Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-07 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,May 7, 2013 7:00PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a.March19,2013 5.Public Hearings a.7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit Revision for the Tubman Center East Planned Unit Development, 1725 Monastery Way 6.New Business 7.Unfinished Business 8.Visitor Presentations 9.Commission Presentations a.Commission report for the April 8, 2013 city council meeting.Theitemreviewed was the swimming pool wetland-setback variance at 660 Eldridge Avenue East. Staff will present. b.Commission reportfor the city council meeting of April 29, 2013.This was a special meeting date. The item reviewed was the 3M EAW (environmental assessment worksheet). Staff will present. c.Commission representation for the May 13, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner Bierbaum is scheduled to attend. The item scheduled for review is the conditional use permit revision for the Tubman Center East. 10.Staff Presentations 11.Adjournment DRAFT MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 19,2013 1.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commissionwas held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00p.m.by Chairperson Fischer. 2.ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, CommissionerPresent Al Bierbaum, CommissionerPresent Absent Tushar Desai,Commissioner John Donofrio, CommissionerPresent Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent Lorraine Fischer, ChairpersonPresent Bill Kempe, CommissionerPresent Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent Absent Stephen Wensman, Commissioner Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA CommissionerKempe moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerTrippler.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES CommissionerKempemoved to approve theMarch 5,2013, PCminutes as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerArbuckle.Ayes –Commissioner’s Arbuckle, Bierbaum, Donofrio, Durand, & Kempe Abstentions –Chairperson Fischer & Commissioner Trippler The motion passed. 5.PUBLIC HEARING a.3MCompany Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), for a proposed Building at the NortheastCorner of McKnight Road and Conway Avenue i.Planner, Mike Martin introduced the item for 3M Company. ii.Berry Farrington, TDKA addressed the commission and gave the presentation. March 19, 2013 1 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes iii.Project Engineer, Darrin Schwankl, TDKA addressed and answered questions of the commission. iv.Roger Spinner, 3M Project Manager addressed and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing Nobody came forward to address the commission. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. The public hearing was for public comment.No action was required for this item. b.Variance Requests for a Wetland and Shoreland Ordinance Waiver and a Swimming Pool Fence Exemption, 660 Eldridge Avenue East i.Planner, Mike Martin gave the presentation on the variance request for a wetland and shoreland ordinance waiver and swimming pool fence exemption and answered questions of the commission. ii.The applicant,Amanda Schneider, 660 Eldridge Avenue East,addressed and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischeropened the public hearing. Nobody came forward to address the commission. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Durand moved to adopt the resolution approving a shoreland setback variance from Oehrline’s Lake –a Class 4 Public Water. Approval is based on the following reasons: a.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the shoreland setback requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. b.Approval of the requested shoreland setback variance would benefit the adjacent lake because the site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. c.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. d.The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the applicant’s plans and does not require a permit or have any state statutes that prevent the pool from being built. Approval of the shoreland setback variance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the Engineering Review report by Jon Jarosch andShannFinwall and Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe.Ayes –Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner’s Bierbaum, Donofrio, Durand, Kempe Nays–Commissioner’s Arbuckle, & Trippler March 19, 2013 2 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes The motionpassed. Commissioner Durand moved to approve the resolution approving a wetland buffer variance from the Manage B wetland adjacent to a lake. Approval is based on the following reasons: a.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. b.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland because the site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. c.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. d.The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the applicant’s plans and had no concerns and does not require a permit. Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the Engineering Review report by Jon Jarosch and in Shann Finwall and Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. Commissioner Durand moved to approve the applicant’s request for an exception from the city’s pool fence requirement to allow the use of a pool cover. The pool cover alternative is approved because the applicant has shown that it is designed to meet the safety and weight-bearing requirements of the American Society of Testing and Materials. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe.Ayes –Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner’s Arbuckle, Bierbaum, Durand, Kempe, & Trippler Nay–Commissioner Donofrio The motion passed. This item goes to the city council April 8, 2013. 6.NEW BUSINESS a.Resolution of Appreciation for Joe Boeser i.Planner, Mike Martin gave a brief report on the resolution of appreciation. Commissioner Trippler moved to approvethe resolution of appreciation for Joe Boeser. Seconded by Commissioner Arbuckle.Ayes -All March 19, 2013 3 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes The motion passed. This goes to the city council April 8, 2013. b.Commission Handbooks for New Members i.Planner, Mike Martin gave an overviewofthe commission handbook. c.Oath of Office i.Planner, Mike Martin gave the Oath of Office to planning commission members. 7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS a.Updated Schedulefor the Planning Commission’s Attendance at City Council Meeting. i.Planner, Mike Martin reviewed the schedule for attending city council meetings. 8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a.Commission report for the March 11, 2013, City Council meeting. Commissioner Trippler was scheduled to attend. The item reviewed was the Havencrest Preliminary Plat and staff reported on the itemwhich was approved and the final plat will come back for review. b.Commission representation for the city council meeting of March 25, 2013. Commissioner Desai is scheduled to attend. There are currently no items scheduled for review at that meeting. 10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS None. 11.ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 8:01p.m. March 19, 2013 4 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Conditional Use Permit Revision for the Tubman Center East Planned Unit SUBJECT: Development LOCATION:1725Monastery Way DATE:May 1,2013 INTRODUCTION Beverly Dusso, of the Tubman Center East, is requesting city council approval to amend their conditional use permit (CUP) for their facility which is part of the St. Paul’s Priory planned unit development (PUD). The CUP was granted on May 14, 2007to allow this facility in the former monastery building, a six-story structure, previously used as housing for the sisters at the Priory. The original CUP was granted to allow shelter housing for 37 rooms of shelter housing for women and their children. The initial phase of their operation also included a legal center, offices, counseling service group rooms,child care and a playground. Floors one and two are used for support services and offices and floors three and four are used for housing. The applicant is now proposing to utilize the two upper floors to expand to expand their shelter housingand services.As stated in Ms. Dusso’s letter (attached) they now propose to expand their facility as follows: “Phase II and III will complete the two remaining shelter floors, improve classroom and community spaces, renovate space for two significant collaborative community partnerships, create community gardens and a bus shelter for community and our families and children. The first partnership will add a community health and dental center, the second, will renovate an existing commercial kitchen to provide meals for Tubman residents, other facility users, and collaborative community groups.” The proposed expansion of the applicant’s facility is entirely internal with the exception of the proposed community gardens and bus shelters. They are not proposing to add onto the building. BACKGROUND May 14, 2007: The city council approved the CUP for the St. Paul’s Priory PUD which includedthe following on the 31 acre Priory site: The 40-unit Century Trails SeniorHousing apartmentsby CommonBond Communities. The50-unit Trails Edge Town Housesby CommonBondCommunities. Thenew monastery on the north side of the property. Thechange in use of the existing monastery buildingto allow the Tubman shelter facility. DISCUSSION Proposed Expansion Typically, staff’s main concern would be about any potential impact on the neighborhood with a building expansion. Because this request would be to utilize the two remaining vacant floors for housing,staffis not concerned that there would be a significant intensification of use that would affect any neighbor. The applicant’s plans to add community gardens and to provide bus shelters arepositive elements and staff has no problem with either ofthose ideas. Since the applicant has not decided where the gardens or bus shelters would go,staff would work with them as they develop their plans to make sure thesewould not impact any neighbors. Police and Fire Calls The applicant has occupied the first two floors for offices and support services for a couple years, but began housing people in need last December. Staff requested a list of police and fire calls to the facility since the shelter housing began and received the following comment from Dave Kvam, acting chief of police: “Since December, there have been 5 assist fire/ambulance calls (at least with some of those it appears the dispatcher created a case number, but no officer was dispatched. The communications center typically notifies officers when our fire department is sent to an address, and an officer may assist if he/she is close by), 1 call about recovered property, 1 missing person, 1 vehicle lockout, 1 theft, 1 assist citizen, and 1 arrest for possession of cocaine and an outstanding warrant for prostitution. I imagine more residents might mean a few more calls, but it shouldn’t impact us too much so long asTubman manages their program.” City Attorney Involvement The city attorney indicated that there have not been any matters concerning the Tubman Center that he has had to prosecute. Parking lot The applicant constructed two parking lots. The southerly parking lot is large with 108spaces. The northeasterly parkinglot was proposed to provide 33parking spaces. The applicant built it considerably smaller with six parking spaces due to funds available. The applicant stated that they will add onto this parking lot to complete it to the size originally proposed. This is of some concern since the cityhas received calls about on-street and overnight parking on Monastery Way by residents of the Tubman Center. Staff recommends the completion of this parking lot as originally proposedwith 33 parking spaces. Density –Increase in Number of Units With the expansion of the Tubman Center into the remaining upper two floors, there will not be any concern with housing density in this development. The HDR (high density residential) land use 2 classification of this PUD allowsup to 25 units per acre. At 31 acres x25 units per acre, the PUD could support a total of 775 housing units. With the current 50 townhomes, 40 apartments, 35 housing units at the monastery and the applicant’s 37 units (the applicant has stated that there are 9 units per floor and a resident manager’s housing unit), the total proposed is 162 housing units on the site. This is well under the maximum allowed density for the total PUDdevelopment. Room/Unit Sizes The PUD approval limited the Tubman facility to 37 units initially. The four floors of units are comprised of the original “dormitory” style housing once occupied by the sisters at the Priory. Based on the family sizeof the shelter occupants, these original units may be used individually by oneoccupant, or two or three may be combined to serve a larger family. Staff feels the PUD should limit the facility to aspecificnumber of units since the land use plan would allow far in excess of what would be provided. Furthermore, the applicant should be allowed to manage their own facility and adjust room sizes as needed to suit the family size of shelter occupants. CUP Findingsfor Approval The zoning ordinance requires that the city council find that all nine “standards” for CUP approval be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the complete wording): Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code. Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood. Not depreciate property values. Not cause any disturbance or nuisance. Not cause excessive traffic. Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection. Not create excessive additional costs for public services. Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features. Not cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed temporary shelter meets these nine criteria. Staff feels that there would not be any noticeable effect on the neighborhood or site since the applicant is only asking for permission to expand to the remaining two empty floors within the building.The only outside changes would be the future gardens andbus stops. Since the applicant does not know yet where they would place the gardens and the bus shelters, staff would work with them as they develop these plans. Revision to Previous Conditions Many of the existing PUD conditions have been met and are no longer needed. They referred to starting up the development and site improvements that have been made. The neighborhood committee mentioned in the original PUD approval was formed and after several meetings, disbanded as their purpose had been served. Staff suggests deleting those conditions that do not need to be noted in a revised PUD resolution. For clarity in the re-drafting of these conditions, condition #1was kept but revised,#2was keptand #8was kept. These are included in the revised list of conditions. All otherconditions have been met and there is no need to keep them. 3 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution amending the conditional use permitthe St. Paul’s Priory planned unit development which allowed the Tubman Family Shelter facility in the former monastery building located at 1725 Monastery Way. (Deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.) 1.This planned unit development shall follow the concept plans date-stamped January 11, 2007. These plans are considered concept plans because the applicant must submit design plansto the city for approvalfor the proposed apartments, town houses, futuremonastery,shelter and any other future use. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.This planned unit development does not give any approvals for Lot 1, Block 1 since this site has not been proposed for any future development and its future use is unknown. The development of this site would require a revision of this planned unit development and must comply with all city development requirements. 3.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 4.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5.The property owner shall be required to dedicate right of way for a roadway to be studied by the City Engineer during the next three to five year period. This roadway shall be located approximately between this property and the property owned by Hill-Murray to the west and shall extend from Larpenteur Avenue to the intersection at TH 5 and TH 120. The final location of the roadway shall be studied by the City Engineer and reported with a recommendation to the City Council. The final need for the roadway has not been determined but will likely be necessary if additional development occurs on this property in excess of that currently being proposed or at higher density levels than approved; and also if property sold includes a major expansion of uses that generate significant additional traffic to be generated at Hill-Murray. 6.The applicant must obtain all necessary and required permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Ramsey County and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 7.The applicant must provide a right-turn lane on Century Avenue into the site, subject to MnDOT’s approval. 8.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineering reports by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated February 22, 2007 and by R. Charles Ahl dated April 19, 2007. 9.The applicant shall install sidewalks wherever possible along Larpenteur Avenue. 10.Staff may approve minor changes to the plans. 11.Establish a neighborhood committee of no less than nine members whose membership composite shall be one representative from Hill-Murray administration or trustees, one day care parent from Maple Tree Day Care, one parent whose child attends Hill-Murray, three 4 neighborhood citizens who are from the yellow cards received by the city. The committee’s purpose shall be to facilitate communication, develop neighborhood solutions to neighborhood concerns, and provide feedback to all parties subject to the planned unit development. The committee shall report periodically to the council and disband when no longer needed. 12.Establish a transportation task force for neighbors and parties to the planned unit development to work on public transportation service and option for the site, to work in coordination with the neighborhood committee. 13.The proposed project shall be reviewed by the community design review board and all requirements of that board shall be followed. 14.Include two playground areas within the planned unit development as discussed at the hearing that were to be added to the plans. 15.Develop a security plan in partnership with all of the parties subject to the planned unit development and the neighborhood committee. 16.Monastery Way and Bennett Road shall be public roads and the cost of city sewer, storm water, public street infrastructure and city water shall be borne by the developer. 17.The applicant shall install sidewalks along applicant’s property on Larpenteur Avenue and internal streets. 1.This planned unit development shallfollow the concept plans date-stamped January 11, 2007 and the subsequent, specific design approvals for new town homes, apartments and monastery approved by the community design review board. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.This planned unit development does not give any approvals for Lot 1, Block 1 since this site has not been proposed for any future development and its future use is unknown. The development of this site would require a revision of this planned unit development and must comply with all city development requirements. 3.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineering reports by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated February 22, 2007 and by R. Charles Ahl dated April 19, 2007. 4.This permit revision allows the Tubman Center East to expand their shelter housing to the remaining two upper floors in the building. This permit also permits the applicant’s support activitiessuch as: a legal center, offices, counseling services group rooms, child care, playground, classrooms, community gathering spaces, space for collaborative community partnerships, community gardens, bus shelters and expanded use of the commercial kitchen for residents and other facility users and collaborative community groups. 5.The applicant shall work with city staff to on the placement and possible screening of future community gardens. 6.The applicant shall work with city staff on the appearance and location of bus shelters. These bus shelters may require the review and approval of the community design review board. 5 7.The applicant shall enlarge the parking lot in the northeast corner of the building to 33 spaces as originally proposed and approved.This parking lot expansion shall take place within one year of this approval. 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 31acres Existing land use: Tubman Center East SURROUNDING LAND USES North: St. Paul’s Monastery South: Larpenteur Avenue and City of Maplewood open space land East: Century Trails Seniors Apartments andTrails Edge Town Houses West: Hill-Murray High School and athletic fields PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: HDR(highdensityresidential) Zoning: PUD CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(3)of the city ordinances requires a CUP for institutions of any educational, philanthropic and charitable nature. Findings for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE The applicationfor this request was considered complete on April 19, 2013.State law requires that the city decide on theseapplications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on this proposal is June 18, 2013. 7 p:sec13-29\Tubman\Tubman PUDRevision PC Report 5 7 13 te Attachments: 1.PUD Revision Resolution 2.Location/ZoningMap 3.Land Use Plan Map 4.January 11, 2007 Site Plan 5.Applicant’s PUD Application andNarrativedated April 18, 2013 8 Attachment 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Harriet Tubman Center East has applied to revised the conditional use permit for a planned unit developmentthat included the development of the former 31-acre St. Paul’s Priory site. This development included a 50-unit town house development; a 40-unit seniors housing apartment building; the conversion of the former monastery into a multi-use family-violence shelterfor Tubman and a future monastery building on the north end of their property. WHEREAS, the Harriet Tubman Center East is requesting amendment of this permit to expand their services and shelter housing.The shelter housing will expand to occupy the upper two floors of the building. The expanded services and programming will include the following uses: temporary shelter housing, legal services, counseling services, youth and family services, community training and education, child care, creative art studios and administrative offices.In addition to those, Tubman would add therapeutic and community gardens, a bus shelter for the community and Tubman clients, a community health clinic which will work in collaboration with Tubman counseling services, and renew the existing commercial kitchen to provide meals to Tubman residents and other facility users as well as partner with a community college and others to provide training in basic food preparation. WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permitfor institutions of any educational, philanthropic and charitable nature. WHEREAS,this permit applies to the property located at 1725 Monastery Way. The legal description is: Lot 2, Block 1, St. Paul’s Monastery WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1.On May 7, 2013, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2.On ____________, 2013, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 9 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. 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.This planned unit development shall follow the concept plans date-stamped January 11, 2007 and the subsequent, specific design approvals for new town homes, apartments and monastery approved by the community design review board. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.This planned unit development does not give any approvals for Lot 1, Block 1 since this site has not been proposed for any future development and its future use is unknown. The development of this site would require a revision of this planned unit development and must comply with all city development requirements. 3.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineering reports by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated February 22,2007 and by R. Charles Ahl dated April 19, 2007. 4.This permit revision allows the Tubman Center East to expand their shelter housing to the remaining two upper floors in the building. This permit also permits the applicant’s support activities such as: a legal center, offices, counseling services group rooms, child care, playground, classrooms, community gathering spaces, space for collaborative community partnerships, community gardens, bus shelters and expanded use of the commercial kitchen for residents and other facility users and collaborative community groups. 5.The applicant shall work with city staff to on the placement and possible screening of future community gardens. 10 6.The applicant shall work with city staff on the appearance and location ofbus shelters. These bus shelters may require the review and approval of the community design review board. 7.The applicant shall enlarge the parking lot in the northeast corner of the building to 33 spaces as originally proposed and approved.This parking lot expansion shall take place within one year of this approval. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ____________, 2013. 11 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 5