Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2005MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, January 20, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. January3, 2005 5. Public Headngs 7:00 Maplewood Public Works Building Expansion (1902 County Road B East) Conditional Use Permit 7:30 Pondview Apartments Expansion (ivy Street and Femdale Avenue) Planned Unit Development Revision 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations January 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover January 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher February 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Diedch 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Daniel Lee Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present until 9:06 p.m. Present Absent Present Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for December 20, 2004. Chairperson Fischer recommended moving the line on page 5 that stated Chairperson Fischer stepped away to page 4, immediately following the sixth paragraph. It should read Chairperson Fischer stepped away for 5 to 10 minutes. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for December 20, 2004, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Pearson, Trippler Abstention - Bartol Planning Commission -2~ Minutes of 01-03-05 V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Training Session - City Attorney's Office (7:10 p.m. - 8:50 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said commissioners were sent a packet of information from the city attorney's office. Mr. Chad Lemmons, one of the city attorneys working in Land Use and Zoning matters is here to give a presentation. Mr. Chad Lemmons, Attorney with Kelly & Fawcett, P.A., 2350 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Lemmons gave additional handouts to planning commissioners to refer to. Mr. Lemmons discussed things such as Public Hearings, Conditional Use Permits, Easements, Variances, and the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Conditional Use Permits In Maplewood there are nine standards in the city code that must be met. If one of the nine standards isn't met you have a case against the Conditional Use Permit. However, if all nine standards are met, the law requires you to grant the Conditional Use Permit. If you as a planning commissioner think one of the standards has not been met, you must give detailed reasons why you believe the standard hasn't been met. The city staff does a good job in the staff reports stating why a Conditional Use Permit should or should not be granted. The city council has the right to place conditions on a Conditional Use Permit in addition to the nine standards that must be met. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance In Maplewood the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance work together. State statutes require that the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan agree with each other. In rare instances where the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not agree with each other, according to the legislature, the Zoning Ordinance controls the situation and the Comprehensive Plan must conform to that. The Metropolitan Council requires that each city update their Comprehensive Plan every 10 years. Spot zoning is zoning for an area 1 acre or smaller and is illegal. Economic need: When an applicant comes before the planning commission and states there is an economic need for a project that is not a basis for the planning commission to approve or not approve a project. Economic need is not one of the standards for approving a CUP but it can be a factorfor approving a project. Disagreeing with recommendations by city staff: It's okay for Planning Commissioners to disagree with city staff's decision to recommend or not recommend approval of a project but you need to state that as "1 disagree and here are the reasons I disagree". City staff has their reasons for the recommending or denying a project as well as planning commissioners have reasons for their opinions or decisions they make. Voicing concerns about the project reflects the fact that people have thought about the project and have discussed the issues. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 01-03-05 Easements Easements are rights to use the property for a certain purpose, The actual fee ownership remains with the landowner. The landowner's use of the property is limited to a use that doesn't interfere with the easement. This includes things such as proper drainage on the property. Public easements are controlled by the city and are held in trust by the city for the public. The city has the right to determine if the easement is being breached or not. If the act of the person who is the underlying fee owner of the property impedes the purpose of the easement, the city has the right to seek an injunction to remove the impediment so the proper flow of water can take place. Public Hearings The chair has the power to set time limits on the length of time a speaker can speak which should be identified at the beginning of the meeting. It's at the chairs discretion to allow people to speak longer or cut their speaking time short, if a speaker is repeating discussion that has already been talked about the chair has the power to stop the speaker and let them know that subject matter has already been heard and to only bring up new discussion items. b. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Mr. Roberts said the planning commission should review the rules of procedure. Section L of the rules says that the commission is to review the rules at the first meeting each year. Mr. Roberts proposes changes to Section J, under Appointments, to reflect the current city council policies. If the commission wants to make other changes, they may propose them. Commissioner Ahlness asked staff if this would be the appropriate place to insert a recommendation for Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Ahlness recommended that the planning commission adopt the 2004 Maplewood Public Hearing Policy and Procedures as the public hearing policy with the change of limiting comments to 10 minutes in lieu of the 5 minutes as written. Commissioner Ahlness thinks it serves the public interest and the applicant's case to help focus on their comments and come to the point. The Chairperson may extend the allocated time for the applicant to speak. The ten minute time frame is not to cut them off; it is merely to help them stay focused on the subject. The ten minutes would begin after their presentation is over and would include the applicant's comments and questions from the city staff or planning commission. This would provide for good order. Mr. Roberts said he believed the five minute time limit shown in the public hearing handout was intended for the public testimony to comment on the subject matter and not for the applicant or developer. Mr. Roberts said he's never heard of limiting time for an applicant to state their case. Chairperson Fischer said she is not comfortable limiting the applicant's time. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 01-03-05 Commissioner Trippler said the chairperson has the power to limit time for the public to speak regarding the project but an applicant comes in to give a presentation to sell their project to the commission and should not be limited to a specific timeframe. If the discussion were to get too lengthy the chair can set a time limit. Chairperson Fischer asked for a second motion. The motion failed for a lack of a second motion. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure with the changes staff proposed on page 4 item J. Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Pearson Trippler Nay - Ahlness Commissioner Ahlness said he voted nay because the planning commission should look at rules to help govern behavior and expectations for the applicant. This would assist the speaker to be aware what the planning commission expects from the applicant. Commissioner Trippler suggested that city staff let the applicant know before the meeting what is expected of them from the planning commission and to limit their comments to the subject matter. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on January 24, 2005. c. Planning Commission's 2004 Annual Report Mr. Roberts said the city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the upcoming year. Mr. Roberts said terms are due for renewal for Commissioners Bartol, Desai, and Fischer and they should let Mr. Roberts know if they are interested in serving on the planning commission for another term. Commissioners noticed corrections to term expirations and an inconsistency in the report regarding the Summerhill Development which staff will correct. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the Planning Commission's 2004 Report with the noted corrections. Commissioner Bartol seconded. The motion passed. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Pearson, Trippler Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 01-03-05 This item goes to the city council on January 24, 2005. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. No planning commission representation was needed for December 27, 2004, because the city council meeting was cancelled. b. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative atthe January 10, 2005, city council meeting. The only item to discuss will be the CUP for Walking in Faith Church at 2385 Ariel Street. c. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the January 24, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Maplewood Imports Auto Center at 2450 Maplewood Drive, Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and Planning Commission's 2004 Annual Report. d. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the February 14, 2005, city council meeting. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to send a calendar of the Gladstone Task Fome meetings to commissioners that did not receive one. A Gladstone Task Force meeting calendar was sent to Commissioners Jeff Bartol, Mary Dierich, and Michael Grover. HRA members Joe O'Brien and Beth Ulrich were sent calendars as per the chairs request. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Reschedule January 17, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting because of the Martin Luther King holiday. Mr. Roberts has a class Tuesday, January 18, and there is a Gladstone Task Force meeting on Wednesday, January 19. After polling the planning commission it was decided to reschedule the meeting from Monday, January 17, 2005, to Thursday, January 20, 2005. Two public hearings will be held during the Thursday, January 20, 2005, meeting. The Public Works building expansion CUP revision and the Pondview Apartments request to build a fourth apartment building at Ivy Avenue and Ferndale Street. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-05 Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. -6- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Public Works Building Addition-Conditional Use Permit and Design Review 1902 County Road B East January 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jeff Oertel, of Oertel Architects, has submitted plans on behalf of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for the following additions and changes to the Maplewood Public Works Facility at 1902 County Road B: · Construction of a 4,224-square-foot (total of both floors), two-story office addition to the northwest corner of the building. · Construction of a 20,240-square-foot, one-story garage addition to the south side of the building. · Construction of a 9,600-square-foot, 40-foot-tall fabric-domed sand/salt storage structure in the storage yard. · Resudacing of the building entrance with aluminum facing to match the architectural detailing on the proposed additions. · Construction of a holding pond at the south end of the storage yard. · Relocation of the security fence and entrance gate at the north side of the storage yard to coincide with the placement of the proposed garage addition. Refer to the attachments. Reason for the Expansion The city has outgrown the public works facility. The existing facility is old and antiquated and does not meet the current needs of the public works department. In addition to the garage being too small for today's needs, it does not provide sufficient office space for the current employees. Currently, some equipment is stored outside of the building or in other city locations like the old Gladstone Fire Station on Clarence Street. The proposed expansion would enable the city to properly store equipment, as well as to provide the necessary environmental facilities needed for salt storage and handling. The proposed expansion is not intended to make way for additional city personnel and equipment (a concern of some residents), but to accommodate the existing needs of the city for better functionality and equipment storage. Requests Mr. Oedel is requesting approval of the following: · A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the expansion of a public facility. · Architectural, site and landscape plans. The planning commission will review the CUP. The community design review board (CDRB) will review the design plans. BACKGROUND August 25, 1977: The CDRB approved the plans for the public works facility. September 22, 1977: The city council approved a CUP for the public works facility and a fence height variance for the 10-foot-tall storage yard fence. November 17, 1977: The city council approved amendments to the municipal building and public utility facilities section of the comprehensive plan for the public works facility site. Council also amended the land use plan to change the classification to OS (open space) as they directed in the CUP approval. April 26, 2004: The city council authorized the funding for this project. October 25, 2004: The city council approved the hiring of the architect for this project. DISCUSSION CUP The proposed expansion proposal has already been authorized by the city council through the budget process. This expansion meets the requirements for this CUP revision. These changes would improve city operations and will reduce some of the activities currently taking place in the open storage yard. The proposed salt/sand storage structure will also benefit the environment by eliminating most of the salt runoff that is now occurring with the open salt/sand-mix pile. The construction of the holding pond at the south end of the site will also meet the city's goal of improving the stormwater management system on the site. This pond is part of the city hall campus water quality improvements approved recently by the city council as proposed by the city's environmental management specialist. Citizen Comments Three of the neighbors that replied to our survey raised concerns about traffic increase, whether their taxes would go up, the sense of spending for these improvements, and the sensibility of refacing the front entrance. Traffic Increase: There will be no appreciable traffic increase resulting from this expansion. There will be construction traffic, of course. But after the addition is complete, there is only one additional employee anticipated to be hired in the next five years. Taxes: The city has budgeted for this expansion project in their annual capital improvements budgeting process. There would be no impact on taxes due to this project. Spending: As stated, the city council has budgeted for this project. Some residents questioned whether this expansion is needed and the spending justified. The city's public works operations are cramped and expansion is necessary to protect vehicles and extend the useful life of equipment. Salt Storaqe Area: The salt-storage structure is necessary to protect an expensive annual material the city needs for winter road-safety operations. It is also environmentally advantageous to prevent salt from leaching into the soil and ground water. Entryway Refacing: The refacing of the main entryway is to help tie the appearance of the existing building into the addition. Along with the building painting, it is a way the city can architecturally make the existing and proposed portions of the building compatible. CUP Summary This proposal is needed for the city to continue proper operations and to provide a useful work environment for many years to come. In the recommendation, staff is recommending the deletion of the original CUP conditions since they have all been met. We will add new conditions replacing them. Building Design and Site Considerations The proposed materials and colors are: · Office addition-champagne-colored aluminum panels and tan wall panels. · Garage addition-tan colored precast concrete tip-up panels. · Front entry refacing- champagne-colored aluminum panels. · Existing building-to be painted tan to match the additions. · Salt-storage structure-beige. The proposed design, materials and colors would be an improvement for this building. The painting of the existing building and the refacing of the front entry will create a uniform appearance tying the existing building in with the new construction. Landscaping The construction of the office addition would cause the removal of two evergreen trees that are adjacent to the proposed office addition. The applicant is proposing to add eight evergreens near the entrance drive to the main parking lot and prairie-grass plantings around the foundation of the office addition. The disturbed lawn areas would be resodded. The existing deciduous tree on the lawn west of the existing building would remain. This amount of landscaping would be sufficient. The site is essentially hidden from view of the public so more elaborate landscaping is not warranted. Parking The proposed expansion would not require any additional parking spaces since only one more employee is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Based on the parking requirements in the city code, however, code would require 96 parking spaces-55 for the existing building and 41 more for the additional building area. There are presently 73 parking spaces on site-there are 69 spaces in the main parking lot and four to remain by the garage. These will easily accommodate the 33 employees at the public works facility as well as the few visitors that arrive at any given time. Police Comments Lieutenant Dave Kvam, of the Maplewood Police Department, reviewed this proposal and did not find any safety-related issues. Fire Marshal Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had the following comments. The city should: · Install a fire-protection system for both the office and vehicle-storage areas. · Monitor all aspects of the fire protection system (per code). · Install audible and visual devices to notify all persons in the building if the fire protection system is activated (per code). · Provide a minimum of 20 feet of emergency access road to the building. · Obtain all proper permits and display inspection cards on site during the construction. Building Official Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: · There must be handicap-accessible parking provided to meet requirements. · An elevator will be required. · The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered to meet NFPA 13. · The building is required to meet 2000 IBC, 2000 IFC, 2000 IMC, NEC State Plumbing Code and the Minnesota State Building Code. · The existing boiler should be replaced because of the age and type of boiler. · A second exit may be required out of the salt storage building. 4 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on attachment 6 granting a conditional use permit revision for 1902 County Road B East for the expansion of the Maplewood Public Works Facility. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined): District. 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped December 17, 2004. The director of community development may approve minor chanqes. 2. The proposed expansion of the facility outlined in this permit must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This permit allows a waiver of the parkinq code to allow 23 fewer parkin.q spaces than the code allows since there is adequate parking available for the existinq use and the proposed expansion. B. Approval of the plans date-stamped December 17, 2004. This approval is subject to the applicant and property owner complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all requirements of the city engineer regarding grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities. 3. Any retaining walls over four feet tall shall be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. Staff shall approve the retaining wall and fence design if used. 4. The proposed evergreen trees shall be at least six feet tall, balled and burlapped. 5. With any regrading of the storage yard, the yard edge must be set back at least 15 feet from the southerly lot line. 6. Provide handicap-parking spaces in accordance with the building official's requirements. 7. Comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as noted in the staff report. 8. The director of community development may approve minor changes to these plans. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 68 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the seven replies, three were in favor, three were opposed and one had no comment. In favor · Improvements look fine & noise doesn't bother me that much. Everything is OK. (Donald Ridley, 1850 County Road B) · I have no objection to the proposed plan. It appears well thought out including less noise for the neighborhood. (Cynthia Gjere, 1950 Craig Place) · No problem with your plans, but would like to have trees trimmed as you promised in August. (Everett Yoch, 1971 Stanich Court) Opposed I have been a resident of Maplewood for seven years and my property taxes have been raised almost $1,000 over the last three alone. If this project will raise my taxes even more, then I want nothing to do with it. No go! (Tony and Cindy Gulyash, 1985 Stanich Court) I have lived in Maplewood for 45 years and remember when the public could vote on spending. That right has been taken away so I doubt if you have any interest in my opinion. I hope you do a better job on this than what was done on the city hall. (Gary Hoge and Margaret Revoir, 1990 Stanich Court) · Refer to the letter from Jeff and Sue Rueber on Attachment 5. They have concerns about traffic and city spending. 7 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 7.57 acres Existing Use: Maplewood Public Works Facility SURROUNDING LAND USES Nodh: Single Dwellings South: Gateway Trail and Goodrich Golf Course East: Single Dwellings West: Maplewood City Hall property and the back yards of single dwellings that front on County Road B PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: G (government property) Zoning: F (farm residential) Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution in attachment 6. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on December 17, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by February 15, 2005 unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec14\public works addition 1-05 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Building Elevations 4. Letter of Request from Oertel Architects dated December 16, 2004 5. Letter from Jeff and Sue Rueber dated January 6, 2005 6. Resolution 7. Plans date-stamped December 17, 2004 (separate attachment) HIGHWAY 36 Attachment 1 PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY * CITY HALL GOODRICH GOLF COURSE HOLLOWAY AVE LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 '10 Attachment 3 11 OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105 Attachment 4 TEL: 651/696-5186 December 16, 2004 City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC WORKS EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE / PUD APPLICATION COMM'UNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FAX: 651/696-5188 RECEIVED DEC ! 7 200 STATEMENT OF INTENDED USE It is the intent of the City of Maplewood Public Works Department to expand their existing operations in order to meet the growing needs of the community. The existing building was designed and built in 1978, and since this time the community's se .ryice requirements have grown considerably. The building expansion project includes a two story, 2,112 square foot office expansion (footprint) to the west of the existing office, and a 20,240 square foot one story vehicle storage expansion to the south. In addition to the building expansion, the master plan includes selected site improvements, a retention pond, fencing and a salt storage building. The provision of a retention pond is consistent with the City's long-range plans, except that there is one pond proposed in lieu of three smaller ponds as indicated on some of the City's record planning documents. The provision of a single pond was previously reviewed and accepted by Planning staff. The salt building is proposed in order to help contain and protect the stored salt mixture, which is currently covered with a tarp. The new salt storage structure will help control mn-off from storage of the pile, as well as mixing and loading operations. The building is enclosed on three of four sides, with an open end (for access) facing the east. This eastern exposure is the preferred orientation to limit the effects from prevailing winds and storms. The salt structure proposed is a barrel-vaulted, rigid structural frame with a fabric cover. The fabric is flame-resistant and comes in a limited number of colors. COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA The proposed expansion will not effect the use of the property, and there will be no significant change in character to the surrounding property. It is presumed that there will be no depreciation of property values. The normal operations on site will not 13 change in any significant manner. Public works operations, by definition, can be noisy and active due to the nature of work and the requirement of back-up horns on the vehicles. The design of the building may actually assist with reducing noise and commotion since more of the ongoing operations can take place indoors, as the new building layout will help minimize double handling of vehicles and outdoor staging of activities. Concerning environment effects, the overall plan proposed will improve current issues with environmental impacts, and further assist the City as the proposed design will: Reduce some noise and movement frorn ongoing operations Eliminate covering and uncovering the current salt pile Better contain salt run-off Better retain and control storm water run-off Improve the workability of the salt mix for snow/ice events Provide far better daylighting and exterior views for staff Achieve a higher level of ADA compliance and accessibility Attachment 5 From: Jeffrey Rueber [jrueber@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:52 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Comments on the Building Addition Proposal - PW Garage Tom, My wife Sue and I are concerned about the application to add additional construction to the City Hall Complex. The concern that I had spoken to you about the possible increase in traffic on an already busy road is only a secondary concern. Our first concern is that in this time of budget issues that spending money on some project that is currently deemed not important for public safety. We question the use of funds towards this project when they could be used to reduce already huge increases in property taxes for home owners or used to hire additional/needed police officers that are part of public safety. We could support the construction of on additional garage based on your comments that the city is crowding itself out of the old one. But spending taxpayers money to add a new two-story building when the city already has space is a concern. The construction of a fabric-domed structure for salt and sand we don't understand why its needed. What does the Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA) say that we lose each year having it covered versus not covered versus the cost of the fabric-dome. But we think that biggest waste of taxpayer money is to refurbish the front entry to match the new additions. This is just plain, for lack a better word, stupid. Why would we spend money to redo a building that nobody but the employees sees. We are a city, who are we trying to impress? We see most of these projects as a waste of taxpayers money that we need in other areas of the city. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeff and Sue Rueber Please send our comments to the city council member and the mayor. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. L~arn more~ 1/7/2005 15 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION REVISION WHEREAS, Jeff Oertel, of Oertel Architects, applied for a conditional use permit revision for the Maplewood Public Works Facility: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1902 County Road B East. The legal description is: SECTION 14 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 PART NWLY OF SO0 LINE RR RNV OF FOL; EX E 196 FT OF N 283 FT; THE W 256 FT OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 & PART LYING E OF W 256 FT OF N 300 FT OF W 10.55 ACRES OF PART OF SD 1/4 1/4 (SUBJ TO RD) IN SEC 14 TN 29 RN 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On January 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended that the city council this permit. 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 wdtten statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. 2. On February 14, 2005, the city council reviewed this proposal. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this 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. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 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. 16 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 (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined): 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped December 17, 2004. The director of community development may approve minor chan,qes. 2. The proposed expansion of the facility outlined in this permit must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This permit allows a waiver of the parkin,q code to allow 23 fewer parkin,q spaces than the code allows since there is adequate parkin,q available for the existin~l use and the proposed expansion. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on February 14, 2005. 17 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Maplewood City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Postponement of PUD Revision and Expansion Pondview Apartments 2575 Ivy Avenue - west of Century Avenue January 12, 2005 The applicants for the proposed Pondview Apartments expansion proposal and PUD revision have requested a postponement of this review by the planning commission. They wish to consider the city's concerns prior to proceeding with their application. They hope to resubmit their proposal by the end of the month. Staff will notify the neighbors again and reschedule this hearing after the applicants resubmit their plans. p:sec24-29\Pondview Apartments PC Postponement Pondview PUD January 12, 2005 1