they install fencing with a gate, and he asked the applicant if that was a possibility? Mr. Aghamirzai said they decided to put the chain back on instead of using the car display platform. They understand the issue with the fire department needing to get onto the property for emergencies. But adding a fence and gate only complicates things and they would rather use the chain to block the entrance. Commissioner Trippler said he was at the site and he noticed erosion problems on the site and asked if they could correct the erosion problem. He said he lives in the area and one of the things he noticed is that the lights are very distracting. He wondered if they could redo the flood lights so they are not so distracting. Mr. Aghamirzai said he would be back before the city again for some other issues. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 14-15 of the staff report, 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. This 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 ortransport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. f. 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. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 11-01-04 h. 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 along the side of the drive aisles on display Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Grover, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This goes to the city council on November 8, 2004. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the October 25, 2004, city council meeting. Items that were discussed included the CUP for Avis Rent a car at the Maplewood Mall which passed. And the Summerhill Senior Cooperative was reheard and approved by a vote of 4-1. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the November 8, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the CUP for University Auto at 1145 Highway 36 and the home occupation license for a photography business for David Grupa at 1994 Duluth Street. c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the November22, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the CUP for the Phoenix Group Home, 1936 Craig Place, and the lot width variance and lot division at 2323 Case Avenue. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts said the city council approved the appointment of an outside consultant to take a look at the Gladstone Redevelopment Area and be a mediator between the city, the coalition and the neighborhood. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit -Mapletree Group Home LOCATION: 2831 Southlawn Drive DATE: November 4, 2004 INTRODUCTION Mr. Jon Brandt, representing the Mapletree Group Home, is requesting that the city approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 2831 Southlawn Drive. This request is to allow the Mapletree group home to have up to 12 residents live in the residential facility (group home) on this property. (Please see the letter on pages five through seven and the maps on pages eight through ten}. State law allows Mapletree 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 12 residents in a 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 driving teenagers (with their vehicles and their friends vehicles coming and going) also has the potential for disturbing the neighborhood. In fact, while this facility has been in operation (since 1991), staff is not aware of any major problem or significant disturbance that the residents have caused. This facility was planned and built as a duplex with a total of eight bedrooms and five bathrooms in nearly 4,000 square feet of floor space. This is the equivalent of the space and facilities in two single dwellings. Having up to 12 residents and two or three staff members in a facility of the size of this building should not create a crowded situation within the home. As long as the owners continue to keep and operate the facility in a careful and respectful manner, the addition of up to six additional residents {for a maximum of 12) should not cause any more 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 15. My review of these findings shows that the proposal would meet all the findings, except possibly number five (about traffic and congestion). At least two of the neighbors expressed a concern about the possibility of increased traffic on Radatz Avenue because of the proposed population increase. They commented that the street can get crowded and that they thought the additional residents would add to the traffic volume on Radatz Avenue. OTHER COMMENTS Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal and noted that he did not find any significant public safety concerns. He also stated "I am impressed with the new program changes, especially the awake staff at night with the increase in residents. I would like to suggest that, in addition to neighbofiood participation on the advisory board, a member of the police department should also be involved. " David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: 1. The facility must have all state and county licenses. 2. The facility must meet the current code standards for exiting. 3. Smoke detectors are required to meet current code standards for location and wiring. Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, reviewed this proposal and noted that he agreed with the comments of Mr. Fischer. 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, eight of the nine neighbors that responded to our survey were against the expansion of the group home. The addition of six more supervised residents in this home should not have 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, inGuding a city review of the CUP in one year. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 15. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the Mapletree Group Home to have up to 12 residents living in their residential facility at 2831 Southlawn Drive. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: The owner or operator of the facility doing the following: a. 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 12 residents living in the facility. c. Have staff awake each night. d. Adding additional onsite electronic monitoring to the facility. e. Having an annual open house for the neighbors of the facility. 2. The owners or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of their vans or vehicles 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 and smoke detectors that meet current standards before adding any additional residents above the six allowed by law. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 25 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the ten replies, one was for the proposal and nine were against the proposal. For 1. I strongly support the Mapletree Group Home expansion. They have been great neighbors. I have lived here for 15 years and there have never been any incidents or problems with the kids since the home started. I support giving these youth a second chance. (Mielke - 2796 5outhlawn Drive) Objections 1. See the letter from Tom Schuette of Azure properties on page 11. 2. See the a-mail from the Zuks on page 12. 3. See the a-mail from the Maxwells on page 13. 4. See the letter from Earl Steinbring on page 14. 5. No! We want a nice safe neighbortiood. Mr. Brandt has turned our neighborhood into a group home. He has rental property people moving in and out every few months. We want nice families living on Radatz and on Southlawn. (Ricke - 1809 Radatz Avenue) I also received telephone calls from four other neighbors on Southlawn Drive and on Radatz Avenue opposing this request. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 13,068 square feet (0.30 acres) Existing Land Use: double dwelling SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Houses on Southlawn Drive East' Double dwellings across Southlawn Drive South: Houses on Southlawn Drive West: Future Mapletree townhouse site 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 15 and 16.) PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-3(M) (medium-density residential) Existing Zoning: R-2 (single or double dwellings} Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on October 14, 2004. State law requires the city to take action on this request by December 13, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Area Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Letter dated 10-27-04 from Tom Schuette 6. E-mail dated 10-28-04 from the Zuks 7. E-mail dated 10-25-04 from the Maxwells 8. Letter dated 11-01-04 from Steinbring 9. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Attachment 1 M a pt ~t r~~ 651 - 777-7722 2831 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, MN 551 09-1 1 46 Fax: 651-748-1284 www.mapletree.org Jon Brandt, ACSW, LICSW ~Onoranol~aol.com Director October 12, 2004 To: City of Maplewood From: Jon Brandt, MSW Director, Mapletree Group Home, Inc. Re: Application for a Conditional Use Permit Note: the following is not meant to be complete information about our program or to answer all the questions and concerns that we would like to answer for city officials and neighbors. We approached some of our nearby neighbors two years ago with information about our program and possible expansion plans. We are now ready to move ahead with those plans, pending city approval. We will be holding an open house at the group home for the community, and look forward to meeting with folks at city hall. Mapletree has been operating as a private non-profit group home for kids since 1991. The residence is a legal duplex, in R-2 zoning. The house was architect designed and built in 1989. It has nearly 4,000 ftZ of finished living area, with eight bedrooms and five bathrooms. All adjacent property is owned by the director of Mapletree. It is bordered to the west by R-3 land (under development), to the south by an R-1 single family home, and to the north by an R-2 twin home. The properties across the street to the east are R-2 twin homes. All the property immediately surrounding the group home is rental property. Commercial property adjacent to the Maplewood Mall begins 100 feet to the north. Mapletree is currently licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide residential services for up to six boys. There is also a transitional living apartment on- site that accommodates two more young men, who are graduates of the program. Typically, up to eight residents, ages 16-19 are provided housing and program services at any one time. A conditional use permit is not required for cur current operation. Our request for a conditional use permit is to expand services to 12 residents. Mapletree has had city inspections for building, health, and fire codes. We will request new inspections for code compliance. DHS has indicated that they will approve a capacity of 12, pending city approvals. Mapletree is now in it's 14~' year, having served over 100 teenage boys that were in need of an out-of-home placement. Because of program limitations, we have turned down hundreds of referrals over the years. Boys are referred to Mapletree by counties from across Minnesota. The strength of our program is the capacity to work with older teenage boys who are on probation, many for felony level offenses. Some of the boys have struggled with drug and alcohol issues; some have been gang involved. Many residents have been child victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Some have, in turn, repeated that behavior. Many of the boys at Mapletree have been adjudicated delinquent for various sex offenses. Most of those cases involve a sibling. The director is a licensed mental health professional, and has been evaluating and treating adolescent sex offenders for twenty years. Most of the boys who are referred to us have been in correctional placements, and have either completed a program, or have made sufficient progress for the courts to determine that supervised placement in the community is appropriate. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT M1iapieKee GrouF H=_~me d.ppl~.cahoo, for Cur ~~~, ~ _, Most boys referred to Mapletree cannot live at home because of family problems. They are not appropriate for a foster home because of the difficulty of their emotional issues or the seriousness of their offense history. The boys that are accepted at Mapletree are screened for community safety, motivation, and ability to benefit from the program. Mapletree is staffed 2417. On duty staff demand a high level of accountability for each of the residents. Almost all the guys at Mapletree attend North High School, hold jabs near the Maplewood Mall, and make friends in the neighborhood. Most residents blend seamlessly into the community. As a result of good supervision, effective programming, and hard work by the boys, the majority of residents graduate successfully from Mapletree after six to 12 months. There are many indicators of the quality and effectiveness of residential programs. Mapletree has an extraordinarily low absconding rate, reflecting the high motivation and desire the boys have to make their placement at Mapletree a success. Recidivism while at Mapletree is also extremely low. Police calls to the program are exceptionally low for a group home for juveniles. There have been a few simple (misdemeanor) assaults within the program. Some residents have been involved in stealing or shoplifting from employers or area merchants. We're very proud of our track record where it counts the most: with a high percentage of our residents placed following serious offenses, only a small fraction have re-offended while at Mapletree. Despite the serious mistakes that some of our residents have made prior to placement at Mapletree, none have brought any violence into the surrounding community. None of the boys at Mapletree have committed offenses of any kind involving our neighbors. Mapletree has five fulltime and three part-time staff. Currently a Mapletree staff person sleeps overnight at the group home, after the boys go to bed. This model for staffing helps to preserve a foster family atmosphere. The same staff person that puts the boys to bed gets the boys going again in the morning, before changing shifts. We have some security measures and electronic monitoring in place at the group home, and have not had serious nighttime problems. Awake staff at night is not astate-licensing requirement for facilities such as ours. Our long-term impact on young men is reflected by the fact that every week former residents call or stop by for a visit with their "Mapletree family," much like young adults who have emancipated from traditional families. The boys can find many pictures of themselves in the house of past birthdays, Christmases, and camping trips. Many graduates, some who are now past 30, fondly recall their time at Mapletree as an oasis of calm and stability during a time when their lives were in chaos. We have a good working relationship with the Maplewood Police Department, North High School, the Maplewood Community Center, Premier Bank, Aspen Medical, Ramsey County Library, most of the restaurants, and many of the retail outlets in the community. Supporting the boys at Mapletree in a successful transition to adulthood has truly been a community endeavor. Some boys return home from Mapletree, but most prepare for independent living at 18. Various provisions in Minnesota laws keep kids on probation after 18 and some residents to stay until they are 19 or 20. Completing an education, building job skills and getting these guys back on track before they become adults is in the community interest. We are proud of our track record at Mapletree, and the city of Maplewood can be proud of being home and host to a program that has a high success rate and is widely respected by social workers, probation officers, judges, and mental health professionals throughout Minnesota. The demand for the services that we provide at Mapletree is high. Even in the midst of a difficult economy and tight public dollars, Ramsey County maintains a contract with Mapletree to provide services through their Departments of Corrections and Children's Services. PFaa!et-ee or ap NcinE Ap~~icG ~ - LP e.S Of Summary We would like to expand our capacity at Mapletree to 12. The increased capacity will allow us to serve more kids, increase staff, improve programming, and meet new, more stringent state licensing standards set to go into effect July 1, 2005. We are considering a second Maplewood area group home, but because of our ideal location we would rather expand our current location than add a second facility. There are advantages of economy and efficiency to one location. In support of approval for a conditional use permit for Mapletree: :• Have already been in operation, in the same location since 1991 :• We are licensed by the state and accredited by the MCCCA :• Mapletree is located on the edge, rather than in the middle of a residential area :• Our current location has an excellent support network for young men transitioning to independent living s• We have had more than 100 young men come thru Mapletree over 13 years -most with successful outcomes :• The adverse impact of Mapletree on the neighborhood and the city has been minimal :• City services to Mapletree have been minimal. :• We have and will maintain a good working relationship with Maplewood PD :• We are able to meet all city criteria for approval of a conditional use permit • At present, the city has almost no control aver Mapletree. A CUP creates and defines cooperation between the city and Mapletree. As part of a conditional use permit for 12 residents at Mapletree we are proposing the following program changes: Awake staff at night ;~ Increased security measures, including additional onsite electronic monitoring °v Adding one or two neighbors to our advisory board An annual open house for neighbors to address community concems An annual review of any incidents that result in safety or security concerns It is our expectation that the impact of four more Mapletree boys on the community will be minimal. We have been quietly operating in a corner of Maplewood for thirteen years. During that time we have been almost invisible to our neighbors, have served more than 100 young men and their families, provided a valuable service to the juvenile corrections -child welfare systems, and channeled more than $3,000,000 into the local economy. With on-going support from the community, we hope that Mapletree will continue to be home to many more young men that need what we do. Attachment 2 LOCATION MAP 8 N Httacnment S ~~ 1719 ~ -_ - ___.. - __' ~ ~F,y 3oe1 I °o - - d J ~ ~ _ _ ~8 3 _ - m °--° ~ ` ~ ~ ~J --1795 1809 1815 1-~~ 1335 1845 18TH 1871 - ~~ , SITE i ~ c ~~~~ ~~ ~ _ _ - - _ ftA6ATZ AVE - - - - I D - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - .: ~ '~ ' z _ -- "' _. 2RDg. A -- _ ~ _ Y _ i ~ - F°00".~ "'~08 181 __~ Ic?9 X1840 1846 1i5b 486b1874 o --... __---- - __....:. .. - :^t04 e .. 279E _ __ - 2796 _.. _. D'', ''L-SABIA~'~--1~. 2786 - ,, - ,...m ., , : ~.. 2778 . ~ ~'' m .-15 ` Hazelwood Park 2772 ~76a -.f__ ~~~ x752 .2755, m. 2745 _ _ : } ~ - 1861 m 1847 __ -_ _m s .: ~ g 27491' z 740 AREA MAP 9 4 N. Attachment 4 PROPERTY LINE 1 ZONING MAP 10 ^4 N AZURE PROPERTIES, INC. P.O. Box 17830 Saint Paul, MN 55117-7830 (651)484-0070 Attachment 5 Thomas M Schuette Direct Line (651) 48G-3452 Facsimile (651) 486-3444 Ken Roberts Planner City of Maplewood Office of t'.OmmL' ity Development 1830 East Cty Rd B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Maple Tree Group Home 2831 Southlawn Dr. Maplewood, MN Dear Mr. Roberts, October 27. 2004 OCT 2 8 2004 This letter is written on behalf of Azure Properties to express opposition to the Conditional Use Permit for the group home at 2831 Southlawn Drive. We are opposed to increasing the group home occupancy from six (6) residents to twelve (12) residents. Azure Properties manages residential property across the street on Southlawn Drive and commercial property on Beam Avenue in the vicinity of this group home. The group home has functioned at its existing occupancy levels with very little negative impact on the neighborhood. To double the occupancy of the home would be to risk negative impact to the residential neighborhood and to the adjacent commercial area. I would be pleased to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. Thank you for our consideration. Sincere) ` / Ovw- \J Thomas M. Schuette On behalf of Azure Properties TMS/kl 11 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 6 Ken Roberts From: Spam Account Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:12 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: FW: Ken.Roberts~ci.maplewood.mn.us -Found word(s) home email sexual in the Text body. - Mapletree expansion proposal From: thezuks@comcast.net [mailto:thezuks@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:30 PM To: Ken Roberts Cc: jonbrandt@aol.com Subject: Ken.Roberts@ci.maplewood.mn.us -Found word(s) home email sexual in the Text body. -Mapletree expansion proposal Dear Mr. Roberts, Oct. 28, 2004 As a neighbor of the Mapletree Group Home I would like to express my concerns regarding the proposal to increase the number of occupants that reside at Mapletree. I am CC'ing Mr Brandt on this email as I did recieve a letter from him asking for any comments or concerns. Our family has resided at 2799 Southlawn Dr for the past 7 years. When we purchased our house we were not told that the group home existed. It wasn't until a few years ago when Mr. Brandt approached us about the possiblity of having the number of boys increased to L that we became aware of its existance. Although we have had no problems with any of the boys who reside in the house, it does cause some concern for us because we do have two young daughters. The range of felonies these boys have conmiitted is also cause for concern, especially the sexual offenses. I do sympathize with the fact that they have sen•ed their time for their offenses and need a place to go, but as a parent of course our primary concern is for the well-being of our family. The main issue we would like to have addressed is whether the staff ratio will increase with the number of boys that would reside in the home? Again, I would like to restate that we have had no problems with the boys in the group home in the 7 years we have lived here and did not even realize that it was there until Mr. Brandt made us aware of this fact. We would however feel more comfortable of the proposed changes taking place if the staff ratio was increased with the number of residents in the home. Please keep us notified of any changes in the proposal or events taking place in the future. Thank you. Sincerely, Nicole & Dante Zuk Z ~~~( Sbv- ~'~f L~w1~ ~(Z I ~L~ 651-748-1478 thezuks cscomcast.net 10/29/2004 12 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 7 Ken Roberts From: Scott, Jenni and Maxwell [sjcosmo@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:32 PM To: Ken Roberts t~~~ ~ ,~ [)~ ~ ~ ~ ~F Subject: Mapletree Group Home Hello Kenneth, I am emailing a response about the Mapletree Group home. My husband and I both agree that the group home has not been a problem in our neighborhood. We do not, however, want the city to give them a permit for more residents. We feel that the facility should stay the same. We don't want increased residents, staff, visitors, etc.. on our road and in our neighborhood. Radatz Avenue receives enough traffic without this addition. Thank you for your time. Jennifer Pearson 10/25/2004 13 - Attachment 8 i ~ _. _ < fit ~ ;-.~~ ,-- ~ :a :. _~,~ (I-1 "G`f ,_ , ~ - .. _ ,.. ~ -- -. ,. ' r ~ , - , , , _.. -, ~. , ~._,_; + ,.. ,., .. . ~ _Z , .. _r... ~ - - `~ ~. ..... . _ , ._ .._ _ -- - _. ._ ,- 4 ~ ~. h_. _ •~ - _ /. k. - i~~ . i .<_ i _. - . , - c ~ ., - 1t "- R. ~ _ - :~.~! c .t !- . __ . ~~- - ,,, ., - _ - - LL. ~ _. ' ~ c~- ,. ._. _ >, .-.. . r 'r _~ ~~ ~ ~ .._ . 4- ._ ,~i / __ l ' ~ . . .. r~.. . ~.. / - , , i ' .. 14 r - ~; -- - Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION - MAPLETREE GROUP HOME WHEREAS, Mr. Jon Brandt, representing the Mapletree Group Home, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit to have up to 12 residents live in the residential facility (group home) on the property at 2831 Southlawn Drive. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2831 Southlawn Drive. The legal description is: The south 96 feet of the north 636 feet of the east 158 feet of the SE1/4 of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. (PIN 03-29-22-41-0015) WHEREAS, this history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 15, 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 commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. On December 13, 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: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to tie in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 15 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the facility doing the following: a. 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 12 residents living in the facility. c. Have staff awake each night. d. Adding additional onsite electronic monitoring to the facility. e. Having an annual open house for the neighbors of the facility. 2. The owners or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of their vans or vehicles 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 and smoke detectors that meet current standards before adding any additional residents above the six allowed by law. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on December 13, 2004. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: The Woodlands Concept Plan Review LOCATION: 1740 and 1750 McMenemy Street DATE: November 9, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Brian Bourassa, representing Integra Homes, is asking the planning commission to provide preliminary comments about a proposed townhouse development- He has prepared a preliminary site plan that shows 24 townhouses (in 16 detached townhomes and four twinhomes) in a development called The Woodlands. It would be on a 6.6-acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. Refer to the applicant's statements on pages five and six and the maps on pages seven -ten. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The design of the buildings is not finalized, but I expect that each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have atwo-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Bourassa will be requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the land use map on page eight.) 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page nine. 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on private driveways. 4. A preliminary plat for 24 lots for the 24 housing units. (See the concept site plan on page ten.) 5. The project design plans. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed townhouses, Mr. Bourassa wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. These changes would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings}. (See the property linelzoning map on page nine and the land use plan map on page eight.) The city intends R-2 areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings. For R-1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be near McMenemey Street and an existing church and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Souihwinds, Bennington Woods, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Density As proposed, the 24 units on the 6.6-acre site means there would be 3.64 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single family and for double dwelling residential development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons.° The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development {PUD) for the 24-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because of the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveway and the ponding area. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requiremenis would normally allow. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on page 10), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having private driveways with reduced townhouse setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and used public streets, such a plan would require more tree removal and grading because of the right-of-way requirements and the larger setbacks. In addition, it is important io note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the number of lots or the density of the housing in the development over the density in other townhouse projects. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road, the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Drive and more recently, Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $300,000. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the driveways, landscaping, the ponding areas and retaining walls. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 24 units on the 6.6-acre site means there would be 3.64 units per acre {an average of 11,967 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000- square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Kingston Avenue and in McMenemy Street to serve the proposed development. There is, however, no storm sewer in this part of Maplewood so the applicant is proposing to enhance the low areas on the property to use them as storm water ponds. The watershed district commented that they will require the grading plan to show that there will be at least five feet of free board (bounce) in the ponds from the first 100 year high water level to the lowest floor elevation of the units. RECOMMENDATION Please review the above-listed requests (land use plan change, PUD and site plan) and be prepared to discuss the proposed preliminary plan with staff and the applicant at the November 15, 2004 meeting. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 6.6 acres Existing land use: Two single dwellings and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: A single dwelling and the Hmong Church South: Houses on Kingston Avenue West: Houses on McMenemy Street East: Houses on Desoto Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. p:sec 171The Woodlands Concept review - 2004.mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement dated October 31, 2004 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line2oning Map 5. Concept Site Plan dated 11-03-04 Attachment 1 W ~~~~ V ~~ NOV 0 3 2004 METRO --------------- LAND SUKVEYING~ October 31, 2004 Mr. Ken Roberts, City Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: THE WOODLANDS OF MAPLEWOOD -CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL Dear Mr. Roberts: Thank you very much for meeting with us last month regarding the above referenced project. Your comments and suggestions were greatly appreciated. Enclosed with this letter please find 12 -full size and 12 reduced (11 "x17°) copies of the Concept Plan for your review and comment. Provided below is a brief discussion of the Concept Plan: 1) Existing Site Features: The proposed Development includes the combination of 2 separate parcels as follows: • Large Parcel - 6.1 Acres • Existing Homesite on Western Edge (only includes aportion) - 0.5 Acres Total Site Area = 6.6 Acres The existing site has considerable contour and tree cover (we have completed a tree inventory for the site and will be including with our Preliminary Plat submittal package). Additionally, two separate depressions exist on the site that will be enhanced to meet the stormwater ponding requirements. A wetland review has been completed and it has been determined that no wetlands exist on the site. The existing utilities (sanitary sewer and watermain) will be extended from McMenemy Street North and Kingston Avenue East to provide service for the Project. No storm sewer exists in the Project area that can be extended to provide an outlet for the proposed stormwater ponds. 2) Proposed Development Features: The proposed Development includes three separate cul-de-sacs/turn-arounds -one entering the site from McMenemy Street North and two entering the site from Kingston Avenue East. The proposed Development will include public utilities and a private street system. The Project will include two large ponds (land-locked), which will be excavated to provide adequate stormwater protection for the APPLICANT'S STATEMENT site. As stated above, it is our understanding that storm sewer does not exist in the area to provide pond outlets, therefore, back-to-back 100-year rainfall events will be modeled and a minimum of 2' freeboard will be used to ensure adequate flood protection for the proposed homes. It is intended to provide off-street parking with kick-out parking areas throughout the site in order to provide adequate short-term parking for the residents. The exact location of these parking areas will be determined during the final design process. In order to mitigate traffic impact to the existing neighborhood to the south, a through street is not proposed (from McMenemy Street North to Kingston Avenue East). The cul-de-sacs on the project will be constructed with a minimum radius of 42' and the exact size and shape of the cul-de-sac islands will be determined during final design (based on adequate turning movements for emergency vehicles). Additionally, as was stated in our meeting, tree preservation was the goal for the site design. In order to best preserve the significant trees on the site and the natural character, minimum grading will be proposed. These trees should provide a screening buffer for the neighborhood to the south. Driveway and home positioning throughout the site was also strongly considered in order to protect as many significant trees as possible. 3) Townhome Desion Features: The proposed Development will include 16 single-family detached townhomes and 4 twin homes {24 total units = 3.9 units/acre). The homes were positioned to provide walkout and lookout design options. Particular attention was provided during the site layout process to ensure rear yard privacy and view opportunities for each of the homes. At this time it is anticipated that the single-family detached townhomes will range in size from 2,500 - 2,700 SF (two levels) and range in price from $350,000 - $400,000. It is anticipated that the twinhomes will be approximately the same size, however, will have a lower price range ($325,000 - $375,000). Another design feature provided with the project is side-load garages (with third car options), which will provide a more aesthetically pleasing view from the street perspective. One comment that was brought up during our earlier meeting related to grouping the single-family detached townhomes and the twinhomes (not co-mingling). Although this item was considered during the site design process it was determined that the proposed layout better fit the site. Side-load garages on each of the twin home units and distinctly separate home entrances will reduce the feel of atypical twinhome unit. Additionally, the upscale nature of the units with association maintained grounds would ensure neighborhood continuity. We would be happy to meet again with you and your staff to further discuss the Concept Plan submittal information. In the meantime, please contact me at 763-428-5130 if you have any questions or comments regarding the Project. Sincerely, -~ ~/~ Brian J. Bourassa, P.E. Project Manager Attachment 2 LQCATION MAP. N Attachment 3 - ' :, ~ ~ _ 1'~ S 443~t1{ ~a~1 , _ . ._ i ., . ~ - x1835 ~, - -- ~ - ~ i _ ~ _ _ iu30 -- ' 1780Y~~ ~$g,~ d^-c- .} -. d ~ _.-L I ~~, '~~0.5~ --- r 122 ~ ~ ~' RIPLEY AVE -- "- - - -- _ -- - - -- _ ~ 1774 i3 Q. &n~ ' ~ 49E'- 3P _ _ 43Cx~ L449 ~ 4~ O 1 : -. .- ~ Rn m p, ''~ ' ~ "`~ 1801 ~ ~ 1758r _ CHURCH I ~1go ~I 1 7 i n. --~ ~ ~ ~'' w 1767. , m. : m. ~+-- -.. 1~7.T .1754 ..-- ~' _-__ c~- _, .~~ ~~ _: i _.__... __-. ..._ .-:-, _ 1750 -.._._ ___- -__ ', 1741 ~ i {.i 1748 ~ 1765=' - L_'.~' -_ -_ _ _ __ SITE _ _---- - _ _ __ 1 rte. 1 lrrib 1 _ ©~ ~ 7d~ 1739 ~ _ - - , 740 ., ~ T ---_ - ---.... 1737 ~ ~-'36 a 9 377 ~' 385 u '~5 407 a R i _ -._. _ ' 1723 __ -. ..~ ~, 415 .~ 1721 1733 ~` 1 r 24 - NGSTON AVE ~ Ki _. --- u _ -_-. - i,16 1713 _ 4 1 ~~4 tip: ~® ~ -- _.. - 17 f7 ',~ - 1705 ~ ~ i ~ - 17G~L ~ -~6 r 1700 I - m ~ _ ~-- --~r h 433 _'~ 1699 - ~ - - © 16£ - ~ ~ -~ _ 1655 ° ~ ~ 1 ~~96 ,. _ .-.-58-- 1 ~ Uy ~ m ~ ~ 686 .;1,88. a. 16+',-' ~ . ~ ~r .... LARPENTEUR AVE LAND USE MAP 8 N U Attachment 4 F _. - _.. -..- -- ~ M~ I - X38 _._-_ J---_ f _ 774 ~ ~ ~ ---,- _ 1~3-- __ F :: .. ~ ©1835 _ ~ 9 - ~ R1 15h 4h5~i 495° 4dr RIPLEYAVE~- - - - _ _..-.. _ _ -. - -~. -. - ,. __ -- 'fib ~ 1,30 34~. dD2, 48r ~ 4,1E ~2G -13fi~~ ~._..~ - - -~ ~ ~~ 45~'~. 1 455 - - - -' - - - ~44r~-- ~~4~ ©~ ~ a m, ~ '~~ 83,, ~~. ~~ :. _ _ I 1y I'~ 1779 ~ ___ ~°- 1801 ~~ ~ ~~ 1)84' _ 17 - _ `i _. 1 ,, 1770 ~~? 1~6~i ~_Q ~ _ _ CHURCH R1 _ -. __ 1 1~ ,~ ~ ~u o .-.. 176? ' ~, z. ~ ~ 5 _ tick; 1 ~ . m 1;1 -- E --.._.. ~ -.~ __._ _.. __ _ 1750 ___ _.._. °~ ... - ~ _ _. p„ •: 1741 ~ ~ ~ 1748 - 17~i-5 - i__ _ -_ __ __-- SITE -- ___ ~ R1 173 ?dam _ _ ~ nao 1J47 ~~ _ y` -- 1 --~. ~ - _ 737 ~ 3~~ ~ 385 'O5 407 _- _ -_.-__. . '--~_ 1723 -- ~ ~ ~ - 415 1721 1733 fi i _ -.._ - . _ :1724 KINGST6NAVE --- '-- -- - - -- - -.-- - - y - ,.'. ~ ,_ ~ - "~ ~ 2'18 '~ 1713- -- _ v;*17 ~4 = 4Q0 1714 ~ _~~ 315._ r R3 __~__. _ - t~ OS I _ 170 _ I _.- 3 ~'-~ ~ ~ ' , ~ r7D~~ r -- Ds _ . _ - - ~ ^. _- _ -_ - - -. 70D - - _ 16°:~ m - q ~ ~ a ro ---- ..~._.- R 1 ~' __ 1700 I ~ 16b5 ~ X96 ~_ 1 433 ~ ~'J ~ ,_ 1699 - ~ ~ ._I ~ _ . ,.._.. - ~ ". X94 __. O -i _ _._ - -..J. _- _ _ '.__ -u -~__._ s ..._ ® , 1489 _~f~8g ~ 16 ",., ~ ~ 1586 - i LARPENTEUR AVE PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 9 ^4 N Attachment 5 CONCEPT THE WOODLANDS OF MAPLEWOOD "° °° ~~ ~n~-~ FDfi INIEMA HOME9 DESIC3~IED 0Y CHAq-MM COF~. N - .. .. _ y_ ~~ ~ e. ~~~ ' 7-- ~ '" ~ ~~ ~ CHURCH~~-~ ~ ~ ^,~ ~' .. - ,• ~ ,~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ b - 1768 ~ . ~ ~~ _ rl . ... , ~ ~ ,,, ,, , ~ t 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~G ~` ~ ~ 174811, ~ n ~ O~~ ~ b ~ q ~ . > , ~~L'~ _ PONDING AREA ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ' l~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ 1746 '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ Y • F ~ . ~ ~ j ~- ~ ~~ \ ' ^ ~ VATE DRIV - ~ E ' ~ ~ ~ - 'o~e ~ / - cam ~ PRI r a ~ V ~ ~ A ~,. ' ~,,~ ~ ~ ~~_'~~ ~t ~ I ~ ~I'~ ~ ,~ s-~ ~ rte.- _~` ~ ~l- 3-oy CONCEPT SITE PLAN io ^4 N