Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/2004MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 20, 2004, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roli Cali 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 15, 2004 5. Public Hearings 7:00- Conditional Use Permit -Walking in Faith Church (2385 Ariel Street) 7:15 Maplewood Imports Auto Center (2450 Maplewood Drive) 1. Land Use Plan Change {CO to M-1) 2. Zoning Map Change {CO to M-1) 3. Conditional Use Permit 7:30 Conditional Use Permit -Fleetwood Motor Sales {2525 White Bear Avenue) 6. New Business Planning Commission Appointment to Gladstone Redevelopment Task Force 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations November 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai December 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness December 27 Council Meeting: ?? January 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 9830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 95, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Eric Ahlness Present Commissioner Jeff Bartol Present Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Absent Commissioner Michael Grover Present Commissioner Daniel Lee Present Commissioner Gary Pearson Absent Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Bartol moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Fischer, Groner, Lee, Trippler The motion passed. 1V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 1, 2004. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 4, last paragraph, change the word wheyto when. Commissioner Trippler had corrections on pages 4, 7, and 12. The corrections were: On page 4, first paragraph, 11th line, afterthe words variance request the sentence should read The length of the variance request usually lasted for 90 days. Mr. Ost said when he requested a change, Julie Snyder, the licensing agentsaid there was a different procedure that had to be followed now. On page 4, second paragraph, change the word mood point to moot point. On page 7, second paragraph, second line, delete the word it. On page 12, first paragraph, sixth line, delete the word what. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November 1, 2004, as amended. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Grover, Trippler Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 11-15-04 Abstentions -Fischer, Lee V. PUBLIC HEARING (7:06- 9:05 p.m.} a. Conditional Use Permit -Mapletree Group Home (2831 Southlawn Drive} Mr. Roberts said 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} an this property. 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. Commissioner Trippler said he would prefer to see the residents that are "for" and those that are "against" the proposal indicated on the map and would like that information included in future staff reports. He read in the staff report of the 25 properties surveyed, nine replies were against the proposal. However, before the meeting began staff handed an additional letter to the commissioners from a resident who was also against this proposal. According to the list of objections listed on page 3 of the staff report, he only sees five objections to this proposal and after the late submittal of the letter now makes six objections. He asked where the addresses were for the remaining neighborhood objections that Mr. Roberts received. Mr. Roberts said he received telephone calls from four other neighbors on Southlawn Drive and Radatz Avenue opposing the request but the neighbors did not specify their exact address. Commissioner Trippler asked how staff knew for sure the callers lived in the neighborhood if the callers did not give staff their exact address. Mr. Roberts said he relied on the fact that the neighborhood residents called and said they received the mailing from the city regarding this proposal and wanted to share their comments regarding the proposal for the Mapletree Group Home. Commissioner Bartol asked if staff knew if there was a shortage of group homes in Maplewood? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure there was a need for more group homes in Maplewood, however, the operators of the group homes have stated there is a waiting list and a demand for their services. Group homes operate out of individual homes, multiple locations or they expand within the facilities that they already have. He can't give numbers of how many people are on a waiting list but he gets the sense from speaking to the directors of these group homes that they could double the capacity and still not have enough room for people on the list. He isn't sure if that was a city wide or a Ramsey County problem. Commissioner Desai said he remembered hearing during a past commission meeting compared to other communities in the twin cities metro area Maplewood had a large proportion of group homes. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 11-15-04 Mr. Roberts said the number of group homes had been looked at on a county-wide basis. As a percentage of the county population verses the number of group homes, Maplewood has more than their fair share of group homes based on population. He doesn't have numbers to share regarding how many group homes there are metro wide. Commissioner Desai asked what staff meant by their recommendation for additional electronic monitoring equipment? Mr. Roberts said he was referring to an electronic security system. This would alert the staff if a resident was trying to leave through a window or door during the night. Commissioner Desai said according to the letter handed out by staff this evening from Nicole Zuk at 2799 Southlawn Drive, she stated she spoke to the Ramsey County Assessor and was #old because of the number of residents at the group home, homeowners that wanted to sel! their house would be required to disclose there was a group home with sex offenders living there. Mr. Roberts said because of the law that was recently passed by the State of Minnesota, home sellers have to notify potential home buyers of any substantial or important facts about the home and the area of the home that could affect the buying decision of a potential buyer. The home seller is required by law to release information such as a road project that would include assessments, or a shopping center being built down the block, or an existing facility such as this. Commissioner Bartol asked staff if that was true or if it referred to only six or more residents in the group home? Commissioner Desai said when the commission looks at the overall community's interest in this he would be concerned if neighbors are affected by this group home and don't even know how this would affect them if in the future they tried to sell their home. Chairperson Fischer said if a person didn't relinquish this information they could be sued in the future for not releasing the fact that they knew a group home existed in the neighborhood and did not state that upfront. Commissioner Trippler said he understood for the city to approve a CUP the city must find that the proposal meets several findings. He asked if the applicant was required to show a hardship in order for the city to grant a CUP? Mr. Roberts said no, hardships are for variances but not for a CUP. A CUP is more subjective and the applicant has to show how they meet the findings in the ordinance that are in the resolution. Mr. Jon Brandt handed Mr. Roberts information regarding the sellers property disclosure to share with the commission. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 11-15-04 Mr. Roberts said under the "No Duty to Disclose" portion it states there is no duty to disclose the fact that the property was or is occupied by somebody wifh NIV or aids, that there was a suicide, accidenfal death, natural deafh or perceived paranormal activity. That it is locafed in a neighborhood containing any adult family home, community based residential facilify or nursing home. There is no defy fo disclose information regarding an offender who is required fo register under Minnesota Statutes 243-- or about whom natifrcation is made under that section which is predatory offender or sex offenders. if fhe seller in a fimely manner provides a written notice about fhe information about fhe predatory offender registry and the person is registered wifh the registry maybe obtained by contacting the focal law enforcement agency where the property is locafed. Commissioner Grover asked if the property owner that owns the vacant property behind the group home had been contacted about this proposal? Mr. Roberts said yes, Mr. Brandt is the owner of that property which has been approved by the city council to build nine townhomes there to be called the Mapletree Townhomes. Commissioner Bartol said regarding the "No Duty to Disclose" piece of information given to staff by Mr. Brandt, did that refer to registering as an adult sex offender or as a juvenile sex offender? He wasn't aware juvenile sex offenders were required to register with the state? Mr. Roberts said this piece of information does not state people have to register, it only states you as a home seller do not have to disclose information about an offender who is required to register with the state. You as a home seller can direct people to find that information at other sources. He was not aware however, if a sex offender had to register as an adult or as a juvenile. Commissioner Desai said he read the letter from Azure Properties objecting to this proposal and asked if staff knew which homes Azure Properties managed on Sauthlawn Drive? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure but he believed it was the homes across the street from the group home. Azure Properties also owns the Chili's property, US Bank property, and the Outback Steakhouse property, as well as the property next door to the Ramsey County library where they had proposed building a DQ Chill & Grill which was denied by the city council. Commissioner Lee asked if staff knew how many group homes could be located within one neighborhood? He said essentially this proposal would be like having two group homes on the same block. Mr. Roberts said he didn't know how many group homes could be located in one neighborhood. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jon Brandt, representing the Mapletree Group Home, 2831 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Brandt spoke from 7:45 p.m. until 8:45 p.m. and the following is a condensed version of what he said during his presentation. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 11-15-04 Mr. Brandt said he has been a resident at 2837 Southlawn Drive since 1989, which is next door to the Mapletree Group Home and he has been the Founder and Director of the Mapletree Group Home since 1991. He provided handout materials to the planning commission and he discussed aloud the handout page by page. He said he does not "want" to be here tonight, he "has" to be here tonight. He would like to go on quietly operating the Mapletree Group Home as he has for 13 years but because of the new state laws, Mapletree may be legislated out of existence in the summer of 2005. He is not aware of other group homes that deal with the population of young adults they work with. The Phoenix Group Home works with young adults with chemical dEpendency issues and the Mapletree Group Home works with young adults with a history of sexual offenses. Mr. Brandt said a few years ago he went into the neighborhood to let the neighbors know Mapletree Group Home planned to expand. He was surprised to hear how many neighbors did not know the Mapletree Group Home existed in this neighborhood. This was good news for him because when it comes to group homes, no reputation is a good reputation. The Mapletree Group Home was created to fill a need in the juvenile system. It's a residential program that can work with kids who have made some serious mistakes with their behavior but are low risk offenders. In the late 1980's he began to search for the ideal location in the twin cities for a group home to serve this population and established the following criteria. {See handout #1) !t should be in close proximity to Ramsey, Washington, Dakota, Anoka and Chisago Counties. Should have easy freeway access, employment opportunities for residents, close to a Community or Technical College, variety of special educational facilities, parks and recreational opportunities, close to a community center or YMCA, close to health care facilities, close to a library, good public transportation, and have a location on the edge of a neighborhood rather than in the center of one. They found that location on Southlawn Drive in Maplewood and opened the Mapletree Group Home in 1990. (See handout #2) for the Mapletree Time Line (See handout #3}for the New Licensing Laws - MN StatuteslRules Chapter 2960 go into effect on July 1, 2005. This is a sampling of the new licensing laws but is by no means complete. Mr. Brandt said because of the new licensing laws that would go into effect in July 2005, Mapletree cannot meet the new licensing laws as they are currently organized. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Brandt if he could briefly explain why the state has changed the laws and require the new rules. Mr. Brandt said about 4 or 5 years ago the state legislature directed the (DOHS) Department of Human Services and the (DOC) Department of Corrections to bring their licensing laws together. The licensing laws had not been rewritten since 19fi4 so the legislature directed the two organizations to solicit feedback from correctional facilities, foster homes, group homes, and residential treatment centers from across Minnesota to rewrite the licensing laws. They participated in public hearings over the last 3 years at which time input was solicited for the new licensing laws and those laws were finalized 6 months ago and go into effect July 1, 2005. (See handout #4}for the three options Mapletree Group Home has to work from. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 11-15-04 Mr. Brandt said one option is to expand Mapletree at their existing location, (for more information see Handout #5). Option two is to open a second group home spreading new licensing demands over more staff at two locations. They would apply for a waiver from the state which they were told would be granted to continue to operate with a sleep staff at night and would not be subject to community approval. This is not a viable plan for Mapletree because it takes some of the problems they have atone facility and moves it to another location. Lastly, their third option is to close the Mapletree Group Home all together. if the facility closes, ultimately the community beyond Mapletree will suffer. The same kids that live at Mapletree would be released from correctional facilities and into the community without the support and supervision that they need, without finishing school, without building job skills, without saving money to have an apartment, without having a chance to be sober outside the walls of a correctional facility, without having a chance to put into practice the things they learned in treatment. Many of these young men will turn to drug abuse and drug dealing, will become homeless, and will begin to commit crimes as adults that the Mapletree Group Home tried to prevent when they were juveniles. The truth is it takes a village to raise kids in today's society. Mapletree can't do it alone and they aren't. Each of the young men at the Mapletree Group Home have a placement team which include, a probation officer, county social worker, their parents when available, sometimes outside therapists, and the staff at Mapletree. They have a psychologist that holds groups with the boys, and they have a tutor that comes in once a week to help with homework and help track progress at school. All the boys must be in school or working to complete a GED, the boys are expected to have jobs, they work in the community and are required to save 80% of their earnings. When problems are identified at work Mapletree meets with their employers to help the boys build job skills and become better employees. Some of the boys are required to do community service or pay restitution and give something back to the community. Mr. Brandt said until now a state law shielded small group homes and foster homes from community restrictions and made it possible to operate without local supervision. Because he is requesting to increase their license capacity beyond 6, they have become subject to the jurisdiction of Maplewood. Mapletree has been operating with the city's trust for many years and now to stay in existence they need the city's consent. Under Minnesota law, local communities have no control over the placement of foster or group homes with fewer than 6 residents. For this reason there are hundreds of group and fos#er homes across Minnesota that have 6 or fewer residents. Most small group homes in Maplewood and across Minnesota are for developmentally disabled adults. This allows people to live in the community rather than in an institution. The typical size group home for troubled youth across Minnesota is 10 to 12 residents. Some programs are licensed for 14 to 20 kids, but with that many kids it's becoming more of an institution than a group home. Mapletree needs to expand to stay in existence and are asking for a licensing capacity of 12 residents. It is unlikely they will have 12 kids except during occasional peak periods. Most likely they will have 10 to 11 kids which is where they need to set their budget. During certain budget crisis they have had to go into their reserves to pay their bills. Because they have reserves they have never had to make harsh decisions such as taking kids or keeping kids that don't belong at Mapletree. They will never make decisions for financial reasons that will compromise community safety jus# to keep beds full. (See handout #7 for further information}. Mr. Brandt said Mapletree has had about 108 kids come through the group home in 13 years. Nearly all the boys at Mapletree fall under the opportunistic category and are at a lower than low risk (as shown on the handout). Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 11-15-04 Mr. Brandt said in support of approval for a conditional use permit for Mapletree (see handout #8). As part of a conditional use permit for 12 residents at Mapletree they are proposing the following program changes. (see handout #9 for these changes). Chairperson Fischer invited the public to come forward and speak regarding this proposal. The following people spoke during the public hearing for the CUP for Mapletree Group Home, 2831 Southlawn Drive. 1. Nicole Zuk, 2799 Southlawn Drive. 2. Micky Manders, 2804 Southlawn Drive. 3. Earl Steinbring, 1795 Radatz Avenue. 4. John, a former resident at the Mapletree Group Home. 5. Paul S., Licensed Psychologist. Nicole, Zuk, 2799 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Ms. Zuk said she understands and sympathizes there should be group homes for boys that have committed crimes who deserve a second chance. Does she want those boys living two doors down from her when she has two young daugh#ers and the majority of the residents are sex offenders, absolutely not! Herfather has worked with at-risk kids for years and won the KARE 11 award forthat. When she shared this information with her father he thought there was a definite conflict of interest. Because Mr. Brandt is the Owner and Director of the Mapletree Group Home this is leaning towards a financial aspect for Mr. Brandt to make money off this proposal. Especially since Mr. Brandt owns the property behind the group home where he will build nine town houses. She said he seems to have his own monopoly going. She went to the open house at the group home on Sunday, November 14, 2004, and still has concerns. Currently there is noawake-staff there now, they have one staff member and his room is in the basement bedroom in the far corner. The boys in the home currently sleep in the upstairs bedrooms. There is no security system in place yet. The staff member that gave her the tour told her in the four years he has worked at Mapletree there have been two attempts to sneak out when the kids unscrewed the bolts in the windows. She talked to Police Chief Thomalla on Wednesday, November 10, 2004, and he said in the past 10 years there have been over 100 phone calls to the Maplewood Police Department regarding the group home and there have been a number of walk-offs and runaways. She spoke to the Ramsey County Attorney's office and she spoke with the Maplewoad City Clerk. She also spoke with Ramsey County Assessor, Pete Fredrickson, who told her Wednesday, November 10, 2004, that if they tried to sell their house the fact that she lives near the Mapletree Group Home would have to be disclosed in the paper work. She said unfortunately, when they bought their home in 1998 the fact that a group home was operating in this neighborhood wasn't disclosed to them. He said because of the licensing requirements it didn't have to be disclosed since there were 6 boys or fewer there, but if there were more than 6 boys at the group home they as the home sellers would have to disclose that information if they tried to sell their house. Mr. Fredrickson said it would not affect their property value but they probably wouldn't get their asking price based on the property value if that information was disclosed. She said basically most people are not going to want to buy a house next to 12 felon boys. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 11-15-04 Ms. Zuk said her parents bought a house in St. Paul and ran into a similar situation. Her parents found out after they signed the real estate papers, that there was a sex offender in the neighborhood and tried to back out of the agreement. Because of the situation, her parents ended up paying considerably less than the asking price for the home because of this. She spoke with the Ramsey County Commissioner, Victoria Rhinehart, and asked who sets the guidelines for security and supervision over group homes. Ms. Rhinehart's Human Resources Department is looking into that and will contact her with more information. Before her and her husband realized a group home was there her husband came home from work at about 6:20 a.m. and witnessed two boys holding a pellet gun. It appeared the boys were going to the open space next to her house maybe to shoot rabbits. Had they known there was a group home operating next door they would have called the police to report the boys had pellet guns. She isn't sure what the level of supervision is because these boys are free to roam the neighborhood. Two months ago one of the boys from the home had a girlfriend that would pull into her driveway, the boy would run dawn and jump into the girl's car and they would drive down to the dead end to probably have sexual relations. Ms. Zuk said during the course of all of her telephone calls she has been asking who inspects group homes and how often that inspection takes place, but nobody has had an answer to that question yet. Mr. Brandt rents out a home next to her home and it has been a constant revolving door of renters moving in every 6-to-12 months. Most of Mr. Brandt's renters are college age and often hold parties and the next morning beer bottles and glasses are strewn on her property. When she asked the staff member that gave her the tour what the success rate was for the residents at Mapletree he wasn't sure but guessed a 50% success rate. Mick Manders, 2804 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said his daughters were "cat called" by some of the boys at the Mapletree Group Home. Another incident that occurred was some of the boys at the group home threatened to beat up his son and a friend that was over. When this occurred, Mr. Manders said he telephoned Mr. Brandt and said some pretty harsh words to him, but never contacted the police. Mr. Manders said he had also seen the boy running down to the parked car and to have sexual relations with the girl driver just as Ms. Zuk did. In fact over a two week time frame he saw the boy do this five to six times. The boy looked at Mr. Manders face, point blank with a grin on his face while running to the parked car with the girl waiting inside. Mr. Manders said he doesn't understand how you can have sexual offenders living in a group home, and they are that free to run around. He wants to know where the security and supervision is. Mr. Manders said 14 years ago Mr. Brandt came before the city council and said he wanted to build homes in this location. He never said he wanted to build a group home on Southlawn Drive, tonight Mr. Brandt commented that he had told the city council he planned on building a group home here. He never stated to the neighbors he was going to have a group home with sexual offenders living there and now he wants to double the number of boys living there from 6 to 12. There are many young girls that walk up and down the streets to the mall and surrounding area. There are also a lot of girls that live in this neighborhood and he doesn't feel comfortable knowing the freedom these boys with sexual offenses have living here. There is also the open space behind the property. It seems there are too many temptations for the boys living in the group home. As far as resale value for these homes, he's sure none of the commissioners would buy a house knowing sexual offenders were living within 100 yards of the home. He thanked the planning commission far their time. Mr. Ear! Steinbring, 1795 Radatz Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 11-15-04 He said he has lived in this house since 1952. Azure Properties owns two houses and rents them out. Those people that rent those homes never received a letter from Maplewood stating there was a public hearing for the group home. He said maybe it's because they are renters. When Mr. Brandt came around to get signatures from the neighbors for approval to build these homes Mr. Brandt told him his mother would be living in one of the duplexes. Had he known Mr. Brandt was going to have a group home with sexual offenders living there, he would have never signed his name to the petition. John, a former resident at the Mapletree Group Home, addressed the commission. The reason he is here tonight is to support the Mapletree Group Home and what they do to help young adults. These are not sexual predators. He said he would not be here today if it weren't for the support of the staff at the Mapletree Group Home. He came to the group home out of a treatment center which was a very uncomfortable place to be. He lived at Mapletree about 10 years ago; he got a job, went to school, and did what he needed to do to complete the program. It is easy to say people don't want this group home in their backyard. John said he has his own children now; he works at his job and is a success because of the program at Mapletree. A lot of what he has accomplished wouldn't have happened, couldn't have happened, if it weren't far the program at Mapletree. To close Mapletree down means you are saying to the kids you are better off in jail because society and the community doesn't want you. When you feel that way, why would you try to succeed in any other place in your life. He never had a problem with the people in the community. Mapletree was a nice place to live. It wasn't as comfortable as living in your own place but he gave up that right with his history. The kids need this type of home. if programs like Mapletree weren't located here this type of group home could be located someplace else. Without group homes like this, these young adults would be locked up in jail. If this is an opportunity for kids to get help we should want the kids to get the help they need, not put them in jail and get no rehabilitation. It's not easy for the kids living there, it is not easy for the staff, and it is not easy for the community. As Mr. Brandt said, it takes a community to raise youth today. He hopes his presence here can help this program because without the program at Mapletree he would not be standing here or be the person he is today. He thanked the commission for their attention. Paul S., a Licensed Psychologist, addressed the commission. Paul said he has been the licensed psychologist since the inception of the Mapletree Group Home in 1991. Much of the success for the residents at the Mapletree Group Home is directly related to Jon Brandt and the quality of staff Mr. Brandt has been able to acquire. He said the typical resident is 16 to 18 years of age up until 21 years of age and that these adolescents are in need of transitional living arrangements. They are often continuing in their treatment in some manor whether that be AA, individual therapy or treatment. Most of the residents are on probation and are continually monitored to evaluate their risk to the community. Over the years the referral sources have gotten to know the staff at Mapletree and who would best transition from prior placements to Mapletree. Residents who are referred are considered to be compatible to the services and support of the group home and its staff. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 11-15-04 Paul said the residents are expected to follow the rules and expectations. These expectations include, but are not limited to, accountability, community safety, attend high school or Vo-Tech, work on a full or part time basis depending on their educational needs and goals, they are required to complete court-ordered community service or restitution, participate in Mapletree therapy groups, and independent skill groups, meet regularly with a Mapletree case manager, and develop individualized treatment goals. Paul said they are also expected to participate in their staffing and progress reviews. The screening process that is referred to Mapletree is typically a phone call made to Mr. Brandt or staff and final material reviewed. Assuming the adolescent is not actively psychotic or diagnosed with a significant neurological impairment, arrangements are made to meet with the potential referent for aface-to-face interview. If the file review and the initial meeting go well, arrangements are made faraday or overnight visit. The rules and expectations at Mapletree are discussed and the needs of the adolescent are reviewed. The placement visit is intended to evaluate the appropriateness of the referral and to attempt to determine if a match exists between the adolescent, Mapletree's program and the existing residents. Occasionally new residents are accepted on a provisional basis. Once a resident arrives at Mapletree a #reatment plan is developed incoordination with other treatment plans such as the county social worker. Often psychological testing is administered to determine the needs, goals, insights and strengths of the resident. Paul said Mapletree has enjoyed a good relationship with the Maplewood Police Department, North St. Paul High School and its neighbors aver the years. Paul said expanding this program, no doubt will tax the staff and the program, but it will also raise potential concerns due to the increased number of potential residents. Community safety has always been the top priority not only for Mapletree but for the referral sources, community partners, employees, neighbors, the residents' families, and the young adults themselves. Poor decision making and on-going criminal or antisocial behavior often makes for incarceration as an adult. The stakes are high far the young men which are referred to Mapletree. The young men that are referred to Mapletree are often in need of a safe and structured living environment and are encouraged and expected to transition back into the community with the support of staff, residents, other professionals, and family members, if available. These young men have complex histories and have struggled with a variety of issues, often coexisting mental and chemical health diagnosis. They experience family of origin dysfunction, attachment issues and conduct disorder, just to name a few. Mapletree's primary goal is to assist these young men in assimilating back into the community and use the new tools they have acquired along their journey in a positive pro-social manor to become valued citizens. He thanks the commission for the opportunity to speak tonight and for listening to him. Commissioner Ahlness asked if the applicant had any special rights owning a duplex to divide or construct in a way there could be more than one group home? Mr. Roberts said the zoning is R-2, which by ordinance, is for single-family homes or double dwellings. That is how the home to the north can exist as a single family home even though it is zoned R-2. In this case Mr. Brandt was allowed to convert the garage to a separate apartment because he has the R-2 zoning. The main house func#ions as one house with its own garage and separate entity, then the garage was converted to a separate apartment with its own kitchen. He said in a way the property is already functioning as two separate homes with the apartment for two residents and the main part of the home housing six people. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 11-15-04 Acting Chairperson Desai asked why Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department didn't find significant public safety concerns but Nicole Zuk said when she spoke to Police Chief Thomalla he stated there were over 100 phone calls to the police department over the past 10 years? If you divide the number of complaint calls over 10 years that comes to about 10 calls a year, which still seems significant to him. Mr. Roberks said when the police department provided their comments for the staff report that information was not included or broken down sa all staff has to refer to is the comments from Lieutenant Rabbett. He hopes to get more information broken down for the report that would go to the city council. If there were issues to be concerned about, he assumed he would have received more details. Mr. Roberts said he took Lieutenant Rabbett's cammen#s as being supportive of the program at the Mapletree Group Home. Commissioner Grover referred to the conditional use permit resolution on page 15 of the staff report. Item number 2. states fhe use would not change fhe existing or planned character of fhe surrounding area. He asked Mr. Roberts if he could give further information regarding that condition? Mr. Roberts said basically everybody will have a different perception or opinion of what changes the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. He said to use the past proposal that came be#ore the planning commission to build a DQ Grill and Chill next to the US Bank property. During that review, planning commissioners were concerned that adrive-thru and speaker system would change the character of the neighborhood and that it would affect the surrounding property. That proposal was denied by the city council. He said one could argue that adding six mare residents to the existing group home wouldn't change the character of the surrounding area because the home already exists. Commissioner Bartol said because the state is requiring the Mapletree Group Home to comply with additional steps, financially Mr. Brandt cannot run this group home with six residen#s. Also Mr. Brandt said he had to dip into the reserve bank account during a time of crisis. If he cannot get city approval for the CUP to have more than fi residents, Mr. Brandt cannot build his bank account back up to assist with paying the bills. This is a make or break situation for Mr. Brandt. Either the city approves the CUP or the Mapletree Group Home may have to close down. If anybody's property is going to depreciate with this group home here it would be Mr. Brandt's property located behind the group home where he proposes to build nine townhomes. Commissioner Trippler asked if that was something the commission should be considering? He asked if the city had seen any bank accounts to verify if the city did not grant the CUP Mr. Brandt would have to close the Mapletree Group Home? Acting Chairperson Desai said he understood Mr. Brandt's financial hardship was not in the current stage but he would be under a financial hardship when the new state guidelines took place in July 2005. Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 11-15-04 Commissioner Trippler said he understands that. The city should assume this is an on-going business. Mr. Brandt is projecting what his costs would be in order to meet the criteria and the new law in 2005. His projections may or may not be valid because there has not been a f nancial accounting of whether or not Mapletree could stay in business with six residents. He asked if that was a valid reason for the commission to grant or not to grant the CUP? In his opinion that was not one of the criteria the commission was being asked to evaluate. Commissioner Grover said he would agree. According to page 15 and 16 of the staff report that is not one of the criteria for the commission to follow. Commissioner Trippler said it may be a consequence of not granting the CUP but he is not sure that is what the planning commission is being instructed to weigh. This is a residential community with a group home with six residents. The question is will there be a difference at the group home doubling the occupancy. If they have six residents now and it's working out, doubling the number of residents may not be better. It sounds like they are running a wonderful facility with six residents although he has heard testimony that the Mapletree Group Home has run into some problems. He's not sure changing the occupancy number is the right thing to do and he's not sure changing that number fits in with the existing character of the neighborhood. As staff stated earlier, this is a subjective decision that each commissioner is going to have to make. Personally he doesn't feel comfortable doubling the size of this facility in this neighborhood. CommissionerAhlness said Mr. Brandt made some compelling arguments regarding the service he offers at the Mapletree Group Home. Something to consider is state law has been established to protect group homes for up to fi residents. The wisdom of this law is to preserve the residential and family oriented nature of the program and of the neighborhood. As the state statute would change and go into effect July 1, 2005, that number remains at 6 residents. The market will decide whether this group home stays or goes. The responsibility of the commissioners is to determine whether or not increasing the number of residents from six to twelve is a good fit for the neighborhood. There has #o be a balance between community and the provider. He thinks that is already provided by the state code at 6 residents. For these reasons, he is going to vote against this proposal. Chairperson Fischer said one of the concerns she heard was that services that were available in the larger setting wouldn't be available for six or fewer number of residents in a group home. As the state mandates better security and services, the s#ate must feel those things are not in place and should be. Her subjective opinion is that one larger group home would affect the neighborhood less compared to two smaller group homes. A larger group home is not a perfect setting in every neighborhood and this group home is located almost on top of the Maplewood Mall. Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 11-15-04 Commissioner Bartol said Commissioner Ahlness compared this group home to a market. These are county dollars and from time to time there is not enough tax dollars to go around. When the state can't find the tax dollars, these young adults are the ones that would end up suffering. If there was a great deal of money to be made from owning and operating a group home he believes there would be more than one group home like this in the State of Minnesota. As Mr. Brandt had stated in his speech, his staff workers make what a beginning teacher would make, obviously people are not in this field to make money. He believes with the new state statutes the Mapletree Group Home would have to comply with the rules and regulations and some of the concerns of the neighbors could disappear. According to Mr. Brandt's handouts, handout #9 seems like he is reaching out to the neighbors and including them in the process and he commends Mr. Brandt for that. In addition, this CUP would be reviewed in one year. For the sake of the young adults that are in need of this program, he believes the city should grant this CUP and review it in one year review and see how things are working out. He would encourage the commissioners to recommend approval of this CUP. Acting Chairperson Desai said he can't understand managing six residents makes this a difficult financial situation. When voting as a planning commissioner he doesn't take financial situations into consideration. He's trying to objectively look at this based on a planning commissioners responsibility according to city staff recommendations as well as taking into consideration what the neighborhood has to deal with and live with. Acting Chairperson Desai said when he heard there had been over 100 phone calls to the police department from this address with six or fewer residents living at the group home this concerned him. Increasing the number of residents from six to twelve could result in even more telephone calls to the police department. He is concerned about the neighbor's comments and concerns that the commission heard tonight as well the statements included in the staff report. He thinks there may be a better location for a group home of twelve residents in another neighborhood, but not in this neighborhood. Forthese reasons he will be voting against this proposal. Commissioner Lee said he thinks increasing the number of residents from six to twelve is asking for trouble. He said he's voting against this proposal as well and has taken into account the comments shared by the neighbors. Commissioner Grover moved to recommend to awe-deny the resolution starting on page 15 of the staff report. Denying a conditional use permit for the Mapletree Group Home to have up to 12 residents living in their residential facility at 2831 Southlawn Drive. Commissioners Ahlness, Desai, Grover, Lee and Trippler said the reason they recommended to deny the CUP for the Mapletree Group Home was that the proposed use would change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area and the use would depreciate property values. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Desai, Grover, Lee, Trippler Nays- Bartol, Fischer The motion to recommend denial passed. This item goes to the city council on Monday, December 13, 2004. Planning Commission -14- Minutes of ~ 1-15-04 VI. NEW BUSINESS {9:06 - 9:32 p.m.} Concept Plan Review -The Woodlands PUD {McMenemy Street} Mr. Roberts said Mr. Brian Bourassa, representing Integra Homes, is asking the planning commission to provide preliminary comments about a proposed town house development. He has prepared a preliminary site plan that shows 24 town houses (in 16 detached townhomes and four twin homes) 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. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The design of the buildings is not finalized, but Mr. Roberts expects 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 a twacar garage. Mr. Roberts asked that the planning commission to review the requests in the staff report and discuss the proposed preliminary plan. Commissioner Trippler said most of the good trees would be taken out when the four homes are built along the west edge. He is concerned about the tree preservation during the building of this development. Mr. Roberts said that is certainly a concern, the developer is also required to provide storm sewers and ponding areas on the site, which could remove quite a few trees from the site. Commissioner Trippler said there are two houses off McMenemy Street that just barely meet the minimum setback requirements from the lot edge. He also asked if the developer spoke to the property owners at 1746 and 1748 McMenemy Street to see if they would be willing to sell in order to make this development flow better. Mr. Roberts said the developer is talking to the owners at 1748 McMenemy Street to buy the back of their property. He said the city has not approached any of the neighbors about selling their properties. Commissioner Trippler asked if the engineering department has evaluated the grading for the road that goes along the southern corridor towards the east? Mr. Roberts said as far as he knew the applicants have not prepared a grading plan yet so the engineering department would not have had the opportunity to review any grading plans yet. Commissioner Grover asked what kind of clientele the developers expected to attract with these townhomes and twin homes. When he read the developers would ask aver $300,D00 #or these homes he was quite surprised. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 11-15-04 Mr. Brian Bourassa, representing Integra Homes at 12721 Overlook Road, Dayton, addressed the commission. With respect to the tree preservation, they have twisted and turned many of the townhome units and will provide a side loaded garage in orderto save as manytrees as possible. They have a tree inventory for the entire site. He said when they come back to address the planning commission for their formal presentation they will have a definitive plan so the commission will have a clear idea what the development would look like. Integra Homes prefers to have neighborhood meetings to get input from the neighbors. The grading concerns on the east side of the property will be challenging. They have not completed a grading plan but they will comply with the engineering guidelines. Mr. John Matthews will come up and speak to the market or clientele they hope to attrac#. Commissioner Trippler asked if they were planning on having a retention pond or a permanent wetland area? The location of the pond on the west side has a half dozen oak trees there and his understanding is that oak trees don't do well under water. Changing the charac#er of the 6.6 acres with impermeable surface means more runoff. He would recommend they engineer the ponds to operate like rain gardens to be reinfiltration basins. He would hate to see the trees on the west side be taken out by standing water. He isn't sure how they will make the grade on the east side because this will definitely be a challenge. Mr. Bourassa said they are describing these areas as ponding areas. Depending on howthe soil report comes out and depending on where the water table is, will determine whether or not there is a permanent pond or not. Commissioner Trippler asked if it was really necessary to wedge the units in as shown on the northeast and southeast corner of the site map off McMenemy Street? Mr. Bourassa said they would take a look at that and asked if Commissioner Trippler was concerned about the proximity of the units to the property line? Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about the units and the proximity of the road and the possibility that a child walking out the front door could get hit. Mr. John Matthews, Real Estate and Mortgage Consultants (RMC), addressed the commission. Mr. Matthews said the home at 1748 McMenemy Street was built a few years ago and is worth roughly $380,000 and would be unaffordable for the developer to purchase. They may be working with the other property owner to see if it's feasible to work something out. The clientele they plan to sell these units to would be singles, couples, empty nesters, and retired people. The location is close to Highway 35E, downtown, and close access to the malls, which helps in the selling of the units. Acting Chairperson Desai said he doesn't like cookie cutter design of some townhome developments so the layout of these units is quite interesting to him. Mr. Bourassa said because of the side loaded garages, keeping the trees on the site, and angling of the units, this puts a different prospective on the whole development. Planning Commission -~ 6- Minutes of 11-15-04 Commissioner Grover said he is concerned about the neighbors on Kingston Avenue and asked how the developer proposed to gain access to the site. He asked if they would be removing the homes on the north side? Would you construct the street on the south side through the easement that currently exists? Mr. Bourassa said this would be a single phase construction project so the grading would have to be done at the same time. The sanitary sewer and water main would have to come from McMenemy Street and connect off of Kingston Avenue. Commissioner Grover said he likes the uniqueness of this development as well. He said you may have some neighbors in opposition of this development. There may not be opposition to the development itself, but more in how access would be granted and the construction process of large trucks driving through the area. This may alleviate some of the concerns that may be raised at the neighborhood meeting. The church and the neighbors to the north wouldn't be as affected as the residents to the south during this construction process. Commissioner Ahlness said he likes the design of the development. He thinks the developer is doing a good job with this development, it will enhance and increase the character and value of the neighborhood and would sustain the tax base, which is good for the City of Maplewood. The neighbors may resist this development because of how the new residents would have access to the site. Mr. Roberts said the applicant will take the commission's comments and come back for a later presentation. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the November 8, 2004, city council meeting. Mr. Trippler said the Home Occupation License for a Photography business for David Grupa at 1994 Dulu#h Street was discussed and was tabled until November 22, 2004. The CUP for University Auto at 1145 Highway 36, passed ayes all. b. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the November 22, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Home Occupation License for a Photography business for David Gruua at 1994 Duluth Street, and the CUP for the Phoenix Group Home at 1936 Craig Place. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 11-15-04 c. Mr. Ahlness will be the planning commission representative at the December 13, 2004, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the CUP for the Mapletree Group Home at 2831 Southlawn Drive. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Reschedule December fi, 2004, PC Meeting because of a budget hearing in city council chambers to either Tuesday December 7, or Wednesday December 8, 2004. Acting Chairperson Desai asked planning commissioners which date would work best with their schedules. The consensus was to reschedule the planning commission meeting to Wednesday, December 8, 2004. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT; Conditional Use Permit PROJECT: Walking in Faith Church LOCATION: 2385 Ariel Street DATE: December 9, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Paul Strong, representing Walking in Faith Christian Ministries, is proposing to open a church in an existing office building in the Heather Ridge office complex at 2385 Ariel Street. {See the applicant's statement on page five, the location and area maps on pages six and seven and the other maps on pages eight and nine.) This would be a new location for the church that is now operating in the Maplewood Inn-Best Western (on Southlawn Drive}. Request To have the church in this location, Mr. Strong is asking that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP). The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for churches and places of worship in any location. BACKGROUND On June 24, 199fi, the city council approved the following for Heather Ridge: 1. A rezoning from R-3 (multiple dwelling) to BC-M (business commercial modified). 2. A land use plan change from R-3(M} (multiple dwelling-medium density) to BC-M. 3. A CUP to build on land designated as an outlot. 4. The project design plans. ~71~~•1~b~91:~7~ The proposed church meets the city's requirements for a conditional use permit. As proposed, the church would lease about 1,900 square feet (about one-half} of space in the existing 3,750 square-foot building. The church would use their space primarily on Sunday mornings and on Wednesday evenings. These times would not conflict with the other tenants in the building or of those in Heather Ridge as they use their spaces primarily during the day on weekdays. According to Mr. Strong, the church now has 12 families with a total membership of 16 people. He also indicated that the existing space could, in his estimation, accommodate up to 75 people. With a maximum service attendance of 75 people (from up to 30 families) with about 30 vehicles occurring on Sundays, the existing parking lot should be adequate to handle the parking needs of the church and the existing tenants. There are about 204 total parking spaces on the entire site with 35 in the front of the building. As part of this project, the church is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building and only minor changes to the interior of the space. The applicant should note that the city will require permits for any remodeling of the existing space. The city will require any remodeling to include meeting handicapped accessibility requirements {including building entrances and bathrooms}, occupancy loads and exiting, having sprinklers and a fire alarm system that meet current code requirements. Other Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following conditions: 1. Afire protection (sprinkler) system is required. 2. Monitoring of all fire protection systems is required. 3. A lockbox is required for fire department access. 4. There shall be notification devices throughout the building. 5. Early warning devices {smoke detection} are required. 6. The church shall provide the city with after-hours contact information (people and telephone numbers). David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, told me that the use of this space as a church will be a change of occupancy and that such a change typically requires remodeling to meet current building standards. He recommended that the applicant get an architect to prepare plans and do a building code analysis of the existing space and of the proposed church space. Such an analysis should include handicapped code requirements, exiting and alarm systems. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 10 and 11. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for Walking in Faith Ministries to opera#e a church in the building at 2385 Ariel Street. Maplewood bases this permit on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall fallow the plans dated November 22, 2084, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed church must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The owner and the church operators shall ensure that the church space meets all the requirements of the building code as determined by the building official and the fire marshal. In addition, city staff shall determine the maximum capacity of the church upon review of the final floor and building plans. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 2 CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 65 properties within 500 feet of the site of the proposed church. Of the seven replies, one was for the project, two objected, two had no comment and two had comments. For 1. It is fine with us if the church moves into the building at the Hea#her Ridge Office center. (Ellingson - 2434 Crestwood Drive, North Saint Paul) Opposed Do not approve. (Pitzl - 2060 Highway 36, North Saint Paul) 2. No, not enough parking, not big enough far a church. No! No! (Chittenden - 2457 Crestwood Drive, North Saint Paul) Comments Try it for six months to one year and see how things go and review it at that time. It seems that the hours and parking would not have a negative impact on other businesses. (Kaup - 2289 Ariel Court) 2. What happens if the ministry grows to more than 30 families? This is a concern because there already a lot of traffic using the Ariel Street - 11th Avenue intersection. it is hard enough now to get off of ArieE. I would like to see some kind of traffic controE at that intersection. Otherwise, we have no objection. {Murphy - 9th Avenue, North Saint Paul) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.3 acres (for ah of Heather Ridge) Existing land use: Existing 3,700-square-foot office building SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Existing office buildings in Heather Ridge South: Existing office buildings in Heather Ridge West: Home Depot and Cub Foods East: Apartments and town houses in Narth Saint Paul PLANNING Zoning: BC-M (business commercial modified) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(3) of the city code requires a CUP for churches and for places of worship in any zoning district. 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 10 and 11.} Application Date We received the complete applications and materials for this proposal on November 22, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications far a proposal. As such, the city council must act on these requests by January 21, 2005, unless the applicant requests a time extension. p:sec11/V1lalking in Faith church CUP.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Area Map 4. Site Plan 5. Existing Floor Plan 6. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 4 Attachment 1 ~ ~ WALKING IN FAITH CHRISTIAN MIPIISTRtEB r Office Address :a» ~ 7111 West Broadway a '~ Suite z06 y ~ Brooklyn Park, MN 55#28 ~~~m c+'~` phone: (612) 483.8562 To the members of the Maplewood City Council, Thank Yon for the opportunity to share the vision for Wallcing in a ~ chi ~~1Ministrios and our trove to a mare p~nent location at 2385 Aerlal 5t. in the Heather Ridh~h that ~ worship, teaching and glalldng in Faith Christian Ministries is anon-d~natt-tnsttonai was. Tl~e church buSan 1~+~8 maces on fell°wship to the residents of Maplewood ~ the surrounding Sunday s and Wednesday s at the Maplewood Inn-Best Western on June 1, 2403. Since that time the foundation of members has beat established and we are ~ li g~ many residetts in the area vvhoabo~e by December 1, 2044• This locatton is ideal for the church, boaefit from the fellowship for their families and Wesnselves. m, traffic. The Dun to the Hoare that #lte services are pr°vided there arq no conflicts regard-n8 pa~S from 10:00 ~- to 12:30 p.tt-. when there are no businesses located at church holds services on $ttndays from 7:OOp.m to 9:00 pm. Haatha~ Ridge op~ at the time. The outer scheduled service is on Wednesdays 'fl~ia ig also oppogitz of the busitfess hotus of the n~ ten ~ ~ w ~~ to provide adequate 4rowwth potentfal at this location cen be up to 34 families. the hours stated above as regular ping far the church as well as-the other tenants as ar ~~c 'There are 42 patkin8 spaces available at hours; therefore no c;ontlicta should occur for parlattg this loca#~ian. ou for °ur consideration of this application and allowin8 us to provide Maplewood with continued Thank y Y fellowship $am our church to the residents. Si~ttcerely, G~ ~~~ Pastor Paul strong APPLICANT'S STATEMENT So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the lord of God. Romans I0:17 Attacf~ment 2 m ~- z ~~ DEMONT AVE n ~~ s~ b ~} G7 11TH AVE w 1 a l z } ~ N z GERVAIS AVE SITE ~~ Q' Q- ~~ ~~ Z HIGHWAY 36 SHERREN AVE o V d COPE AVE LARK AVE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ a z ~ QO 0 N C? ~ U Q`~~ Z = LlJ Q Cl ~ LOCATION MAP 6 ~N: L J Attachment 3 251 11TH AVE 2x25 GERVAIS AVE 189 ~~ ~' ~~ ~~ Z _..... X370 I ~- , - - HIGHWAY 36 SHERREN AVE ~, - ~ - 1922 '1 1930 1910 o ~, ~_ -~ __ ~- - 2008 2018 1988 11998 AREA MAP Q1. Attachment 4 ;~ ~~ 3 ~• ~ CUB FOODS r ~ ~~ rn C n -C .~ Z' ~ ~ P ~rn c i ~ ~ r w 3~- ti -~ •--- •s HOME DEPOT ~~ g' _~ e .~ 1 - . ~ ; ~,p, ~• ~C ~ 4~~+_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~a~wr~i ~..~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~~ ~ # - _.. _ ~_ __ ,~... I SITE PLAN s ~~ Attachment 5 r J ~~ - ~ ee ~~ a F. _ ... - - ~, ~- e r,~ ,~• la'- • ~~- ~ ~ _ y J ~' , ~RL ttt~ll w a' N _ Yi. ~- ~I 7 f ~ C W C ., s _ }rte ~ ~` ~. ~ ~ ~ i~ t . ?S' - a~-r n ~ 1 4 •~~~ ~ ~ ~~ j:. I~1-'Swxs :p" a'- 'i~6" ' T'-~O'h~.' 6 6 "lr-o ~-o• e - \ 1 ' ^ ~ ~I LL E T ~ I I 1 r ~ ~ I ~ - ~ ~ ~?"~~ - - ~ J I T- ~• B _ y - 4 ~ v. $ f i i ce; r ~ ~ ,i ,' a II~ yY'n ~ ~ p" ~ { 1 ^ ~ ~~ ~ jl a ~,~1~, ,~~ I 5- " J I P r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ mow. ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~- ~~ * "..1 ~* ~ . . i 6 b. ~ ~ ~ © , o - a r It. - s I`Q li 1 0. a C w ~ 6 '' . ~ ' ~ I ~ ~f ~ r - p o f g I C ~ ~ ~ at e ' ~ •~ ~~ ~ ~ a .. y ~ ._ - r - - - -p~vws~nvs_. .~y- ~' . Ioh1~,F.1'EUS3C@-yen: as[r677KwA1Fxi µHS~ul^44G~:L~rkav56~'E7'~:~c~'' M1FI~ .PAA~5611~J~4Y,.7~i.'IC.~~-' e~`~~ ,...a=+~ri~~:......~.~w mil ... ~T. .~ w-iu~ ~'~-r'L F.~ q.r gr"rwwr "v~~w+'hWi dOa~gF191 ]'r 21'CbitoctWl'9 -- Wu.rr.w.+~b~a.r.rw.wll.wwR• -~ wi.r`.l.e.inwn+r rw Fd1ft}S77~G ~Y _ . . .4.,~Lv;.~4"r 1.4 oti.. ~ I Ir~.l.rr P1 ~.. _ - 7{X E'r ' "" 7~A4iL~LPp~Ti _~ ~qu _.~i.. - x.1~1~. .- _ 1~v4e~sY 4~,Itt6 ~ ~ sr" -~ _ %~~ r _. EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 4 N Attachment 6 CONDIT#ONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Paul Strong, representing Walking in Faith Ministries, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit for a church to operate in an existing office building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2385 Ariel Street. The legal description is: {PiN 11-29-22-11-0050) WHEREAS, this history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On December 20, 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 January , 2005, 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 tl~e city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the council approve 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 be in conformity with Maplewood-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, detrimen#al, 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 conges#ion or unsafe access on existing or proposed stn=ets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. ~a 10. The city council may waive any of the above requirements provided the council determines that the balancing of public interest between governmental units would be best served by such a waiver. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans dated November 22, 2004, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed church must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The owner and the church operators shalt ensure that the church space meets all the requirements of the building code as determined by the building official and the fire marshal. In addition, city staff shall determine the maximum capacity of the church upon review of the final floor and building plans. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on __ , 200b. 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes, Conditional Use Permit and Design Approval PROJECT: Maplewood Imports Auto Center LOCATION: 2450 Maplewood Drive DATE: December 14, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jon Hansen, of LeJeune Investments and Maplewood Imports, is proposing to build four new automobile dealerships and a support services building on the 32-acre property at 2450 Maplewood Drive. This complex would include 4 separate dealership buildings (each with sales and service facilities), a support services building and up to 1,945 parking spaces for inventory, customers and employees. The city has planned and zoned this site CO (commercial office) and M-1 (light manufacturing.) {Refer to the applicant's statements on pages 15 and 16 and the maps on pages 17 through 36.) Requests Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve: 1. Aland use plan change for part of the site. This change would be from CO (commercial office) to M-1 (light manufacturing). {See the land use plan map on page 19.) 2. A zoning map change for part of the site. This change would be from CO (commercial office) to M-1 (light manufacturing). (See the property Iinelzoning map on page 21.) 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the motor vehicle maintenance garages. 4. The design plans {architectural, site, landscape, and lighting plans) for the Audi dealership site and building. {See the project plans on pages 24 - 36 and the separate enclosures.} BACKGROUND Niggler Addition On September 22, 1986, the city approved the Niggler Addition preliminary plat for this site On April 27, 1987, the city council dropped a lot from the proposed Niggler plat and also changed the zoning for the Niggler property. The city made this change so the zoning line between the M-1 and CO zoning districts lined up on a lot line in the plat. (This is the zoning that is now in place for the area.) (See the map on page 20.) This zoning change means that the city has zoned about 21.3 acres of the site CO and has zoned about 11 acres of the site M-1. On September 26, 1988, the city council extended the preliminary plat approval for one year and revised the conditions for final plat approval. On January 24, 1994, the city council terminated the approval of the Miggler Addition preliminary plat because: 1. Government regulations and policies have changed significantly since the city first approved the preliminary plat in 1986. 2. Over seven years have passed since the city held a public hearing on this plat. There may be new neighbors near the plat site and they should have a chance to comment on the plans to develop this property. 3. There had been no physical activity to develop this plat DISCUSSION Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) City staff has been researching the need or passibility of having the developer prepare an EAW for the proposed project. An EAW is a preliminary environmental review of a proposal to look at how the development could potentially affect the environment. The state has designed the EAW to gather and disclose information about potential environmental effects from a proposed project. The EAW also reviews ways or methods to avoid or minimize any environmental effects. An EAW has a list of standardized questions that cover issues such as land use and habitat, storm water, wetlands, air emissions and pollution and traffic. As proposed, the project does not meet the minimum size thresholds set by state rules to mandate an EAW. However, the city can require the developer to prepare an EAW if the city decides that the project "has a potential for significant environmental effects." In their review of the original proposal, Chris Cavett and Chuck Vermeersch of the city engineering department noted several concerns with the proposed plans. The applicant, in response to the concerns expressed by staff, agreed to revise the project plans. These are now the plans under review. The city engineering department is no longer recommending that the applicant prepare an EAW since they have made significant changes to the plans -especially in regard to storm water management and wetland protection. Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes Land Use Plan Change As I noted above, the applicant is requesting that the city change the land use plan map for part of the site. The requested change is from CO (commercial office) to M-1 (light manufacturing). The city does not have any specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any changes to the plan, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. In this case, there are six land use goals and eight development policies in the comprehensive plan that the city should consider when reviewing this request. The applicable land use goals include: 1. Provide for orderly development. 2. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods 2 3. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 4. Minimize the land planned far streets. 5. Minimize conflicts between land uses. 6. Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land, especially when supportive services and facilities such as utilities, drainage systems or streets are not available. The applicable development policies (to implement the plan goals) include: 1. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street; utilities; drainage, parks and open space. 2. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. 3. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should no# create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. 4. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. 5. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood 6. Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. 7. Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. 8. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. The proposal to change the land use plan from CO to M-1 for the site would meet these goals and policies. Commercial Office (CO) Zoning Section 44-471 of the city code notes that the city established the CO zoning district to "provide areas for the development of professional and administrative offices with related commercial uses in areas in close proximity to residential areas." The code also states that the city intended the commercial office (CO) zoning district (when the city added it to the city code in 1975) "to be primarily on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts." The city also designed the CO zoning district to lessen the impact of these uses (the commercial and industrial uses) on residential areas. (See the CO code section starting on page 37). Maplewood does not allow automobile sales or service in the CO zoning district. There currently is one area in the city with the CO zoning -the eastern 1070 feet of the site of this proposal. I have calculated that the city has zoned about 21 acres of the 32 acres of the site CO and the city has zoned the western 11 acres (along the frontage road) M-1. (Please see the maps on pages 20 and 21.) While the CO zoning district may have been a good idea in 1975, it has never caught on nor has a developer or property owner ever implemented a plan using the CO zoning. The Miggler plat, as I outlined on page one of this report, would have been a development 3 plan that would have used the CO zoning, but the owner never chose to build the plat. For comparison purposes, I have included the BC and M-1 zoning codes starting on page 39 and the CO zoning code starting on page 37. Land Use and Zoning Map Changes In this case, the site is adjacent to Highway 61 (to the west), next to light industrial and office buildings to the south and is next to city-owned wetland and park property. The applicant has asked the city to change the land use and zoning map designations from M-1 and CO to M-1 for the entire site. This is because the city does not allow automobile sales or service in the CO zoning district. Additionally, this property is not immediately adjacent to land that the city has planned for residential uses. Therefore, the changing of the CO designations on the land use plan and zoning map on this property to the higher-intensity M-1 land use and zoning classification will complement the existing land uses in the area and should not negatively affect any of the existing area land uses. The land area of the entire project site is about 32 acres. Of the 32 acres, about 30 acres of the property is now vacant and most of that area should be developable. However, the actual number of buildings and the parking lot and driveway layout that could be constructed on the site will be limited by city standards and variables such as site access, grading and drainage, storm water facilities, wetland delineation, and setbacks. It is important to note that any new development will be subject to all city-required development standards, including setbacks from the wetlands and storm water management requirements. Conditional Use Permit Automobile sales are a permitted use and the city requires a CUP for automobile repair and maintenance garages for property in an M-1 zoning district. As I noted above, the city does not allow automobile sales and service in the CO zoning district. The code further states that both of these types of uses must be located at least 3S0 feet from residential property. The proposed development meets this requirement as the north property line of the proposed development is about 355 feet from the nearest point on the south property line of the closest lot on Edgehill Court (1294 Edgehill Court). In addition, the north property line of the project site is about 424 feet from the south edge of the structure at 1294 Edgehill Court. Lastly, the northern-most dealership building (Number 2) would be about 14fi feet south of the north property line of the site. Traffic Impacts and Study The applicant, in response to city staff concerns, had a traffic study done for the proposed development. (See the study on pages SO-63.) This study shows that the proposed development will generate less traffic than an office complex that the current zoning would allow. City staff also had our traffic consultant at SEH review the applicant's traffic study. Tom Sohrweide's comments about the study are on page 64. Site Improvements Lot Combination The project site now consists of five separate lots with abandoned greenhouses on them. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant should combine all the properties into one property (for tax and identification purposes} with Ramsey County. 4 Wetlands The wetland on the north and east sides of the proposed site, a Class 1 wetland, has characteris#ics and functions that are most susceptible to human impacts; they are the most unique type of wetland and have the highest community resource significance. The city requires a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer along the wetland to help protect the wetland from human impact. Because the Class 1 wetland is susceptible to human impacts and has the highest community resource significance, staff recommends keeping as much of the buffer as possible next to the wetland undisturbed. The latest project plans meet this requirement as they show the 100-#oot wetland buffer with no disturbance. Watershed District Review On December 8, 2004, the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District reviewed the proposal and approved a permit for the project. In addition, Tina Carstens of the Watershed District staff provided me with five project review comments. They are listed in the a-mail on page 45. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not clearly defne the special parking requirements for an automobile dealership, i.e., parking spaces far automobile inventory. However, using the ratio of 1 space for each 200 square feet of office/showroom, 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of parts storage, 3 spaces for each service bay, and 1 space per employee, the Audi site is required to have 300 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 436 parking spaces for the Audi building and up to 1,945 parking and storage spaces on the entire site. Maintenance Garage(s) The proposed 21-bay maintenance garage within the Audi building and the four other proposed dealershipslmaintenance buildings should meet the findings for CUP approval. (Refer to the applicant's narratives on pages 15 and 16.} Audi Building Desiign The applicant is proposing to build first a 36,520-square-foot Audi showroom/sales/service building. The proposed Audi building will have a front exterior (north side) of insulated windows in aluminum frames, painted pre-cast concrete panels, metal composite panels and a standing seam metal roof. The sides and rear exteriors of the Audi building will primarily be painted pre- cast concrete panels. (See the proposed building elevations on page 36 and the enclosed project plans.) The proposed building is attractive and should set a design standard for the future buildings in the development. Tree Preservation The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all "large" trees removed from a site be replaced one-for-one, up to 10 trees per acre. The ordinance defines a large tree as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches a# a 4-foot trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwood, and poplar. The applicant proposes removing 135 "large" trees with the proposed grading and construe#ion of the project site. These include 79 elms, 18 oak and smaller numbers of maple, ash, birch, linden and pine. Therefore, the applicant must plant at leas# 270 replacement #rees on the site. The proposed project plans show the applicant planting a total of 268 trees as part of their overall landscape plan, including 213 deciduous trees and 55 coniferous trees. The proposed number and size of the replacement trees meet the city's requirements. Landscaping The overall project landscape plan calls for the planting of a variety of trees around the perimeter of the site and around the driveways, parking areas and the ponding areas. For the Audi building, the plans show the planting of trees around the edges of the parking and drive areas, the planting of ornamental trees and shrubs in same of the parking lot islands and along the north side of the building. In addition, the plans note that all turf areas are to have sod and that entire si#e is #o be irrigated with an underground irrigation system. Any landscaping and turf establishment within the highway right-of-way should be subject to MnDOT's approval. It is important for this si#e to have an attractive appearance from the frontage road and from Highway 61. As such, staff would prefer that the applicant add more overstory trees (maple or oak) on the west side of the site, along the #rontage road. In addition, Chris Cavett, assistant city engineer, is recommending in his engineering plan review starting on page 46 that the applicant submit detailed landscape plans for the ponds and for the infiltration basins or vegetative filter strips. The contractor should plant the ponds with native vegetation including grasses with Forbes, native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the ponds. All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must have an underground irrigation sys#em. Trash Storage The code requires that all trash containers be kept in screening enclosures with a closeable gate The applicant proposes to keep their trash inside an enclosure on the south side of the building. This contractor would construct this enclosure with the building and it would be of materials compatible with the building. The plans also show the gates for the enclosure being made of chain link fencing with privacy slats. However, the city code requires a 100 percent opaque gate for the enclosure. Staff would prefer that the contractor build the gates with solid wood or metal for better screening and longevity. Lighting The city's lighting ordinance requires that all new freestanding lights be a maximum of 25 feet in height. In addition, the maximum light illumination from any outdoor light cannot exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. The applicant's proposal includes installing several new 24-foot-tail freestanding lights around the site, 3.5-foot-tall bollard lights near the sidewalk around the building and new wall pack fights on each building (see attached outdoor lighting plan on page 33). The plan shows that the maximum light intensity at the property line will be .4 foot candles. Site-Plan Concerns Vehicle-Transport Unloading Unloading on public right-of-way has been a recurring problem with auto dealerships in Maplewood. Unloading on Highway 61 or on Duluth Street (the frontage road) is not allowed and should be prohibited by a condition of the CUP. 6 Police Concerns Lieutenant Rabbett of the Maplewoad Police Department expressed concerns about traffic and property issues. He noted that this type of dealership may have less traffic flow than other dealers and this type of development may not generate rush hour traffic as an office complex or an industrial park would. However, the size of the project and limited direct access to the site is cause for some concern. The Highway 611Connor Avenue access is marginal for even the existing traffic. Complicating the problem is the easily ignored prohibition against turns from westbound Connor Avenue to southbound Highway 61. He wanted to see a detailed traffic analysis and some type of improvement to the intersection. Lt. Rabbett also noted that the east side of the development will be particularly accessible to anyone interested in theft or damage to vehicles. There does not appear to be any security fencing to restrict unauthorized access and officers will have a difficult time approaching the area undetected. He recommended tha# the owner include security fencing and appropriate lighting and video surveillance equipment on the site. Automobile SaleslStorage Lot The applican# is praposing to Use the eastern part of the site for the storage of about 340 vehicles. The applicant is proposing to construct the surface of this storage area with a permeable pavement surface to help control storm-water run off. The saleslstorage lot will not be striped, but will hold about 340 vehicles. City code does not require that an automobile saleslstorage lot have striped parking stalls unless there are parking stalls for employees or customers. There are no employee or customer parking stalls proposed, but in order to ensure adequate drive aisles, a striping plan must be submitted that shows drive aisles of at least 24 feet in width. Retaining Walls The applicant is proposing to install a retaining wall along the south and north edges of the proposed parking lots and driveways. {See site and grading plan and retaining wall elevation on page 27.} The retaining walls will start at ground grade and extend upward to five feet at their highest point. Other Comments Engineering: See attached memo from the city engineering department on pages 4fi-49. David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, noted the following requirements: 1. Handicap accessible parking stalls and bathrooms are required for each building. 2. All the buildings must be fully fire sprinklered. 3. The city requires a separate building permit for each building and the city will require a complete building code analysis when the contractor applies for a building permit. 4. The city will do a full plan review when the contractor submits the plans to the city far a building permit. 5. Provide information about the location and number of customer parking spaces far each building. 6. Provide adequate emergency vehicle access. 7. Any retaining walls over four feet tall require an engineer design and a separate building permit. 8. I would recommend apre-construction meeting with the city building department. 7 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, states that the city will require the following fire protection items: a monitored fire protection system (NFPA 13), a monitored fire alarm system {NFPA 72) and a fire department lock box must be installed with each building; a minimum of 26-foot-wide access road or driveways must be provided for emergency vehicles; hornlstrobes in service garage area and any normally occupied space in the showroomloffice area. The contractors installing any tanks must get the proper permits. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the land use plan change resolution starting on page 65. This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan map for the vacant property on the east side of Maplewood Drive, north of Gervais Avenue. This change is from CO {commercial office) to M-1 (light manufacturing}. The city is making this change because it will: 1. Provide for orderly development. 2. Pro#ect and strengthen neighborhoods. 3. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 4. Minimize the land planned far streets. 5. Minimize conflicts between land uses. 6. Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets are not available. 7. Help to implement the goats of the comprehensive plan including: a. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. b. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. c. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. d. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. e. Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. g. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. 8. The previous property owner never cons#ructed the office park on the property that the CO land use designation was for, that the city had implemented for the site. B. Adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 67. This resolution changes the zoning map for the vacant property on the east side of Maplewood Drive, north of Gervais Avenue. This change is from CO {commercial office} to M-1 (light manufacturing). The city is making this change because: 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 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. 5. The previous property owner never constructed the office park on the property that the CO zoning designation was for, that the city had implemented for the site. C. Adopt the resolution on pages 6$ and 69. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Maplewood Import's plan to construct up to four automobile dealershipslmaintenance garages for the property at 2450 Maplewood Drive. The city is approving this permit based on the findings required by the code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the proposed Audi building must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The loading or unloading of automobiles on the public right-of-way is prohibited. 4. The operators of the dealerships shall park the automobiles and motor vehicles on designated paved or engineered porous or permeable surfaces. 5. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not store unlicensed or inoperable vehicles on the site for more than 48 hours, except in the buildings or infully-screened storage areas. 6. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall stare all garbage, trash, waste materials, tires, vehicles parts and obsolete parts in the buildings or in fully-enclosed trash containers or enclosures. 7. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not store any tires, vehicle parts, garbage, trash, waste materials or other debris outside. All such storage must be inside the buildings or in approved enclosures. $. The owners and operators shall ensure that all vehicle repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance is done within enclosed buildings. 9 9. The owner and operator shalt ensure that the noise from the business operations, including all external speakers, shall not exceed the state noise standards. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. D. Approve the plans date-stamped November 17, 2004, for the proposed Audi automobile dealership building and related sales/storage lot at 2450 Maplewood Drive. Approval is sub}ect to the property owner doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit far this project. 2. Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are not part of this approval and will require separate sign permits. 3. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: (a} Final grading, paving, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the city engineer. (b} A striping plan for the new automobile sales/storage lot. The plan must include drive aisles that are at least 24 feet in width. {c) A revised landscape plan to include: (1) The ponds should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes. Native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the perimeter of the pond. {2) All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must have an underground irrigation system. (3) Showing additional overstory trees on the west side of the site (near the frontage road). {d) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the height and style of all outdoor lights and that the light illumination from all outdoor lights does not exceed .4 foot candles at al! property lines. {e) A 100-foot-wide wetland protection buffer easement. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the city will issue a grading or building permit. (f) Verification that all watershed district special provisions, as indicated on the watershed district permit, are met before the city issues a building or grading permit for the site. (g) A revised south building elevation showing the final design elements and materials for the gates of the trash enclosure. The gates are to be 100 opaque and shall be constructed of wood or metal instead of chain-link fencing with slats. 10 {h) Combine the five existing parcels into one parcel for tax and identification purposes with Ramsey County. The owner or contractor must submit proof of lot combination to city staff before the city will issue a grading or building permit. (i} 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. 4. The applicant or the contractor shall complete the following before occupying the Audi building or before using the storage lot: {a) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. {b) Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap accessible parking space. {c) Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. (d} Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lat islands and for all landscape areas (except the ponding areas). Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnD4T will not allow it. It is also waived in the wetland buffer area. (e} Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces. (f) Install city-approved wetland buffer signs at the edge of the wetland buffer easement that notifies that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping is allowed within the buffer. {g) Install all the required exterior improvements, including landscaping and signs. {h) Install all bituminous and the engineered porous or permeable surface and the curb and gutter. {i} Stripe all drive aisles. (j} Install all required landscaping by June 1 if the dealership or if the sales/storage lot is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion of the saleslstorage lot if it is finished in the spring or summer. (k) Install all exterior lighting. (!} Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from public streets. 5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: (1 } The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or win#er, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 17 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 7. This approval does not include the signs. The signage for the development will be reviewed by staff through the sign permit process. 8. This approval does not include any of the other buildings on the site {except the Audi dealership}. The owner shall apply to the city far design approval for each of these buildings (including the architectural, landscaping and drainage plans). The community design review board (CDRB) must approve the project plans for each of these buildings before the city can issue a building permit for each building. CITIZEN COMMENTS surveyed the owners of the 32 properties within 500 feet of the project site. I received one response. GV Properties (2557 Highway 61}said, in part, "we have had Maplewood Imports for our neighbor for many years and welcome them to their new location. The proposal is quite exciting." 12 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 32 acres Existing Land Use: Former houses and greenhouses SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Undeveloped property and homes north of wetlands South: SP Richards Warehouse, vacant property and Imprint Enterprises West: Commercial property across Highway 61 East: Wetlands PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: CO {commercial office} and M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Existing Zoning: CO (commercial office} and M-1 (Light Manufacturing} CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Land Use Plan Change: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. 2. Rezoning: Section 44-1165 of the city code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. 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. 3. Conditional Use Permits Section 44-512(8) requires a CUP far maintenance garages. Section 44-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed in the resolution on pages 68 and 69. 4. Design Review Section 2-290(b} of the city code requires tha# the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 13 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. 2. 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. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date The city received the complete applications and the revised project plans for this request on November 17, 2444. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by January 1ti, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. paec9lMaplewood Imports (12-1 } - 2004 Attachments: 1. Project Narrative 2. Project Narrative Update 3. Location Map 4. Area Map 5. Land Use Plan Map 6. 1987 Miggler Addition Plat and Zoning Map 7. Property LinelZoning Map 8. Existing Conditions Map 9. Tree Removal Plan 10. Site Plan 11. Project Parking Summary 12. Phase One Grading Plan 13. Proposed Overall Grading Plan 14. Preliminary Utility Plan 15. Landscape Plan 16. Landscape Plan Details 17. Enlarged Site Plan-Audi 18. Enlarged Landscape Plan -Audi 19. Audi Photometric Plan 20. Audi First Floor Plan 21. Audi Second Floor Plan 22. Audi Building Elevations 23. CO, BC and M-1 zoning code sections (8 pages) 24. 12-3-D4 a-mail comments from Tina Carstens 25. 12-10-04 City Engineering Department Review (4 pages) 26. Traffic Impact Report Summary (14 pages} 27. 12-10-04 letter from Tom Sohrweide (SEH} 28. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 29. Zoning Map Change Resolution 30. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 31. Protect Plans date-stamped November 17, 2004 (Separate Attachments) 14 Attachment 1 LEc.TEUNE INVESTMENT, INC. flC393 WAYZATA BOT.TLEVAF~D I+IINNFAPQI.I.S, ItiIN ~542(i August 27, 2ao4 AUG 2 l 2L~d4 Narrative for Maplewood Imports project R E C E I U E ~ In 1993, LeJeune investment purchased Metropolitan Imports representing Mercedes-Benz, Audi and Porsche and renamed it Maplewood Imports. Although we anticipated growth, it would have been impossible to predict the unprecedented growth in the industry and our brands in particular. From 1993 to now our vehicle sales are up 267%, service attendance is up 269% and our parts sales are up 342%. From 1993 to today, the available models from each manufacturer has grown tremendously. In 1993, Audi had fi models, today they have 23, Mercedes-Benz had 14, today they have 4fi and Porsche had 5, today they have 13. This does not account for all the trim level variants or engine options. It is a business necessity to inventory an example of mos# of the models plus approximately 60 days supply. On average, we carry 260 units in inventory. Frequently that number is increased by pressure from the manufacturers to take additional inventory. In addition to inventory, new and used sales customer parking, service customer parking, parts customer parking we need to park 50 service loaners and 90 employee vehicles as well as provide space for transport-trucks unloaded. In representing European high-end vehicles we have (earned we need to provide ample parking spaces (beyond that required by domestic or Japanese brands} to accommodate, in some cases, the vehicle size, but in all cases the vehicles value. Another distinction between our facility and a higher volume brand is our lower traffic flow. Our intensity of use is much lower due to acquisition price, quality and the exclusive nature of the brand. With the growth we have experienced and our limited space, it has become exceedingly difficult, often times impossible, to provide the superior customer experience that is the trademark of our organization. The three manufacturers we represent Mercedes-Benz, Audi and Porsche are all requiring dedicated, stand-alone facilities. Each facility is required to provide distinctive imaging, brand identification and life-style elements that allow the customer to identify with the product and the brand. With our mission statement to exceed customer expectations in everything we do, business necessity due to growth and demands placed on us from the manufacturers we represent it is our desire to construct an automotive park on the Maplewood site for the safe and service of automobiles. We have been a corporate citizen of Maplewood for eleven years and feel we have been a goad citizen and neighbor. Our proposal would be appropriate uses of the land given our direct neighbors are either industrial or automotive. Our current time line would have site grading and preparation performed this year, construction of building #1 in 2005 and construction of building #2 in 2006. PROJECT NARRATIVE 7(33.744.8100 • FAx: 7033. 744.9134, T5 Attachment 2 LEcJEUNE INVESTMENT, ING. 9€393 WAYZATA HOUL'~VA'gD ~POI.~S, MN' 559,2(3 Project Narrative Update -November i 5, 20x4 ~ 3 n ~ 3 a 3~ Maplewood Imports Auto Center 250 Maplewood Drive NOV r ] Z~QIi ~~~Z ~ l SON RECEfVED Based upon the City of Maplewood and the Watershed response to our original submittal, we have implemented measures relating to the environmental impacts of the development as follows; -- Green space has been increased 15.3% (1.5 acres} from 9.8 acres to 11.3 acres. -- Nine rain gardens and one infiltration basin have been added to limit the volume of storm water leaving the site as well as encourage groundwater rechazge. A 1" storm event will remain on site and be infiltrated. This is significant as a lazge percentage of the annual pollutant loads from urban runoff are transported by storm events of less than 1". -- As part of phase 1 construction, we are proposing a large Swale to transport overflows from the phase 1 rain gardens to the wet sedimentation pond. By transporting storm water via swale, we are creating a large area for infiltration such that many storms will not even reach the pond. -- The 100' wetland buffer is preserved in its entirety. There is no encroachment proposed anywhere on site. -- The automobile storage area in the eastern portion of the site is proposed to be constructed using a pervious pavement system that will at minimum produce zero-runoff during a 1 " rainfall. In addition to the changes made to mitigate environmental impacts, we have included a traffic study prepared by Traffic Data, Inc. (TDI). TDI prepazed a Traffic Impact Report for the site based on standard traffic engineering methodology. The scope of the report is based on discussions with Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer and the City's traffic engineering consultant, Tam Sohrweide of Short Elliot Hendrickson. In general, the report shows that a change in zoning to accommodate the automobile dealerships will actually generate less traffic than if an office building was built under the current zoning. The report does indicate that regional growth has caused increased traffic levels regardless of whether the site is developed or not. PRQJECT NARRATIVE UPDATE 783.744. S iQ0 • FAX: 783.'7'44.9134 lb Attachment 3 LOCATION MAP ,~ 4 N Attachment 4 '''' ' • ,' ~ r -- } ~' ' -------_ _-____ _., _ _ ........,.. _.. ~ 2444 , f 'r AREA MAP ~s 4 N Attachment 5 LAND USE MAP 19 N 0 i Attachment / ' ~ ~.:~~ , ,~~.L~Rt~. t ~=~-- .... GE R V Af S --~-• - ~ - -- ~ -. ~1 .~ rk li~ . ~ .. f ~ ~~•'~~ /;' ;• ~. I~ ": ~~~ i~ ~. ~~ _~ ~ _ ..^~ ~i ~ _ \ 1 .,.., .» LR. ,. ;~ -- _ I ~~r11GGL>;fi ~~R.~~ .•r ^"gIiIV~' ~•~ ly, .~•-..~~_ _::. ~l~ i`_J I ! ,~"~.~..~_.. ~~ '1 +_. .'l'am '•'~ .~ ~.~ . , i ~' ~~ I •• ~ ~~tiMUOM .~~ nom" `. '••~ •,1 j \'•, (•" w ::i ow ~ , `\ •• ~ r r ~ - Miggler Addition PRELIMINARY PEAT AND ZUNING DI5TRICT 80UNDARIES {as revised x/27/87) 24 4 n~~acrnneri ~ PROPERTY LINE 1 ZONING MAP 21 r 1 1V A t -~-, a,. ea-E - --- -_ - ~-_~" "'~~___ '~ • 4 ~ 1 .. F ~ ___... _ _._ ~ ~ i, ~1 E l •` Y _ ar i ~y~ m®r ® 1 ~ ! ~'~ a: ~ ~' ; ~ ,< ~~ r r r ~ ~ :~ ~r~• ' ~ ~ ~ ... t f_ _~ F-~ '/ _ ~i; _. ~ _ ,.. ~ ~, - ~ j ~ O 0 m 000 M, .~w.~:. ,.SST ~:~',... ~..~ ~ ~ " ~ r a,. ~ `IS ~~ ~ ...sw.. ~ ~SURFtOUNDFNG AREA LAP ~NpTES I. ML[GRQ4R0 F{gtMTp{ T/RIN tiQPI A kOlI01QY N~ TOFOGTLNMY ]UflRY FtRFOWYC 6Y wE7TW000 440Ft57G~ML ~{CYGkJ, NC. N MYiCt R 10b}, FGFIMIML I/fkttY NFpp`V.TgN TbMI YR9 vaaucEO eY rnT aF nwtv~ow. I..rEaor. ~y~lrls owrFlc~. LMGF~1 f}iTEf@C COIY'MNT Offkld 110 WM10.1+1.H. do E~ k~IFEk'17EU OQ YQ11Tk14 AS f0 TIE ~CLI.RACT OF NFdttMflpy OEOVR'f] ET QiKfS. NYY Mp q.L FEtu LOIGMN ~MRAD R ~ VEfRdFO VYEF 10 CG6TR1Llp1 F NR OIGREP~NG'E7 w:'F •7T&9. iif RNGIELR 9~Q4D R FTELMTELY Itl1FEL AT 11E IEJEMNn tlrfCE >•PQ QEyp.UTpi EXISTING CONDITIONS 22 Attachment ~ ~ -~. ~~'~, ~ ~.: ~ ~ ~®®® sue.... ~. .,.~ ~' ~~ ~~,.. ®~ ®® ~® ~ ~®r ' ~ ~ ®® ~` }O' w.r y .~.,.. a . ~' . ~ i arr+ee rRr is ~ mnru ~xaz~s ~r~ ~eovaF, xo~s~® , ~ t pCAPIgAD Wi~MTNN iA1LM fQRI A LQl~MTRI OF R lLliClJif TREES LAAAEO OI1S FOR lafb/AA VrtFN WLF O40YE5 IYVk !!!N FRID L0.^ATED AN] RIfRElNr APFROYJUTE LOLATIpI 04GTE7 TREE FRDTiCTIp! IYMIL WULVAY AAO TGPOC AMY MKY} /ltlCQFRG b• VEST114~0 RROFE'ARwL liRY1LEl, AC. OH AWIST 6. MRMI FOR'ITEO AREA ATTf1'oT3 TO PRk:fRwE TRNS OIITlL! U'ITS ~ 7Q07. AODRIOWL UII.RY iFORlL4TGN !A]4,N wU ARQ'~-0 OF G01oTRIJL110N ARE TO OF ~1~FE. 6T CTY OF fVFliv000, ISlL~OTA AS~Af ORANIL~ ' LA~OFO07 fMG1!lRNG LLTiAl1Y OTfER.7 n0 VAWWAXI!! 7. Ali OEODC.73 TPEH LUtGER THiN 8 GAWSR Oft C TALL FOR EHM! !Y}RSIIO OR WRRTlK AS YO TIR AGLIIQALT OF CRilR10.R TRIES ARE 70 EE RKU0E7 AT A T.I RATtl PIR 7H TKgipuTgN /Rp~oEO AY OMlq ANY Ntl ALl FdD - LRY OE fN#AEWIXA. PONS S~gED ! If1D Yt~EO F07R TG LdtlYRLC'TILN. F AlfY OOLWP/AILi~3 ARE N7ff0. TrE ftGFifR LAN7FONt c IIgAD ~ eTwpAleAT ~1+'R~ AT TN IfNYAPOLtl OiIGF 3. ALL 00-LAP GOITONM000, ANO !Or EIbEP ilae3 ARE faT CDC !R 6T TIE OfY OF 1VJLGWQOE AN) ARE IGT Aa¢ ~~~ RGOt1REC Ta IF c`tirao. rrds RROY~O Tn ~ e crx a ~MVE ' i ~ NQR'ff[ q PFE '/ SRSGE 7 ROAR ~ 50 100 YorwL Tras ~~ - ~ Ar TI REriALVr.n, zro rees RIaaQU. SCAS.E IN P£E'f ~FEPfR rv >ceT L-im Fm oee.nu~ar LAIDSLAPE FANAf TREE REMOVAL PLAN 23 4 N Attachment ~Q ~NO'!'E8 ~ ~ a,+o sv wi.~ roeins°~'~°s~s.m~ai~K. •wL.n tenet dF iPeL YpSti1M1 IIlL1fY Mt IM<eu YVM Yhi FtOLOLO K TY d NAIMIXO. euescra L.>-eLT OMYN6f. lluLYeftS YLMMG CP9L~1r sIY! Ntl VMRMIIIL, eefa rrrtt]fLO a t+emn .s to m •cnawcr w rasrloI resuaa or ona+e, w+r eo ~ aLn uxonrte sauv R MLo yRrso rwR m cameJrnnL .wt mctmw¢es .e Ioee, IM e't11M LCLD i nmttLLY NftfeG ti 1Mf ItalYO! ann IOt IItl0.Nbl ~AxEA svu~AxYw~~ atueen aearo sr u ~mn z.~ lrssuwe n..w u~, ne wes ts,el IIeGC W,MS L. 22r IG'RV;< 14i Neu [nn te) 1ltl~Ml L. 1Lft AL'RtJ aoau r~DES AREA Su1t6dAftY~~ rrua ltovotLo tsa+ne m nun tY uun r.etvaa ~ .asn sae .aen ipu S~ ACe14 Ye Mae! ~52TE PLAN ti0TE5 r~ 1 ~~LW LMT YO LDae ~~O~s~ 6 ME Mi Y>;1Lu pasusL: ar+w w R strho rrc„ ~ ~~ Mes well vamo ]tars. lI.(.lnM L[(S]p ~s.45 TO R /IMite VGM F t'rd6 YN1L atLam ersM e• w d+tts wJS Al IL oLG+IR alas to aseL. a~M GteWI ewrw lot. 1tall CM R OeI1MW lson M YalsslL e 10 R leLe He tLl taDYi1Ci19rI ]IRRL r,~Mle]. r wn N9RT~eLPMt~LftOI.TLi WN Rn0.N4L GCiLL4~ fg1f. R GHrt® TO TC MNL 61pJL~LF+l Iw6 MILK r0 HY tnMfM ?. pevgm cw~i~tiL .[aLlart A® wD tLxla e ©rv~a2e~ia~ lRrenpa~a .ew~iorta r~tn ~`~nmtt. Q CNDIn LRW >•tCt ®PARRDdG 3U10[AAY~ MPYm aseesm rw sn ae c-mI rat ~scrlew+ pnNiJ ~MtM ]!NL] Iti eJ Wi t"' /F4tJetLt ]t•ii• IhRJJ ] t4 roru rnera xwLS exo~wo ~~ ~•. pylyyA a, p, ~, t~ ~IlfatllM ~11IeRT NweO r..• ftie] ~ ~CHlRt eStLlt (heJ 6 LL rmeL MAIIC ]fNLe /40W W a K somarL stoma! tees >s~ ttieJ >w L,. ncpmLt n.... that U ti. tmu nw.+L sr.us Macro tom n_ Teltt Tu.• Ieel[e1V 1W 1~/I 1 1 ~, `, 1 SITE PLAN 24 4 N Attach~ent 11 PARKING SUMMARY PROVED PARKING: AUDI S#TE (SEE C-601 FOR ADDITIONAL DETALS) STANDARD STALLS {gxl8) 43! EA. ACCESSIBLE STALLS (8x 18) 5 EA. TOTAL PAQKWG STALLS PROVIDED 435 EA. DEALERSHIPS ~E2, #.3, ~4, AND AUTOMOTIVE SUPPORT STANDARD STALLS {qx l8) 1154 EA. ACCESSIBLE STALLS (8x IB) - 15 EA. TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 116q EA. ADDIT#ONAL STORAGE AREA STANDARD STALLS {~!z 18) 340 EA. ACCESSIBLE STALLS (8x 18) 0 EA. TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVI©ED 340 EA. TOTAL STALLS PROPOSED I,A45 EA. PROJECT PARKING SUMMARY 25 Attachment 12 S`A 0' ~ '" F .~ ___. r rn ______ _______~_ (~ y- M "` LLLLLLYYYY~~ .~ w ., r r r rt - ~ t i i r ~ + - ~ ~ + .. iI r, w ' ~ ~F rrr d d d d ~' "~ -'' ~ /~ g r `ti ~~ _ ~ dW .Gnw d `-J 1 f d ~ t + ~~ X~~ f ~~ _ - rr. .S r~ ~ L ~ t r ~'. ~ f - 4 - - ~ ~ 1 __ _ , i3 Y . _ _ 1 ~ d ~ ~ .. ~`'~ + • ) t ~ ~ ' 1'; ~``~l EI', • ~ y74 ~~ ~~~ 1 4 ~GRA-ING k AAYpI~ NOTS9 ' ~6R09P61i COA'7'RPL NUT'm~ R9 ~lrOR ..cmo wiw,m +iP+ ~..~ •.w.o.n ~ ..a.m+r+ s. ~aaMr faot furnr eww« ., ouw+P r ~..~.. Mews h ~iRaoL wlPSltpl 11faf. s. ~ Ahb Weal fKPS Ieara~l. YPr eP. u¢wv otPMnw t,h~ Yu ernurt P ~ v .a~`wn'.!„ «.+.. w ~ .oa nn,nm°1°i°ie aa.. ~Piy w~ x Aflw- wrw tr r+/wA CafertP stl eeeeesilAM m nur nre m P aPP fw aV.r+v :.u..ark w+ wP wn w wnro. °' aver .ens. ne :... ewnr ra wn .. o..,.~ P CMfYrRa eC'M1s p11~riFa P ws M wmF.ceP auu ewVM ie IM wY NeP errwe. awN e ' aalar Pi1Pd V l ~ w waV RYi ~Pi ~ PM W~nse~iMM M K p~1~f ~~ broe YMi er~mrmf~eP ~ r e6- ~ Y~ wlVfRb ~We ~~iw ew) eel us~t 'pet ~ pe~tba ~WYaws ~ h M ~Pr~ Ple I~~ P rw~ wuKMR ~ru W ` A51o ~ M M lOr h ~iwCl 1Wf Y eacb s14A ~I ~h n! NC1 typo ~AYeY !~ f YfrPMG M MNie. mr ~s wart ~s~u rra M k arar ~u w~~ PxT VFV ~ M ~MwPaw ~ 1~1 i W Naryi Mie IW ~,A eeLL~u) wx ~ nx1'w. Ms fsINL }Mra a rK AY1 al OaeVf erJ , l w~ ae0f wo TWO Ama M .T i WwsL Mt M b t0 efe P MTMCIS nMPNee 6s~ erwRSww 4 fua lwppw w0.w1eF LMT o~iPr1. u ~irsM • eePne tC P fnVrfV Efw P4v yo eW! 6tlr ne ~ ~ ~w ~ ia oMf 1 enlefuw M niemfA~ sP ~1 N~u~We!/Of W weY 14i Berta Gaff s~ elrt !v1 ~ ~u rc ~ Been. !n Nas uWitsiM1 r M! ~o rAwo fW~ tYIR w. u6rrPr en • PiaeC W selYlYn ru1K 1191 w1f1 Near M lwul ~y P aNwt fro rfsfr111 ePi w0 ~ uw nY f W~ ' mew P WCW PePyrR w awa wwex ul Pu~wr m rrm M ~ ~ fPfW. fe xrt ifw wt . Cpae fkRk1W a4 P. Ir nn ~ M AfPSAn ra Osm Jw.71 m'VIa1M euPW a p nff MII m M MW WR w dwrrt. Y M npeP no m~Lls Per 4e 1° ~~~yf °y~fe~, r ~+w. ~r~ s mr b ru 1y Ce~n[ew ePr us. p slAMlf fR PmaaiOV [PaaRid r~ifa~ ~ p r. ti qty xa+fxo urra wu P sFeXO au wu ~~~ ~i n~wa 0 mwfm1> ~ n ~ '~ 'e~n~. n 1Mi wMf~ ue., r chw ~wlm uO W A ~ ~e %eF N W[ n f14ef is0! ieq wp~~ M M~ iwPkP d M1R'u ~Ft. s nw p w~fMp C~ u ~fs~a~ CPMn xr MuC~ n w We'aCwC r ~~m ! warm w 4~VfPr wM¢e ~p as y}tea PM P(pefsflri Y f.! rtmfOwCk Isae~ HL 111r •~ .oo.ea~.°. en w.rwnr+rsr+n. as ew.Pawa .~ ra..n.e w.~w...r u w n iK .w.. v~ v «~ MO a~n n ~ oi P i+r ' ' a wcwie~ :wf ~ `..n w1Piw~ wawaoa i~ w+ f ~ ~J 1 r~ c w~ a ef > P~r..u"ifw.v.rr ~i PHASE ONE GRADING PLAN 2fi 4 N. Attarhmant 1~ -------, ~, ~ ----_--_------- --•-----~------- ----- - - - _ ---_ -y- r aan~ r ly ~t ~ ` ~ ' w .r ~. ... „~ ~~',, l 4 .l'~ __ _- ~ _ . _v~~ r _ i 1 z _ ~ X11. Y'. " Vi N ' .~ _ ~~~~ ~ !4' aye-~-ems ,_-"5" . ':~ .~ c eu~e.w. a ~. _ ~ ;~' ° ~y { -~ -+~+~ 1 - ' y ~~' ~. and T _ r L ~4w -' ~ '~1 +'F'~. ~' +_4 ~~ hr.' tay.:.~uJ ''1' ' `R ..SS~S~~ _ e ~r '- .. ~:~ ~': ~ tiw~wi. ~.~~ I ~~ T T r ~~~ ~ r r { ~.~ ~,. r - ~ .. ~~~_. _. .. Wig ` ~. ~NOY~ ~GRAPP1c ~ PA4VIG NOYi$ ~~ROWON OONTNOL NOT89~ ~11[R'uN1MG XiLl~ m ~..~„ "" ,b.~..~,.~....,~...,..~.v~.... ~~d~~ ... .~ .,....~ .... r., PROPOSED GRADING PLAN z~ N C n~~acnmenL ~~ -~ -_ --- .~ _ _, ~ I 4 v ~ , ! ~ ~ I ~~ Vii. 1 I ,_ ~ ~~~ f~~ .~ .-~ ~. ` ~, ~ ~ `:~ t ~ , . ^ ~~~ I~ ! } ~. _ ~ tip.,. - r _'. ~ i , K.~."y r..r.~ ..t ~~' „ ~ ~ Nor ~ f !~. '1 - ', F~'• ~~ i # ! •' k mar rJ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ , w _ ~- .a - ~ : ~ 4 ~ . __ A~ rr ~~~ ` ~N~'li'3 ~$I'1'8/UTILITY CON'P~C'15~ oI]TIt1TY N01'6S oI.EGf:?III r ..bans r.a.rrrar ,rsrx am rzw+er ro raoarwn w.av.v r~~wm rcieow aar..H. w. « ~mrrr waewro. wo.x r.] wsna +~+ar newrrz r w i '~' rb]/x¢WCr woaty caa~c]s ., ~..n.. m w w ~...:..«.. ~ ~is.eim rem a«rw a m~]w ra ` i `~°w n rw a r...ro w ..roar. af..'~C.~.i ~ wmn .~,. ^"° ~ „nn.e o ~..uwom. r m n a r ~eearrac ra«]wr ano w rw Mrr. m~ rxr r]e r. `~'maioe wu . rao rwv«a rte. ra ~aerar..... roc«rr+~a rn nam. a rrar4i waw x M rwuaa wMR oa.~.rrru cw. u ruu.ua nniww w error rwrx swrns jwi ru aw~"r ru . rw e.n.wx nw~.r~ w u*..ae n x. ~ ~g a~n.rn wris \` ~mrra+ ~ ~~ w qf] Or wq{Ya9 ~ af0 07 ~ b [mil Grvlr. .l. `bU ]~nm rW bq Ntxw ru m r]u ~ ~ x~ ~~ pr~9 r Fein rcu „ r Ibr VY w lep ~ ~M~tlArrtW r !A r.M1 rW rW.Ner err rLtcr~rr iar o-eu+' naa r. co-«r'r m ~ are we. >r and Iii ++~r-.].n nu Iwl ~.w ••e '~Q ~~ ~° a.. Warn *a w ..ecaa.,a .rr» mr et. wr...are. rrxa,wr or.me a x. G ~ uu ~.~w.]ar e~ ~f wrrw esc~. U ~lor ]reF;~ ~ ~,r "ro ~,.~.. '"`" p~ ODrHER AR ~ .aamrrre ra. r.wc w...~. ro be..rc ~rrnr eera].rna ,o ON C~ ~Rrr~ no ~aI] . rwsre~rrw err .~ ~ 0~ I i ! ~ c ~ a re am ereu]w rar..e+u ro rmss ra« ] w w~c uw ~Wxbrrs +]ba~u. rsr m.+. se ceeir~maf°" e.e~ ~~~ ~xr~ae rx. ~ ~ d]iw rK rmrwc rmrna°~'i~xr sa.a at +nro •.mro re ne e.oeea aw~w~rw~ , SCALE I!1 IRRT PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN zs 1 ~f _~ r+L ~acr~rrren z ~~ ~"," ...~ ~ • .. ~ ~ -- ~ .~; p ~~ .. ~. _ y~-~ - o.~u.wwr ~ - r` ~~ {`g _ v;~r ~ ~ ~x .. _ _,.,,. ~ !PR![.DmttARY PLANS 9CAblF17LE n~cmwae te® ~,../ n emw ~....rr ~r n :eew ns~uwea h ae ~ eau our . oaer aaY neu e .~ ~rA ~3 " ~ eaan u s.~ r .e.. a+ ~` sp .w mw •r u.. ear rw . >s ~ wa ran rr x. r sx . a. ro rug cm :: rx. w+ ea . aer ~ 5 .ru au :r cr. .~ ~ . r a[,`p .w ran v er.. w •a .: p© ..u ms rr r ~ ... rw ..w ©Q wu cx~w µ~ J _~ rnHlrsrous txeeB e ~rsasa M r w r ax , >," y y new ~ . ~ . rr. w su . w y y rerwaer ~, • ~~, W r w. r w . w ~© wror. ~~ e ewrcw... rtir.c~ a .- ra ~w . w ^~ ~wm ~L-ND9CAPL NOT&9 .ar rr aM can ro aewma ..c .o acw. ~ ~_ m nmo ro rrc ~cNW ee uar.°ACVmew"ina~ww cmaawre wirw+w o.nu co..nnca ~LANpBCAPF RLQUQR7lS i, ma aa.ec n' a eea rn.o..n asaere. m ~r ~wr~ e n. ~rv,+wu .w+eeran wn M ..sr rac++~w a rwr~rt. uo e..u w m war aeon re rem aeea. oava ro o.raarnw r oe~sa+er ^twex nr a+rr n wum a ve. ur ro ra wee rew `a°ia w.w m rwr Mn~ caws ~a`weem~ .n wuo rm« ..rs n.r.rre eo avu w,w . rwre e.1 rao< e...e•e rrn'"~0aiau ~ roum°w w~10ro .a..O1°. ~ m~.~ we a ~ nam arc ~. x wemrw sr..~~ . .wry ~.u orrorrr m ~.,m wm r uweawo ws+ow rnnpt•+oA M mwm r~~s a sORfr•~ l~Cro ~ ~ rwr..wa nw. mr n.w.. uus en ~ kAC ~ ~a6m~f. ~,~~~~rp c~.LTea G n r ^ m e NV M'1 IG1 saaav wlNllea'0 IeIU RAM M 4a !f0 NM 1 J' ~ ~ _ ~ eyr~ k re. NsIA rrrwn rv Poaaiem~ a~ rr~imiu~ii wP 4~ t~rG b r~T 4W w air ~ q s _ t PI '~~-y~akw mruc'ru e ro rwev ru wvrxr wrw u wewc wM5 K b rMlae~e IP ~ RVtvl ~tu~, rtl~' ~Pe01 rYa~ w M watalrr. n0• e~wl.ln IA n. pes s dal s • !o Y eV/W to M wOY•YE ~ ~T W'r~ nn eeR +B MlYUar ova ~ettN~Y w W~ ~ u I~a`n Nw! W' s I~YLw~~ H fw LANDSCAPE PLAN 29 N Attachment 76 ~PR~fAf[Y pi.~xl' a.rw «w aCCIWdJ6 [aQp ~} • yr a~ w .w . a.~ ~ ... m,~ e ~ „ ~.. ... ... n. C? ..... ~. cons~meoas ~ w..... o.o~. ~ M. w p.. ,,. '~""~ ' K ~,. .~, .. ~... p .~.... . ~.. .~. n.. ~. onxuQaxu mm ® ' o~ ~ ~.. A. w . A. ,p ~..... A ~. ~., ,.,m. ..., .a M , ~ bf¢7 ,~ p ~ a... .~. ~.~.,a.~ ...~. ,,, ~ , .. p® ,...~ p n ~+' w ~ w. w ~ wa~wr • a ~^ a. ar er a~ ~ v ©© was C~M/lAOIIB 9MIV91 • ~ x n rm f.. w ©® +iwx ~ f wYO arw N'w N~ i~.ll DD nMa~Ml ~~ wa«n4/P~0?INWd ~ ~1 ~plwaa win ~ r~ M Y . t ]. S. a1 ew ~ ~~ ~ +I~ ~~ ~ y IG! ii ~ r ©© NwW. ~a,ax~ © ~.~. .~....~. ,..~. ..r N.o. m,. '~ mas raw. x w. ~ ~ ... r. na ~urmscaPS xa'I'ss o~ .a ~., . ~.. .,~.~. ~ ~ ~,.. a „„,,,,,,,, ,....,,.,a ~. ~ M p ..a pR.a. ,... wn ~ ~....~ ~ ~. ~....e ... ~~ ` ~ ~` rc~`u°' ~ ~ :: v.~. ~.r°~^'i...'~.m i. ~. a~os o wn aw. a...'°'i ~arm~~ w:e °« 'wi°m'~°. wM,u w a~,l[~+Inls nn MY, [sYl r ~mw n w~ w wM w 1M~ i]I ww w cwro~'. 1Yna~ w N ~~~ i r uWOtN eYnq:4y s n mRMn w -~' M m[ff1WUuWp~wo~~nRWwlai~w or u~ ~u ~~/ pwryit WI~1Y iY rJS wY m f~atl. front qua ~ ww ~~m ti LMVAaA M~Ka~T At W.n ~ Wi~A pR F Gmwl~iW wleC M uufi s 1~s Y~lo e N %~m~VP A LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS 30 4 N. ~~ T OVERALL SEEDING HAP Attachment 17 ENLA 81TE ING Ahf -PHASE 1 ~N0778 r. ~.~ ~..~. o.+~r ....~~.. ~;r ....nm n.~ ~.a .~.. u.wan ~~ r,Ne~+s °omai ur wf0e .Mi. M owow woo ~ ixv ~o ~ `fir n.~KL win :r ~nw+.~'~' ~9TCS PLAN NGTB'S~ . n. o...n oo. m+~d~.rti. non.. ~o..i..~.. ~ x .wwR,n. uo .o~.as.n aw r.o ...u . ~.~ .a .,, w.n n,n.,... p~.a ~..,..m~ gyn. ti ~. ~ r ~ .e ,unre rc no,w wnr ~PAID@IG yiTYl[AftY~ n.~.. gee .. a oww~ "' •• iir,': u.i~ u. ti wn mw na+n ru~r nw+ . ~ ~nua wrie~o rra ~i ~..r~w, m.. wsw x.....owo .a .. m~ r.nm nwa w .~ ~FL&'1'ARVDiG iALLB~ M ~nn~.a . .~ ~a ..,....,,. mw.w..o~.. a..y.c ,~.~ p~~~~. ..~ w ..~s~r, n.q tee.' w ,~.. ,~u w wn y+n "cor+a.uc~ .fin ~" ~e~ ~ :,n .~ ... ~+.,. R.. ~ ~'v.+.a. ~b 1 ° °~°i~s've~+ `ww mom~~aw ~~ "`~'~iv~:o afp1-r~w~ A1ia:1O~ ~ a°ia u ~.. .A.a t. n.~~...,..ep n...<.., a oa~.e r""m. +o ~~ + ~ w.o~.n. ~ , ~ro ~ ~ ""' w w..ow M o.p ~'.~ :i.n m n. nou...o o,n. '~.w ..d .. ~'nr`s°~°..e`~°r saw: "` .o..oo cw..nr w., r . ia-o~ ENLARGED SITE PLAN -AUDI 31 4 N Attachment i8 ' ~ ~~~ W ~ ~NL41~~p LANflBGAPE PLAFS - PI-IQSE I arai E: I' . JO'-1' ~F,~R1.Y 7I~OiTENANCE k EYALUATlON OF NITIVE GRM98/60R8 P1ANT1NG8 o.rx. w. ra..oo.M wom.c w a,. t~+w a n.e..i ara ~., ...... aw.o "~"`w'i w-e .onwx rrosr • ®'ro w.a"°~ nanrws:"0iw. wi n`a..°AS'~wr. a"µmwro w rrw rM w.n rn.w~~~ ~ w..tl°~..~"oe.r F.wYt anwr i IR~+l R,n ~w~~t1 MG. E wyvnrwn.e~rm~r .ex. .n.. w~i rr~`ia .. r, .... +o.~ ..LL ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN -AUDI 32 4~ N Attach L ~~ tu 0 ( o ri !. [ A IOL£51 ~ L i' 6.7 133 1241 HA s73 {4A ie7 ~~ 43.9 42.! X8.4 i9.6 X33.6 ~43 3fi.7 9 ' • e7iu U .4 36A { ~ 0 ~ k ~.. .F 34-9 .fi ~ A i 3 ~ .{ i A 4. 32 37.{ .t ~ J ~ l8 I.l LT 6 34.1 L ~ ~ 6273 ~ 5 I L l 1 .3 LA 3a 0. ~ ~ 1 l!{.7 129A x'7,1 U 7 713 X6,3 14A '2es $73 EL.9 9 l{A lL4 16 L] ~A 125.1 }B. '1 3 i s 33 X4.9 T,7 /~ ` h ~~ I ~ O L./ ~ i{,3 E4,7 ~X,1 13,7 11i: 11.6 lL9 j b gi5 i!lA IL{ 22L i?IA ilb 17.7 ~i X1.9 X29,3 19. . 6R l i.4 's.9 ~i lib A ] 3 IB 16 ue ~ 1 ~ 3S7 ~Ll ~3A .] °Sl 1{3 ~R9 ~ 9 lob 41 1 A 11L 4 SU 4 fe.1 ~ 7 '~ 132 ~ i 14 { 1 b 14.9 52 Q~IIs oD V 9A 1 5A 0 ~ is7 l A lB7 9 l 3 lsi L ~ lea "i ~ IA 36 843~SF ~ irA z+z '22.2 Ua 2es ps.e lei i36 L „ ~ I /n''~ ] 30A X92 b 32 X17 laA ~ ~ }t ~~ sA ~ L U 1 .5 11 11.9 i-{ 5.1 192 1217 '21.1 l7.{ 1211 i?3.] ~3t S9A 6 {R .0 4,2 4A ` ~ ~.{ 70.5 4 f6. 9• l .7 {Z L l.B 3.9 6A ~.L 12.a IA ob L{ 0,4 l.{ i3 i9 i'.33 ].7 b./ l3A 113 '9.9 127 i19 iez b./ 1s L ~A 1 1. ; ~, 9 0 12 12 .{ i b L ~ c. 1 AUDI PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 33 4 N Attachment 2p FoaiprSnt 36520 ec1.Ft. AUDI FIRST FLOOR PLAN 34 4 N nzzacnmen~ AUDI SECOND FLOOR PLAN 3~ 4 N Httacnment AUDI BUILDING ELEVATIONS 36 4 N Attachment 23 § 44-429 MAPLEWOOD CODE (6) Other uses, where the ci council finds that the use would be compatible with the neighborhood and the intent this division. (Code 19$2, § 36-129) . Sec. 44-430. Building deaign. Buildings in an NC neighborhood commerci is with their surrounding Land uses. if more than one organized as a unit. Pedestrians should be able to vehicular traffic lanes. There shall be no exterior s shall he screened as required by section 44-1 (Code 19$2, § 36-130(a)) ct shall designed to be compatible is o site, they shall be planned and between stores without crossing e, er than a trash receptacle which Sea. 44.431. Lot coverage. For an NC neighborh commercial district, at least 15 percent of site shall be landscaped. (Code 1982, § 3 0(b)) Secs. 44-432-44-470. Reserved. DIVISION 9. CO COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICT* Sec. 44-471. Purpose and intent. (a) The CO commercial office district is established primarily to provide areas fox the development of professional and administrative otces, related uses together with supportive, low-intensity commercial uses in locations in close proximity to residential areas where such uses can conveniently serve the public, and to create a suitable environment for such uses and buildings specially designed for their purposes, located on sites large enough to provide room for appropriate separation of uses, landscaped open spaces and off-street parking facilities. (b) This district is intended to be located primarily on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts and is designed to lessen the impact of these uses on residential areas. ;ode 1982, § 36-136) ec. 44-472. Permitted uses. In a CO commercial office district, unless otherwise provided in this chapter, no building or se of land shall be erected, structurally altered or expanded, except for one or mare of the llowing uses: (1) Professional offices. {2) Administrative of&ces. *Cross reference-Businesses and licensing, ch. 14. CD44:64 37 ZONING (3) Medical and dental offices and clinics, § 44-473 (4) Financial offices, stock brokerages, banks and savings and loans, real estate offces and other general business offices. (5} Related commercial uses, including incidental services, such as restaurants, pharma- cies and retail sales which serve primarily the occupants and patrons of the permitted office use, when conducted within the same building. Related commercial uses shall not exceed 25 percent of the total net floor area of the building. (6) Supportive commercial uses. The following freestanding uses may be permitted upon approval by the city council of a special exception: specialty or gift stores, office supply, ticket agency, travel service, opticians and similar uses. The uses provided for in this subsection may be the sole use of a particular property or building or maybe combined with any permitted ar conditional uses allowed in the district, upon compliance with the necessary special exception or special use procedures. (Code 1982, § 36-137) Sec. 44-473. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted in a CO commercial office district subsequent to review and approval of a conditional use permit: (1) Medical and dental laboratories, not including the manufacture of pharmaceutical or other products for general sales and distribution. (2) Public and quasipublic uses appropriate to the district, such as hospitals; convalescent hospitals; and professional, business and technical schools. {3) Public utility and service buildings, structures and uses appropriate to the district. It is the intent of this subsection to provide for uses which supply public or quasipublic services which are of a substantially automated nature or require only periodic maintenance, such as water pumping stations, telephone relay or switching facilities and similar uses. It is not intended that office facilities, maintenance dispatching depots or any use which generates regular daily use or traffic would fall within this definition. (4) Restaurants. In keeping with the intent and purpose of the CO district, a restaurant use does not include adrive-in or any restaurant commonly referred to as "fast food" or "franchise" wherein the emphasis is on automobile-oriented clientele or where any sizeable proportion of the total activity is involved in takeout orders intended for consumption other than within the building. Questions of the applicability of this definition to an individual proposal shall be reviewed by the planning commission, which shall forward a recommendation to the city council for final determination. (6) Any other office use which is determined to be the same general character as the uses in this section. {Code 1982, § 36-138) CD44:65 38 § 44-474 MAPLEWOOD CODE Sec. 44-474. Determination of questions concerning appropriateness of use within district. Where there is a question concerning the appropriateness of a particular use as permitted or conditional within the CO commercial office district, the planning commission shall review the question and forward a recommendation to the city council far final determination. (Code 1982, § 36-139) Secs. 44-475-44-610. Reserved. DIVISION L0. BC BUSINESS COMMERCIAL DTSTRICT* Subdivision I. In General Sec. 44-511. Permitted uses. The city shall only permit the following uses by right in a BC business commercial district: (1) A dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use. (2) Hotel, motel or tourist cabins. (3} Retail or commercial rental activities, office, clinic, studio, bank, personal service, day care center, mortuary ar funeral home, restaurant or on-sale liquor business subject to license. All on-sale liquor business not associated with a restaurant shall be at least 350 feet from any property that the city is planning for residential use. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building. (4) For motor vehicles, the foIIowing activities if not within 350 feet of any property that the city is planning fax residential use: a. The sale or leasing of new motor vehicles. b. The sale yr leasing of new and used motor vehicles when all such activities are on the same property. c. The rental of motor vehicles as an accessory use to the sale or leasing of new motor vehicles. (5) Publishing, photocopying or printing establishment. {6) Indoor theater. (7) Laundry. (8) Bakery or candy shop, which produces goods for an-premises retail sale. (9) Parking lot as a principal use. (10) Motor vehicle accessory installation center. *Cross reference-Businesses and licensing, ch. 14. CD44:66 39 ZONING § 44-512 (11) CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG {liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities. Tanks shaII not exceed a water capacity of 1,500 gallons for those dispensing facilities whose primary purpose is to produce power and light for nonvehicle uses, such as at 3M, NSP's facility on CenturyAvenue, or far temporary use on construction sites. Refer to the licensing requirements in chapter 14, article X. (12} CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) retail dispensing facilities-Limited capacity, Tanks shall not exceed a water capacity of 1,000 gallons for dispensing facilities as an accessory use to a motor fuel station or convenience store, the primary purpose of which is the filling of LPG tanks far recreational vehicles, portable heaters and gas grids. These limited-capacity dispensing facilities shall be at least 350 feet from any property the city is planning for residential use. (13) Repair shop, except motor fuel stations or maintenance garages. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building, (14) Organized athletic activities, such as dance, physical fitness or karate, that are conducted indoors. (15) Itinerant carnivals, subject to the licensing requirements irx chapter 8, article N (16) Any use that would be similar to any of the uses in subsections (1) through (15} of this section, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (17) Adult use accessory, subject to the requirements in chapter 14, article Ili. {Code 1982, § 36-151(a); Ord. No. 825, § 1, 4-8-2002; Ord. No. 835, § 2, 11-13-2002) Sec. 44-5i2. Conditional uses. In a BC business commercial district, the following uses must have a conditional use permit: (1) All permitted uses in the R-3 district. (2) Processing and distributing station for beverages. (3) Place of amusement, recreation or assembly, other than an indoor theater, indoor athletic activity or itinerant carnival. (4) The exterior storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials, but not including a junkyard, salvage automobile, or other wrecking yard. The city may require screening of such uses pursuant to the screening requirements of subsection (6)a of this section. (5) For motor vehicles, the following activities, if not within 350 feet of any property that the city is planning for residential use: a. The sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. b. The storage or rental of motor vehicles. CD44:67 4U § 44-512 MApLEWOOD CODE (6} Metal storage buildings, if the building meets the findings for a conditional use permit and the following findings: a. Na more than 20 percent of the building would be visible from streets or the highest topographical point of the nearest residential lot lines. b. The building would not be of lesser quality than surrounding development. If the screening is removed ar dies and the owner does not replace it, the city council may require that the owner remove the building. If the value of the building exceeds $25,000.00, the city council shall allow at least afive-year amortization period. (7) Craftsman shop. (8) Motor fuel stations, motor vehicle wash or maintenance garages, if they meet the findings for a conditional use permit and the following findings: a. The setback of any overhead canopy shall be at least 15 feet from the street right-of--way line and ffve feet from a nonresidential property line. b. The setbacks to a residential lot line in section 44-20(c)(6) shall include motor vehicle washes, fuel dispensers or canopies. c. All parts of major motor fuel stations, motor vehicle washes or maintenance garages shall be at least 350 feet from any property the city is planning for residential use. d. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises for more than 48 hours, except in storage areas that are fully screened from public view. e. All trash, waste materials and obsolete parts shall be stored within an enclosed trash container. f. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance. Minor maintenance shall include work such as fire replacement or inflation, adding oil or wiper fluid replacement. g. The city must approve the location and type of outdoor storage in the conditional use permit. h. Noise from operations, including external speakers, shall not exceed the noise standards of the state pollution control agency. i. No motor fixel station or maintenance garage within 350 feet of a residential lot line shall be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The city council may allow ox require different hours of operation as part of the approval process of a conditional use permit for maintenance garages and motor fuel stations, j. Fuel station dispenser islands, parking areas, and drives shall be screened from residential lot lines in conformance with section 44-19(c) and (d). k. Parking shall be limited to paved areas. CD44:68 4~ ZONING § 44-512 1. All new or replacement underground fuel storage tanks shall meet the standards of state statutes and the standards of the state pollution control agency. Such tanks shall also have a UL listing appropriate for their use. In addition, installation plans shall be submitted to the state fire marshal's office for approval. m. There shall be leak detection equipment on all new and existing tanks according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) schedule deadlines. Leak detec- tion facilities shall include electronic (in tank) monitoring equipment as well as manual daily measurement and recording of tank levels. Records of daily tank levels, fuel purchases and fuel sales shall always be available on site for inspection by the fire marshal. n. Vents from an underground fuel storage tank shall be 200 feet from a residential lot line. The city council may approve a lesser setback if the developer can prove that the topography or existing or proposed buildings will prevent fumes from reaching a residential lot line. o. Motor vehicle washes shall be subject to the same conditions as stated for motor vehicle fuel stations, with the following additional conditions: 1. Water from a motor vehicle wash shall not drain onto a public street or access. A drainage system shall be installed, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. There shall be stacking space far at least four vehicles. (9) Privately owned mining or material recycling facility. The processing of recyclable materials shaIl be in an enclosed building and shall be at least 350 feet from any property the city is planning far residential use. (10} Any use that would be similar to any of the uses in subsections (X) through (10) of this section, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (11} Any building or outside use, except parking, that is within 75 feet of a residential building. (12) Pawnbroker as defined in chapter 14, article XiI. All pawnbrokers are subject to the following: a. They must be located at least 500 feet from a residential lot line amd at least 500 feet of any school or church. b. They must have city licensing as regulated in chapter 14, article XII. (13) Retail firearms sales if the business, store or shop is at least 350 feet from any property the city is planning far residential use. AIl such businesses are subject to all applicable state and federal licenses. CD44:69 42 § 44-636 MAPLEWOOD CODE DIVISION 12. M-1 LIGHT' MANUFACTURING DISTRICT* Sec. 44-636. Permitted uses. The city shall permit the following uses by right in the M-1 light manufacturing district: (1} Any use listed as a permitted use in a BC (business commercial) district, (2) Wholesale business establishments. (3) Custom shop for making articles or products sold on the premises. (4) Plumbing, heating, air conditioning, glazing, painting, paper handling, roofing, ven- tilating and electrical contractors; blacksmith shop; carpentry, soldering ar welding shop. (5) Bottling establishment. {6} Manufacturing, assembly or processing of: _ a. Canvas and canvas products. b. Clothing and other textile products. c. Electrical equipment, appliances and supplies, except heavy electrical machinery. d. Food products, except meat, poultry yr fish. e. Jewelry, clocks or watches. f. Leather products. g. Medical, dental or drafting equipment, optical goods. h. Musical instruments. i. Perfumes, pharmaceutical products, rubber products and synthetic treated fabrics. j. Small products from the following previously prepared materials: cork, feathers, felt, fur, glass, hair, horn, paper, plastics or shells. (7) Carpet and rug cleaning. (8) Dyeing plant. (9) Laboratory, research, experimental or testing. (10) School. (11) Warehouse. {12) Accessory use on the same lot with and customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in subsections (1} through (11) of this section. (13) Adult use principal, sexually oriented businesses and adult use accessory subject to the requirements in chapter 14, article III. (Code 1982, § 36-186) *Cross reference-Businesses and licensing, ch. 14. CD44:74 43 ZONING Sec. 44-637. Conditional uses. § 44-677 {a) In the M-1 light manufacturing district, the following uses must have a conditional use permit: (1) Any conditional use in the BC (business commercial) district, subject to the same conditions. (2) Any use of the same character as a permitted use in section 44-835. {3) Trucking yard or terminal. (4} Privately owned mining or material recycling facilities, if at least 350 feet from any property the city is planning for residential use. (b) No building or exterior use, except parking, maybe erected, altered or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a conditional use permit. (Code 1982, § 36-187) Secs. 44-638-~4-675. Reserved. DNiSION 13. M-2 HEAVY DISTRICT* Sec. 44-676. Permitted uses. The following are permitted uses the M-2 (1) Any use permitted in the M-1 'strict e (2) One dwelling unit in combinatio wit (Code 1982, § 36-201; Ord. Na. $35, § 4, 1 -],~1-', manufacturing district: adult use accessory. a business use. Sec. 44677. Conditional uses. The city permits the following uses of a conditional use permit: {1) Privately owned recycling fa (2) Distillation of bones and w oc heavy manufacturing district after approval {3) incmeratar or reduction garbage, offal and ad animals. (4) The processing of rags junk when enclosed wi 'n a building. (5) Manufacture of a. Asphalt or asp alt products. b. Explosives or reworks, including their storage. c. Fertilizer, w em manufactured from organic materi s. d. Gypsum, c went, pester or plaster of Paris. *Cross referene Businesses and licensing, ch. 14. CD44:75 44 Attachment 24 Ken Roberts From: Tina Carstens [tina{c~rvvmwd.orgj Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:30 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Maplewood Imports Hi Ken, The District has been working with the applicant and is overall pleased with the stormwater management plan for the site. Below are the special provisions that will be included on our permit. It goes before our Board on December 8th. Tina Carstens 1. Revised plans shall include a detail for the check dams used in the temporary drainage Swale. 2. Revised plans shall show the stabilization plan of the temporary drainage Swale. 3. Revised plans shall show an interim erosion and sediment control plan for the Swale until it becomes established with vegetation. 4. A note shall be added to the plans that states the wet detention basin shall be regraded to the original design contours after every phase of the project. 5. This permit (#04-49) will cover Fhase 1 of the project as shown on Sheet C-105 on plans dated 11/10/04. This permit also approves the overall stormwater management plan for the site fully developed. The comprehensive plan should he submitted with each additional phase that is submitted for approval. 45 Attachment 25 Maplewood Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Imports Auto Cen#er PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: December 10, 2004 l_eJeune Investment has submitted revised plans for the construction of four auto dealerships on the former Miggler property. The applicant revised the plans in response to the review of their initial submittal. The first review raised several issues that the applicant has addressed in their current submittal. The previous {first) submittal proposed the phased construction of four car dealerships, an automotive support building, and about 2,224 paved parking spaces on the 32-acre site. The storm water treatment system proposed was a standard pond, built within the wetland buffer of Gerken Pond. At full development, about 7a percent of the site would have been impervious surface. The current submittal also proposes the phased construction of four car dealerships and an automotive support building. The number of parking spaces has been reduced from 2,224 to 9,945. Approximately 2.4 acres of the parking area (340 spaces) is intended for storage and would be constructed using a pervious pavement system. The plans now show all storm water treatment systems located outside the wetland buffer. The proposed treatment system now includes a storm water pond of sufficient size and depth to meet the city's water quality standard by itself. Downstream of the pond, the plans show an infiltration basin larger than the storm water pond. In addition to the pond and infiltration basin, the plans show nine rainwater gardens to promote infiltration and pretreatment of runoff from the parking lot. At full development, the amount of impervious surface is reduced from 70 percent of the site in the initial submittal to about 65 percent in the current submittal. All comments from the initial review are included below in italics. They are followed by comments on how the current submittal addresses these comments. 1. Since Gerten Pond is a large, high qualify wetland with an undisturbed buffer area in good condition, it is the opinion of engineering sfaff that the storm water pond for this project should not encroach on the wetland buffer. As stated earlier, the current submittal does not encroach on the wetland buffer. 2. The high percentage of impervious surface significantly increases the runoff volume to the wetland over fhe existing conditions. For the proposed plan, the runoff volumes for the 1, 10 and 100 year events represent increases of 240%, 115 % and 80 % respecfively over existing conditions. As stated earlier, the cun'ent submittal reflects a 5 percent reduction in impervious surface compared to the initial submittal. The proposed 65 percent impervious fraction is comparable to that of a town home development. With the additional water quality improvements, there will be no storm water discharge from the site for rainfall events of ~46 one inch or less. While runoff volumes will be higher compared to the present undeveloped condition, this would be true for almost any type of developed condition. 3. Alfhough the proposed storm wafer pond limits the peak outflow from the property, increased volumes move relatively quickly fo the nearby wetland. Under the proposed condition for the 1, 10 and 100 year storm events, the wetland will receive 87%, 84 % and 77% of fhe runoff volume within 24 hours respectively. This comment is still true. However, runoff from the first one inch of rainfall will remain on site and be infiltrated. 4. With the increased storm water runoff from paved surfaces and rooftops of the proposal reaching the wetland in a relatively short amount of time, staff has a concern abouf the increased temperature of the runoff and what effect fhis may have on the wetland. As stated in comment under item #2, the level of impervious surface proposed currently is comparable to town homes. The addition of water quality measures above and beyond the current city standard also makes this less of a concern. 5. The development is about 1200 feet (byroad) from a residential area (fo the north). Staff has questions as to what effect the development might have on the immediate area as to increased traffic (both from trucks and cars). City staff also has questions as to whether there is adequate access from the existing streets for the development. Additional information on traffic impacts is needed. The applicant has provided a traffic study for the project which was conducted by Traffic Data, lnc. City staff had this study reviewed by the city's traffEC engineering consultant Tom Sohrweide of SEH, Inc. Preliminary comments from Mr. Sohrweide (in a separate attachment} indicate the study and report may need to be refined. The study examines traffic at the four main intersections in the area, during the weekday afternoon peals hours and weekend midday peak hour for three development options. The three development options studied were No-Build (property remains undeveloped), the property is developed as an office building, and the property is developed as auto dealerships. The study draws the following conclusions: Forecasting to 2006, a!I four intersections examined will operate acceptably during the weekend midday peak hour under all of the three development options. However, during the weekday afternoon peak hours, only two of the four will operate acceptably under all of the three development options. The intersections forecast to operate unacceptably by 2006 under any of the three development options are the westbound TH611Connor Avenue intersection and the TH361English Street intersection. The traffic study also recommends improvements at these two intersections that would enable "acceptable" traffic operation in 2006, but does not quantify the benefits, or expected level of service resulting from the proposed improvements. In addition, it is the stated intent of MnDOT that both of these intersections would eventually be closed, raising possible access issues not only for this development, but for the other 47 businesses in the area as well. Additional staff comments on this aspect of the submittal will be forthcoming when the traffic study has been finalized and reviewed. 6. The applicant proposes to grade and prepare the site this year, and build the first and second buildings in 2005 and 2006. Particular attention will need fo be paid to the phasing of this project in the area of erosion control. Interim stabilization of the site until the development is completed will be an important piece of the erosion and sediment control plan. The applicant and his engineer met with city and watershed staff to discuss the current proposal, as welt as the phasing of the project. The proposed interim condition was arrived at with input from the city and the watershed. 7. Staff feels thaf this developmenf calls for storm water best management practices beyond the minimum requirements. This is due to the intensity of the development and because of the potential for adverse environmental effecfs. Discussions with staff from the Ramsey Washingfon Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) indicate they are in agreement on this assessment. City staff feels that the current proposal reflects the use of storm water best management practices well beyond the minimum requirements. 8. There does not appear to be any issues with providing utilities to the site. This comment is still applicable. Review Summary: The initial submittal for this project proposed the minimum storm water best management practices, encroachment into the wetland setback buffer and the high percentage of impervious surface typically associa#ed with commercial development. In addition, staff had concerns as to what effect the development would have on traffic in the surrounding area. These concerns led to a staff recommendation that the applicant complete an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the project to address these concerns. Given the quality of the current submittal, and the attention given to addressing the concerns staff raised in the review of the initial submittal, staff believes the proposed project no longer warrants the preparation of an F~1W. Staff also feels that this development, as proposed, is a reasonable use of this property. That being said, the #allowing comments apply to the current submittal: 1. It is recommended that the traffic study be revised as recommended by the city's traffic engineering consultant with an eye toward addressing capacity and possible access issues in more detail, and that city staff be given time to review the revised study and comment on it. In general: There are some larger regional traffic concerns related to TH 61 and TH 36. The proposed development will impact the regional transportation system 48 less-than would a development that. #its the current zoning. There is no basis of denying the proposal based on the status or possible effects on tie regional transportation system: 'The developerwould likely. be partially responsible for any mitigation ar street improvements deemed necessary on the local system. Same traffic mitigation measures recommended by the traffic study will likely be necessary, however staff was not able to recommend those measures at the time this review was prepared. At this point, staff recommends that any traffic mitigation improvements that are deemed necessary by the traffic study, the city's traffic engineering consultant and the Maplewood city engineer, shall be made a financial requirement of the development and a condition of approval. 2. Provided the project is approved, the engineering department would require approval of final plans, to include all utilities as well as details on sump structures, outlet structures and rainwater garden construction before the city would issue a grading permit for the site. 3. The city will require maintenance agreements for the storm water pond, infiltration basin, and the rainwa#er gardens and native turf establishment. 4. The applican# shall obtain all necessary approvals and permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA}, MnDOT and the RWMWD. 5. The applicant should contact the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services, (MCES), to determine if there are any site conditions or restrictions, as a major sanita sewer interceptor passes through the west end of the property near the frontage road]. 49 Attachment 26 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR MAPLEWOODIMPORTS #2449 MAPLEWOOD, MN Prepared by TDI October 2044 r~r~4; ~ `~'~~~ ~;. .. .~ L; -.. ~_ ~~ ~~, ;~,~~;~ 50 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Maplewood Imparts is proposing to build an automobile dealership and sales facility on the "Migler Property" east of Trunk Highway 61 and southeast of Duluth Street in Maplewood, MN (see Figure 1). The facility will include one 42,000 square foot Audi sales and service center along with three other 42,000 square foot automobile sales and service centers {see the Appendix far the proposed site plan). The 31.96 acre site is currently undeveloped. 5.43 acres along the westerly portion of the site is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) and the balance of the site is zoned CO (Commercial Office District). Automobile sales and service centers are currently allowed under the M-1 zoning, but not the CO zoning. Maplewood Imports is requesting a zoning change of the CO portion of the site to M-1. The purpose of this report is to analyze how the nearby roadway system will accommodate the proposed dealership traffic and compare that with how the system would operate if an office park is built on the site. One or two of the dealership buildings will likely be occupied by 2006 with the remaining dealership buildings being built over the next ten years. For ease in making the comparison between office park and auto dealership, it is assumed the site will be fully occupied as an office park or auto dealership in 2006 even though build out will take longer. 2.Exrsrlnr~ coNDIriONs Traffic operations were analyzed for the weekday p.m. peak hour and the Saturday midday peak hour at the following intersections: • TH 61 and County Road C • TH 61 and Connor Avenue • County Road C and Duluth Street • TH 36 and English Street The existing lane configurations and traffic con#rol for the intersections are shown in Figure 2. TDI staff collected peak hour turning movement counts at ±he study inte,se,.tions in October 2004. The data is included in the Appendix. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. A,?a,,le~~~~ood ;r,„ports .#24~~ Traf`ic Impact °epa~f "via~r6'i'dOOCj. Mfr^~ October 2004 51 6rG~# yn - ~ ; tVta~'E~;'' Par yr,~a~na , G1'Cr,~µ.. • ~ `L ielrv.e .rr~r ~K;~s 3a.~d •: 81 ~52 Ea~r_~,.--~ 1 •1CP ~P~t"P Yc`,"Rr 6rookPrn r Pima _""f" .rnfet Fridley Wew ---r .-.---_-..._ __.~: ~~; _ ~B.~ghton Shoreviesh~ "r,~;~ stir ~ wSahtomedi ~ . _ - •- ~_~ystal ~ntfiany .,~_.._ 38 . ' North'=t. s 10D eC' e.____ .~Paur Golden eroiOya yy ', Fa a"on _ ada• ~ Sera ~s:~ _va~ley -~ ~ eHeights r,haple~nraod ,~ Lake -~.-.-~Ni~fifiB8p0 15 ..• 10 Elmo ~- 280 ~ ~~akdale St. Loui ~1 Pa _ 1T SE:~PaUI..~,~, ' eHopkias ~j. ~~~` Vp'oodburr km z ~.. F~"s ~~/~ • L- Site Location: Maplewood tmpdrts Maplewood, MN f .._ ~ t'? ~ ' i+R .... ~- .A I. ~7 ~' ~. ~ ; ~ C~ui7'ty Road C E ~~ ~_ _ r. ~ . , m a C% t ~ _ ceasaa.; r ~~ ~ erta rrt ~~, F~~r :^~ ~a a rti a is .:r.~f __ _ .5;.~ Grr ~I, ;t ,~~.e..-- -.. - 1Viking 7c _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ s _'_ Vii;` ~~ ~~ -~~y ~~ ! F:S r _-.h. ~~tr my ko.•,r~ ~ ~ ~ La ric 1~'d _ S.$~~~nu` ~.~ ~~u, w ~ - ~ -~-- Leialld'F:tl ~ y.. ~3~~ huri .µ •.f . ate- ,. _ ~ ~ ~. a c>. _._.. .' .inns=tics ~;• - _ _. ~ v..~ _ - -.. .. __. y .-. ..~- .,, ~, Site Location: Maplewood Imports Figure 1 - Location Maps Maplewood lmports #2449 Maplewood, MN -'. Prepared t?y TDI -* ~:.??~, October 20D4 52 SIGNAL CaRtlC ^ (35 mph) ;l CoRdC CoRdC ! t (30mph} ~ (35mpl~) 1 ~- ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ S~O~ i Q ~ .- ~ N ~E _~ ~- N o Scale r. "`~ ~ _r _ 8 ~zr !a :i P i< r fait*~bl «r'4. ti, W ~ '.+.. ~~ .... .,.... i Y - ~ -rf r:~ ~ ~ qi EGIJ R4 ~i E 4? .._ .. .~Lfi7l~:•ki?art .. ._ __. i j~ ~ '~ ~~ ~- t , ~! Y rr~~ !. L ~- ~. Q~ ~,, `~, ~ G e r~ ~ is .~,•~~ ~' r r: a! a ,~ t t ~- y..:.. ~ . _.._ . _._ ... .._ u a lr ~ __ ._.. _ ~_ .. ~T. .. _ .~. r .r ~L . _r_ ~' _"r.L~l"and F:_d ~ ~s; ~andhurr't r~~,~ _, •_ ~ ~' ~ _.;. ~ . _y / ~ ~~TOP ~-~ ~`-- ConnorAve (~ mph7 -~ ~ _~__~ Nate Canner Ave has sins and meoians meant t0 allow ony right turns onto TH 61, but vehicles made the piohihlted moves anyway Figure 2 - Existing Geornetrics & Traffic Control Maplewood Imports #2449 Maplewood, MN ~' L- Prepared by TDi O t c ober 2DD4 53 e ~o< m ~ ~ ~ 63!59 - 172139 ~ ' -- 63139 Go Rd C ~ 1117 j ~ ~-- $4f73 Co Rd C 4641204 - 1 , 182/69 ~ ~ ~ 271p -~ ~ 150154 - I I ' ~ 29!27 ~-~ co m o a ~ a~° ~ N 1 No Swie r ,., ~ _ ~ ~ L Y ~' . - f"•~.0 f} E Its .:., t' i'3: -. C L'.r ~. ~. lJ ~ ~_. _....,.. r4. ` ~,~ ,~ ~ CouEtfy Road C E <? ~_.. f'a.~ ~ r _ }~ .. - - ~- rJ=, r~L~r'oS~~`~~''r '~'~rr'~'Sf 4, ~ 'lr' ~tii~s•~~_t..._; ,~ Site ~. ... ~ ~3 .- ,tiv1 ~ ~7?rtr~15 +is ... 1 ~~i~Etr'aly .~.. ,....._.,.._..,.. .: _......._,. ., ~,...... _........___ f. _ .. ._ _ ~~ ~~ '~ ~'7Eell1C~vle~tV r~ _ kti 1 _ ... ~ _ 36 ~~ cr1 ~ ~ r ~~ ~~~ r~ p a ~ .~ ate. r ~r ... ..._-. _ _~ _ ti L~ -~ ~~} La ik ~,.~ = ~, ... z- .... ~ a -- _ w fin2n1C~37Gf r..u i~ y I~G~d - ~-; Laur~4 Its ~ u`~ *' `'7 L'el'and:Fd ~ ~.r a:,ttdl,~r;i..~`~ a~i' ... ^~,.' g. _ Q~, ~~ G'i -.~ +. _,-_ _ ,.a" ~ _- (~N~V r r SY ConnorAve ~ ~ ~ ~~~$ 72D140 -r ~~ '~ \ ~ N j R r ~ f~ N ~ ~('I d? e~ r ~ '~-- 27110 -182517 593 1 a ~ ~ 90!112 H 36 tr~r,a----l 2 72 711 695 1 i ~ 19$1139 ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ N M1 L_ e~encf Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Midday Saturday Peafc Mour xx%!yy% Figure 3 - Existing Turning Movement Volumes Maplewood Imports #2449 Maplewood, MN Prepared by TDI ~ '~ October 2004 54 An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the existing intersections per the Highway Capacify Manual. The intersection is assigned a "Leval of Service" letter grade based on the intersection geometry, traffic volumes, and traffic control. Level of Service A (LOS A) represents light traffic flow (free flaw conditions} while Level of Service F (L05 F) represents heavy traffic flaw (over capacity conditions). LOS D is considered acceptable in urban conditions, although LOS C or better is preferred. In addition to the L05 grade for the whale intersection, the stop controlled, side street approaches also get LOS grades. An unsignalized intersection that has side-street stop control usually has a good LOS grade for the intersectian because most of the traffic is moving through without stopping, It is common though for the side street approach to have a poor LOS during the peak hours. LOS F is considered acceptable at stop controlled approaches as long as the approach volumes are relatively light and there are no stacking problems. The LOS calculated at a stop sign controlled intersection is different than the LOS calcclated at a signalized intersectian. Motorists have more tolerance for delay at a traffic signal than they do at a stop sign. The existing peak hour LOS results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 (the LOS calculations are included in the Appendix}. Table 1 -Existing Weekdav PM Peak Hour I`OS RPSUits Itttersectian 2004 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour TH 61 and Count Road C C (27.9) TH 61 and Connor Avenue A 1.7 / E (35,x' Count Road C and Duluth Street A (2.2 / C 16.5 TH 36 and En lish Street D 61.2) i ne nrst ~~~ gives the LU5 tar the intersection followed by the average delay (in seconds) at the intersection in parentheses. The second LOS gives the LOS for the stopped approach with the poorest operation followed by the approach delay (in seconds) in parentheses. Table 2 - Existin Saturda Midda Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection 2004 Saturday Midda Peak Hour TH 61 and Count Road C B 10.1 TH 61 and Connor Avenue A (0.$)1 B 13.3 Count Raad C and Duluth Street A 0.9)1 B 10.1 TH 36 and En lish Street C (21,6) ne nrss ~~~ gwes the ~u~ for the ~ntersecticn followed by the average delay (in seconds) at the intersection in parentheses. The second LO5 gives the LOS for the stopped approach with the poorest operation followed by the approach delay (in seconds) in parentheses. The City's traffic engineering consultant Hated that there is some concern in the City about the daily traffic volume on County Road C east of Duluth Street since P,~ap?eth~ood lmpor±s #2?49 Traff,+"c !n?pavt Repc:n ,4faple:vood. MN Octorer 2004 55 it is a residential area. There were 6,20D vehicles per day using Gounty Road C east of Duluth Street in 2003 according to MnIDOT's Traffic Flow Map. 3,TRAFFfC FORECASTS A trip generation analysis was performed for the site based on the methods and rates published in the !TE Trip Generation Manual, 7rr' Edition. Trip generation rates are shown for the site if it is developed as an office park (as predominantly zoned) or if it is developed as a car dealership site (as proposed). The results are shown for a typical weekday in Table 3 and for a typical Saturday in Table 4. Table 3 - Weekda ITE Land Trig Generation Tri Rates __ Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Description Trips` In Out In Out 750 Office Park (31.96 acres) 6,23E 754 66 136 76$ New Car Dealership $41 {Four 42,000 Sq Ft 5,601 255 90 173 271 Dealershi s) 'Daily trips are round trips -one car in plus out of the business (i.e. 1.600 daily trips = 800 vehicles) Table 4 -Saturday Trip Generation ITE Tri Rates Land Daily Midda Peak Haur Use Description Trips* In Out 750 Office Park 31.96 acres 937 38 38 841 'New Car Dealership 3,533 254 244 Four 42,000 S Ft Dealerships) * Daily tri ps are round trips -one car in plus out of the busine ss (i.e. 1,6 00 daily trips = 800 vehicles) Traffic forecasts were developed far the year 2006 weekday p.m. peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour. It was determined #hat the car dealerships will have the largest impact on these peak hours and that it is not necessary to analyze the weekday a.m. peak hour. A 2% yearly growth rate was used to account for growth in background traffic on the area roadways. The directional trip distributions for the uses in Tables 3 and 4 are shown in Figure 4. The trip distributions are based an existing travel patterns in the area. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by the proposed development are shown in the traffic forecasts on Figures 5 and 6. !t is anticipated that there will be 6,450 vehicles per day using County Road C east of Duluth Street in the 2006 No-Build scenario, 6,760 in 2006 with the office park, and 6,730 with the car dealerships. Maplewood ln~ports #249 7r:~1Y~c Impact P,epcrt 6 Maples-Mood; MN Oc.+ober 2001 5b ~r - ` ~' .b 's r~ ~.s i _;...t IV1 F. rb it ~.hl .i,'i ~ ~ . ~ i~.~:ilrn.nr~ ~t t~a. ~. L3, ~' ~ .~ . ~ - .,.t ~` ~ = ; ~ C6!'1f RQ7~ ~ ~ '-. W~~ r ~ ,,~~ 6 ~ F~~fr {n _ _ ~ R ~ i Site ,~ . W.__ ~Erv3t~i,~~f _ . .. G~R,~ai~ ~i Grand~v~e4,,~ ~,,~ plr,anpri Gr_=~ 25%130.010 .__.. ~' .s " Y~°~Q kr r.. - <<~__ _...Lefa~r~~ 'n:d _ ~ ~ ~__.~, 10%15% •! u n ~ti c~ r~ ,r LiJ-' ~ - 36 •~. ;~~ ~"- ~ - ~. T ._ _ _ } r, Sb~r~'dc. ~ 1 ~~~ .r `ry ~ _. Wit' .mow ~ar~dhurst rs,M ,~ _.. .... ,.... ~ ._ Qk . __.._ .. ~ '~ e, ...~. _ ., ~ , . _ .. l,.. _ ~, ., _ ... t~ . _.. Le end ~~ Car Dealership Trip Distrik~ution ~ r----- Office Park Trip Distribution XX %~~l Figure 4 - Trip Dis#ribu#ions Maplewood Imports #2449 Maplewood, MN Prepared by TQI ` .~ ~; ` ~ :~~, October 2004 t'= !~~` ~~ ~7 ~° ~g ~ ~ ~ L-- 7ono/~o -1 soli so~i e9 ' ~ 7DJ7017a Co Rd C ~ 10f2812D S ~ 9a117011~0 Co Rd C 5001500!59(7 - 790119a1~9a----~ ~ ~ ~~~Q'~~` i 601161160 ---- ~ ~ ~ o°o io 3oraor3o --. ~ o o ~ ~ $~Q to ~~r°s J ~~o ~ M ~ ~ N ~~ ~ a ~ N NO SCale M t` ~ ~ ~^_~ ~ ~ 1 _. '~ ~ " ~: ~~ a. F~~' ~Q~~eS~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~` ~~ ~~` ~f,,-.-. iP yPL~n: Q +' 4 ~+: Q t3 ~ IY1 ~ ~'e ~ K i= ~ CCU~J~ ~Rfi~ ~i 1` 4,.~ ~ .m ~;?a~P1~2xf a~ ; r ~~~ ., ~ .:~ Site _ __ _. _ ~a,~sc7,~7s- ~ ,~ w' ~o. ~' r1, Serrt~i'rt =~.. . ~ F _. _. , ~w^s f9~rvr7lS.wi~ r ~`Mra~rS 1;~.. '{7 F3riCial~3rV ~~ _.._.. _ _ ~ ~.... ~kFn~ ~€ ~q". ~„ ffff ~~ ,, .tip-,~ ^' i :..~ ~- --~.,.'ri ape `t ~ - . ;anR ~'U ~ ~C~ ,,; -_ +_"- a,; ~3tstrr ~Cf _ ~h2.+i!'-9s~f ~'•~~ ~w .~ ~~' ~'" I ~ r1 _ „- Leland F c t•;; ,,ar,~ihurs#~r;~a es ; w , ..._ ._. ~~ . - ~- v =' ~. J ~ n ~ti ~ n =;~,~ .. . ~, k ~ ~ ~ O Q ~~~ annorAve I ~ I' `--6a11601130 izat~zwiz9~. 1 ~ r Hof ~~ = N Q N C a~a ~ ~ ~ a9r7ano -,890/189D11980 f J , ~ sorsare9 TH 3fi 2al50/5a -- ' r zs.rorzsa9naao- } i I z19n10l210~ ~Po ~~ Legend No-Build Forecasts with Office Park Forecasts with Car Dealerships XX%~~/%1 ZZ Figure 5 - 2006 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Forecasts Maplewood [mports #2449 Maplewood, MN Prepared by TQI 1: .~• ;~-r; October 2D04 r E47 ES nI t~E ,K'~^ (~ ~, L' .. ~ '~ ~~' ~~' r , r; - L3 a 1Jj tr ~ _. t ~~ 0 o a ti ~~ ° °. ~ ~ 50/6p16p -- -14D11401140 ! I ~ - 40/40/40 ~ Ftd C ~ 10110120 f ~ ~-- 80180f10D ^o Rd L 2'10121 0121 0 - 70/70/70 -" \ ~ ~ 0101D ~~ ~ i 5p/60150 --- ~i 30f3(]130 --~ 0 0 0 10 0 aka ~ o M~~ aka ~ s ~ o I r I No Scala :• .:r h" Vii: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 4 _ ~It '' Caunty Ra G E QI ~r r. +. . ~'. fad . tit ~4} .. s is-T~°~~ ~ '~7erv'27~ *14' ~ ' ra~ii~.7r~ ~"~ _.. _. ~., _.v._ 4 w ~ ~ ,.... F.7 _` ~ .. ~1a ~I~F od ~r _. .._ randYte+~+.+, -`.__ .. _.. _ .. - _._.._ _ .. _-e . .~, ~ ~ ... - - ~ _ .r -fin a ~, ...___ w' Q, ~ 1ti~/ L7 i ." : _ ~ _~~ ft~(ri~ Y'E~?q~ra ~ c ~ ~;~ L3uiic Rd ,_. ah~'~'~04~ -,~,"4f~~„ .~ ,,.: k __.. ~' ~lrilGtl9n ~~~ ... ~ ~} -; ~ z .... w ..:.... _ ~ ,,,~. r. a ~ O N aaa 6 O N x Ave I ~ ~ ~ 3014D180 40/40/40 -~ ~~ r ~~ I ° ~ a~ \ ~/ Q \ ^ N ~ ~ O Q n ~ ~ '~ 1012(7170 J ~ ! ---- 166011b5D+1560 l .~ 120!120!120 TH 35 20130/20 -~---' 1750/17&011750 -- ,~ 1 aD/14a1 ao ~ $ o ~ m~~ / ~ / legend No$uild Forecasts with Office Park Forecasts with Car dealerships XX°1°l~ly%!u% Figure fi - 2005 Saturday Midday Peak Hour Forecasts Maplewood Imports #2449 Maplewood, MN Pre ared b TDI ~ ~~' P Y October 2004 59 4.TRAFFIC OPERATIQNS ANALYSIS MnlDOT staffi reviewed the proposed Maplewood Imports site plan and noted in an October 7, 2004 letter to the City of Maplewood that the Connor Avenue intersection with TH 61 and the English Street intersection with TH 36 may be closed in the future. However, a date has not been set for these closures. It is assumed that these intersections will remain open through the study year of 200G and that a large scale transportation study of the area will be done before any intersections are closed. The traffic forecasts shown on Figures 5 and 6 were used with the existing traffic control and kane configurations shown in Figure 2 to calculate LOS grades for the study intersections. The LOS results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 - !`orecasted Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Results 20Q6 with 2006 with Intersection Nv-Build Offices Dealerships TH 61 8 County C (32.2) D (38.7) D {36.5) Road C TH 61 8~ Connor Avenue A (1.8} / E (36.8) A (7.6)1 F (148.8) A (3.8) / F {75.7} County Road C & Duluth Street A (2.0)1 C (15.5) A {5.6) I C (23.3) A (3.1) / C (17.9) TH 36 & English E {66.3) F (172.9) F (85.8) Street The first L05 g'RVes the LOS #or the intersection followed by the average delay (in seconds} at the intersection in parentheses. The second LOS gives the LOS for the stopped approach with the poorest operation followed by the approach delay (in seconds) in parentheses, Table 6 -Forecasted Saturda Midda Peak Hour LOS Results 2006 with 2006 with Intersection No-Build Offices Dealershi s TH 61 & County g {11.2} B (11.9} B (12.3} Road C TH 69 & Connor Avenue A (0.8) 1 B (13.B} A {0.9) I B {13.8} A (1.2)1 B (14.8) County Road C A {1.0) ! B (10.1) A {1.0)1 B (10.1) A (1.9) I B (10.8) & Duluth Street TH 36 & English C (22.0) C (22.0) C (23.2) Street The first LOS gives the LOS for the intersection followed by the average delay (in seconds} at the intersection in parentheses. The second LOS gives the LOS for the stopped approach with the poorest operation followed by the approach delay (in seconds} in parentheses. The Level of Service calculations are in the Appendix. They include LOS calculations for each intersection approach as well as a queuing analysis. !!?aple~a~ood Irt~por-ts #2449 Tragic Impact Report 10 fi0 Ma pletvood. 1l~'N October 2004 All of the intersections and stop sign controlled approaches operate acceptably in 200+5 during the Saturday midday peak hour under the no-build, office and car dealership scenarios. The TH 611County Road C and County Road C1Duluth Street intersections and stop sign controlled approaches operate acceptably in 2006 during the weekday p.m. peak hour under the no-build, office and car dealership scenarios. The TH 361English Street intersection will operate unacceptably in 2006 during the weekday p.m. peak hour under the nv-build, office and car dealership scenarios. The westbound TH 61/Connor Avenue approach will operate at LOS E in 2006 during the weekday p.m. peak hour no-build scenario. It will operate at LOS F during the 2006 weekday p.m. peak hour office and car dealership scenarios. The westbound approach will have acceptable stacking in the no- build scenario, but the stacking will be unacceptable in both the office and car dealership scenarios. 5.Mitigation Measures MnIDOT is aware of the poor performance at both the TH 611Connor Avenue intersection and the TH 36/English Street intersection. That is why they plan to close them in the future (as previously described). Following are mitigation plans that will allow these intersections to operate acceptably during the typical weekday p.m. peak hour in the near term with the car dealerships in place. TH 361English Street This intersection will operate unacceptably at LOSE (66.3 seconds of average delay at the intersection) in the 2006 p.m. peak hour under the no-build scenario. It will operate unacceptably at LOS F (85.6 seconds of average delay at the intersection) in the 2006 p.m. peak hour if the car dealership is built. The intersection will operate acceptably under the car dealership scenario at LOS D 152.4 seconds of average delay at the intersection) if the southbound approach is widened to include one exclusive left turn lane, one through Pane, and one right turn lane. The close proximity of the English StreetlMaplewood Drive (the northern TH 36 frontage road) intersection to the TH 361English Street intersection make this a less than ideal solution, but it is the only feasible solution to mitigate the poor LOS. The TH 361English Street intersection will be significantly over capacity (LOS F - 172.9 seconds of average delay at the intersection] in the 2006 p.m. peak hour if the office park is built. The only way to mitigate the poor operation without closing the median on TH 36 is to upgrade the northbound and southbound approaches to include one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane as well as add another through lane in each direction on TH 36. Then the intersection will operate at LOS D (50.4 seconds of average delay at the intersection). A92r~le~~vaod lmpar~!s #2448 Tr~ri`ic Impact P,epor~ 1E ~v!d;~r~VvGGu. Octot;er 2004 s~ TH 61/Cannor Avenue The Highway Capacity Manua! does not take channeiized right turn lanes into account when calculating LOS, but the addition of a larger "pork chop" island and better channelization on the westbound approach combined with a yield control instead of stop control will mitigate the stacking problem identified in the above analysts. 6.COIIGIUSIOI7S a!?Cr( R@C~I77IT7~'I1C~at1017S Maplewood Imparts is proposing to build an automobile dealership and sales facility on the "Migler Property" east of Trunk Highway 61 and southeast of Duluth Street in Maplewood, MN. The facility will include one 42,000 square foot Audi sales and service center along with three other 42,000 square foot automobile sales and service centers. The 31.96 acre site is currently undeveloped. 5.43 acres along the westerly portion of the site is zoned tit-1 (Light Manufacturing District) and the balance of the site is zoned CO {Commercial Office District). Automobile sales and service centers are currently allowed under the M-1 zoning, but not the CO zoning. Maplewood Imports is requesting a zoning change of the CO portion of the site to M-1. The purpose of this report is to analyze haw the nearby roadway system will accommodate the proposed dealership traffic and compare that with how the system would operate if an office park is built on the site. One or two of the dealership buildings will likely be occupied by 2006 with the remaining dealership buildings being built over the next ten years. For ease in making the comparison between office park and auto dealership, it is assumed the site will be fully occupied as an office park or auto dealership in 2006 even though build out will take longer. The above analysis shows that the roadway network is much busier during the weekday p.m. peak hour than it is during the Saturday midday peak hour. The site with an office park will generate significantly more traffic during the weekday p.m. peak hour than it will if it is developed as the proposed car dealership, Developing the site as a car dealership will have significantly less impact on the roadway network than developing the site as an office park. The TH 36/English Street and TH 61/Connor Avenue intersections will operate unacceptably during the 2006 weekday p.m. peak whether or not the site is developed. These intersections can operate acceptably with the car dealership being built if minor improvements are made to the intersections. The only way to mitigate the poor opera#ion of these intersections if the site is developed as an office park is to add through lanes on TH 36 and TH 61. ll9aple:vood Imports #2449 ^2 NG,ole~~~ood, Pv?,'~' Traffic Ir7~pacf Report October 2004 sz The car dealership will generate more traffic an Saturdays than the office park, causing slightly mare delay, but all of the intersections will operate acceptably on Saturdays whether the car dealership is built or the office park is built. Although the a.m, peak hour was not analyzed, based on the a.m. peak ho~!r trip generation rates far the office park and car dealership the area roadways would be much more impacted in the morning rush hour by an office park than they would be by the car dealerships. The TH 611Cannor Avenue and TH 36/English Street intersections will operate unacceptably in 2006 whether ar not the site is developed. Based on the above traffic analysis, the only way to mitigate the poor operations at these intersections if the site is developed as an office park is to add through lanes to the highways or close the medians to make these intersections right-in/right-out accesses. Closing the medians would have significant impacts on the mayor roadways in the area and restrict access to the existing businesses. The existing roadway network can accommodate the proposed car dealership in 2006 if the following improvements are made: • TH 61/Connor Avenue: Build a westbound to northbound, yield controlled channefized right turn with an acceleration lane onto TH 61. • TH 361English Street: Widen the southbound approach of English Street to provide one exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. These improvements would also be necessary to alleviate unacceptable Levels of Service at the intersections in 2008 even if the site is undeveloped. Map'eti^~loocllrnports #249 13 f?apes^.~nnd. M^d Traffic Impact Report Ocfober 200 63 Attachment 27 SEH December 10, 2004 RE: Maplewood, Minnesota Maplewood Imports Traffic Study Review SEH No. A-MAPLE020$.00 Mr. Chris Cavett, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Maplewood 1$30 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109-2702 Dear Chris: At your request, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Report for Maplewood imports as prepared by TDI and dated October 2004. My review is intended to assist the City's Planning Commission and Council in their deliberation on granting a zoning change for this proposed development. The applicant has proposed an automobile sales and service development far a 31.96 acre site, located east of Highway 61 between County Road C and Highway 36. The city requires a zoning change to allow this development. The appGcant's traffic study analyzes the impact of this development on the adjacent street system and compares it to an office park development (which is allowed under the current zoning for this site). 1 concur with the report's findings that the proposed auto-related development would be less impacting than an office park development, because it would generate less traffic. However, the analysis in the traffic report does not allow for a final determination of the mitigation measures necessary as a result of this development. The report is conservative by not using pass-by and multi-use trips and using average trip generation rates instead of rates that relate to specific size of the development. This means that the applicant's traffic report is estimating traffic volumes that are higher than what will likely occur. Contrary to this, a check of some of the 20(}6 forecast traffic volumes in the traffic report finds that some have been understated. While the signal operation analysis in the report does give a comparative evaluation, it does not present the true impact of the additional traffic volume. This is due to the use of improper signal timing data relating to intersection cycle length and left turn timing. Because the proposed development will generate less traffic volume than a development allowed by the current zoning, the City should look favorably toward the proposal from a traffic perspective. However, Lo determine what improvements may be necessary to efficiently accommodate the proposed development, the applicant's traffic consultant should revise the traffic study with regard to the above continents. This revision should also focus on the impact of traffic backup on Connor Avenue at Highway 61. The study also points out Mn/DOT's desire to modify highway access at both Connor Avenue and at English Street. Such changes could obviously be very impacting to this area regardless of type of development that occurs an this site and would take further mare in depth study over a greater area. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the City of Maplewood in review of this report. if you have any questions with regard to the above, please contact me at your convenience. Sinc rely, ~~ Thomas A. Sohrweide,l?E, PTOE Manager, Transportation Engineering Services is RECEIVED c: Ken Roberts, City of Maplewood f x:Ikolmaple1020$OO~correspondencelcavettl2]004traffic plancom.doc DEC 1 0 2004 64 Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, 5t. Paul, MN 55110-519b 5EH is an equal opportunity employer ~ www.sehinc.com 651.490.2000 ~ 800.325.2055 ~ 651.490.2150 fax LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 28 WHEREAS, Jon Hansen, representing the property owner, proposed a change to the city's land use plan from CO (commercial office) to M-1 {light manufacturing). WHEREAS, this change applies to the vacant property on the east side of Maplewood Drive, north of Gervais Avenue, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On December 20, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the proposed plan amendment. 2. On , 20D5, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described land use plan change because it will: 1. Provide for orderly development. 2. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. 3. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 4. Minimize the land planned for streets. 5. Minimize conflicts between land uses. 6. Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land especially when supportive services and facili#ies, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets are not available. 7. Help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan including: a. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. b. Safe and adequate access will be provided for a!I properties. c. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur sa that similar uses fronton the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man- made or natural barriers. d. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. e. Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. 65 f. Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. g. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. 8. The previous property owner never constructed the office park on the property that the CO land use designation was far, that the city had implemented far the site. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2005. 66 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 29 WHEREAS, Jon Hansen, representing the property owner, proposed a change to the city's zoning map from CO (commercial office} to M-1 (light manufacturing). WHEREAS, this change applies to the vacant property on the east side of Maplewood Drive, north of Gervais Avenue, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On December 20, 20x4, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present writ#en statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the proposed zoning map change. 2. On , 2005, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change wil! 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. 5. The previous property owner never constructed the office park on the property that the CO zoning designation was for, that the city had implemented for the site. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2Q05. 67 Attachment 30 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jon Hansen, representing the property owner, applied for a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle sales and maintenance complex, including a new Audi dealership and three other motor vehicle dealerships; WHEREAS, this permit applies to the vacant properties on the east side of Maplewood Drive, north of Gervais Avenue. The legal descriptions are: All of Lots 15, 16 and 17 lying Easterly of Duluth Street and Maplewood Drive, W. H. Howard's Garden Lots and all that part of Lot i8 lying easterly of Duluth S#reet and Maplewood Drive and wes#erly of the east 300 feet thereof, W. H. Howard's Garden Lots, Ramsey County, Minnesota {PINS 09-29-22-14-0007, 09-29-22-13-0001, 09-29-22-14-0002, 09-29-22-14-0003 and 09-29- 22-14-0004) {Addresses: 2444, 2464 and 2490 Maplewood Drive) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On December 20, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the proposed permit. 2. On , 2005, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved 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 be in con#ormity 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. 68 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the proposed Audi building must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The loading or unloading of automobiles on the public right-of--way is prohibited. 4. The operators of the dealerships shall park the automobiles and motor vehicles on designa#ed paved or engineered porous or permeable surfaces.. 5. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not store unlicensed or inoperable vehicles on the site for more than 48 hours, except in the buildings or in fully-screened storage areas. 6. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall store all garbage, trash, waste materials, tires, vehicles parts and obsolete parts in the buildings or in fully-enclosed trash containers or enclosures. 7. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not store any tires, vehicle parts, garbage, trash, waste materials or other debris outside. All such storage must be inside the buildings or in approved enclosures. 8. The owners and operators shall ensure that all vehicle repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance is done within enclosed buildings. 9. The owner and operator shall ensure that the noise from the business operations, including all external speakers, shall not exceed the state noise s#andards. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2pQ5. 69 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Used Auto Sales LOCATION: 2525 White Bear Avenue (Maplewood Auto Center) DATE: December 14, 2004 INTRODUCTION Anthony Wanjiku, of Fleetwood Motors, requested approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) far the sale of used cars at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. After scheduling the public hearing, while reviewing this request, staff found that there are presently three CUPs for used car sales or car rental currently in effect for the Maplewood Auta Center. These three uses are no longer in business and have closed shop at this location. These businesses were Credit Equity Used Car Sales, Midwest Auto Used Car Sales and Alamo Car Rental. The city code allows CUPs to be transferred to another user as long as the terms of that CUP apply. Staff has notified the applicant that he may utilize an existing CUP for used car sales, subject to their approval requirements. CONCLUSION Since a CUP for used car sales runs with the property, and not with the individual, this review can be waived. p:secl1lFleetwood Motors2 Attachment: Location Map ._ .__ . _'E a TH AVE - -- - - _ __ ~__ LQCATIQN .MAP