HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-16 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,July 16, 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.June 18,2013
5.Public Hearings
a.7:00 p.m. or later: 2014-2018 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) Review and Debt Analysis
b.7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit for Maplewood Auto Malla Used Auto Sales
Business at 2529 White Bear Avenue
c.7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit for theOur City/Our Neighborhood Church at 1812
North St. Paul Road
6.New Business
a.3M Company Tax Increment Financing Request for a Proposed Building at 3M Center
b.Discussion: Ordinance Amendment Request to Allow Indoor Storage/Warehousing in BC
(business commercial) Zoning Districts
7.Unfinished Business
8.Visitor Presentations
9.Commission Presentations
a.Commission presentation for the June 24, 2013 city council meeting. Chairperson Fischer
was scheduled to attend, but there were no planning commission itemsto present.
b.Commission presentation for the July 8, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner Ige is
scheduled to attend. The items scheduled for review are the Harmony School CUP revision.
c.Commission representation for the July 22, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler
is scheduled to attend. The anticipated items for review will be review of the CIPand3M TIF
request.
d.Commission representation for the August 12, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner
Desai is scheduled to attend. The anticipated items for review are the Cooper Auto Sales
CUP and the Cornerstone Our City/Our Neighborhood ChurchCUP requests.
10.Staff Presentations
a.Cancellation of August 6 planning commission meeting due to National Night Out
b.Reminder: Turn in plans atend of meetings for reuse
11.Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 18,2013
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, CommissionerPresentat 7:02 p.m.
Absent
Al Bierbaum, Commissioner
Tushar Desai,CommissionerPresent
John Donofrio, CommissionerPresent
Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent
Lorraine Fischer, ChairpersonPresent
Allan Ige, CommissionerPresent
Bill Kempe, CommissionerPresent
Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by CommissionerDesai.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve theJune 4,2013, PCminutes as submitted.
Seconded by CommissionerKempe.Ayes –Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner Arbuckle,
Durand, Ige, Kempe,
& Trippler
Abstentions –Commissioner’s Desai
& Donofrio
The motion passed.
5.PUBLIC HEARING
a.Conditional Use Permit Revision for a planned unit development for theproposed
Harmony Learning Center Greenhouse, 1961 County Road C East.
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the presentation and answered questions of the
commission.
June 18, 2013 1
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
th
ii.Community Education Director for ISD 622, 2520–East 12Avenue, North St. Paul,
Chuck Ericksen, addressed and answered questions of the commission.
iii.Brian Schlottman, Century College, addressed and answered questions of the
commission.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approvethe resolution amending the conditional use permit for
a planned unitdevelopment for the Harmony Learning Center, located at 1695 County Road C
East, to allow the construction of a greenhouse. This resolution deletes the 1985 PUD approval
for senior housing, which was never built, and incorporates the more recent CUP approval for the
T-Mobile cell phone tower (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.)
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Maplewood City Council that a conditional use permit be
granted for the Harmony School site planned unit development, including the following variances:
1.Allow 79 parking spaces for the 52-unit senior’s residence, rather than the 104 required by
code.
2.Allow 26 enclosed parking spaces rather than the 52 enclosed spaces required by the code.
Approval of the conditional use permit and variances is subject to:
1.If council determines that there is insufficient on-site parking for the 52-unit seniors residence,
within one year of 95% occupancy, additional parking may be required.
2.Maplewood and North St. Paul shall have continued use of the athletic facilities in the
northeast portion of the site until that part of the site develops, provided the use of these
facilities do not interfere with the applicant’s use of the property.
3.The 52-unit seniors residence shall not be converted shall to non seniors housing without
revision of the planned unit development. For purposes of this permit, senior’s housing is
defined as a residence occupied by persons in their retirement years with a significant
number of one person households.
4.The auditorium attached to the 52-unit senior’s residence shall only be used by the residents
of that building. Public assembly unrelated to senior use would be prohibited without a
revision of this permit.
5.The commercial portion of the development shall be limited to the uses allowed in the BC(M),
business commercial (modified) zoning district.
6.The eight parking spaces (marked “future”) located south of the driveway to the garage for the
64 structure shall be constructed.
7.The proposed 575 square foot unitsin the 52 unit residence (October 8, 1985 plans) shall be
increased in area to at least 580 square feet of habitable floor area.
8.Move the 64 unit residence to the west to comply with the required minimum setback of 50
feet.
9.Adherence to the site plan dated October 8, 1985, except as required in these conditions,
unless a change is approved by the community design review board.
1.All construction shall follow the site plans approved by the city. The community development
staff may approve minor changes.
June 18, 2013 2
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval of
the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4.This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other
provider’s telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. T-Mobile shall submit a
letter to staff allowing co-location before a building permit can be issued.
5.If any required landscaping for the T-Mobile tower dies, plantings must be replaced pursuant
to the city policy and standards.
6.The school district shall provide a site plan with their building permit submittal that verifies that
the proposed greenhouse would be placed no closer than 75 feet to the wetland to the north.
For the purposes of defining the edge of the wetland, that shall be considered to be the edge
of the cat tails.
7.This approval acknowledges that the school district’s educational activities are permitted by
this permit. Any new construction or exterior improvements are subject to compliance with the
design-review requirements in the city code, and perhaps, may required amendment of this
conditional use permit.
Seconded by Commissioner Arbuckle.Ayes-All
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on July 8, 2013.
b.2014–2018 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) Review and Debt Analysis
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced Maplewood Finance Director, Gayle Bauman to
address the 2014-2018 CIP Plan Review and Debt Analysis.
ii.Maplewood Finance Director, Gayle Bauman addressed and answered questions of the
commission regarding the 2014-2018 CIP.
iii.HEDC Commissioner, Gary Kloncz addressed the commission regarding the HEDC report
for the 2014 –2018 CIP.
iv.ENR Commissioner, Dale Trippler addressed the commission regarding the ENR report
for the 2014 –2018 CIP.
Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing.
There were no residents to address the commission.
The commission is concerned about fundingfor the Maplewood Community Center and day to
day maintenance. There are issues with the roof that leaks, the windows and equipment costs.
The cost burden of the community center is a concern and the residents were promised that the
MCC would make money. It has never brought additional money into the city. They are also
concerned about delaying road projects until 2019 and patching on top of patching and further
deterioration ofthe roads.The commission would like specific language about the details about
the work that is needed at the fire stations. The commission asked about deer management and
the cost of that. The commission requested better descriptions of the projects in the CIP. There
were concerns about soccer fields, volleyball and stated the CIP needs to be cleaned up. The
commission requestedadditional time to review the CIP and recommended tabling it.
June 18, 2013 3
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet July 2, 2013, and the commission requested the
revisionsbe made by city staff to the CIP and brought back to the commission to review and
comment on.The commission preferred and requested a hard copy of the CIP and not reviewing
the document online.
table
Commissioner Trippler moved to the 2014 –2018 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) until the
planning commission meetingof July 2, 2013.
Seconded by Commissioner Desai.Ayes -All
table
The motion to passed.
This item goes to the city council July 8, 2013.
c.Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Chairperson Fischer moved to recommend Commissioner Desai as Chairperson.
Seconded by Commissioner Kempe.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
Chairperson Fischer moved to recommend Commissioner Arbuckle as Vice Chairperson.
Seconded by Commissioner Donofrio.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
6.NEW BUSINESS
None.
7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
None.
8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a.Commission presentation for the June 10, 2013, city council meeting. Commissioner Kempe
attended. The items reviewed were the conditional use permit revision for the First
Evangelical Free Church and the Resolution of Appreciation for Stephen Wensmanwhich
were approved by the city council.
b.Commission representation for the June 24, 2013, city council meeting. ChairpersonFischer
is scheduled to attend. Presently there are no planning commission items scheduled for
review.
c.Commission representation for the July 8, 2013, city council meeting. Commissioner Ige is
scheduled to attend. The items scheduled for review are the Harmony School CUP revision
and the CIP review.
June 18, 2013 4
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS
a.Cancellation of July 2, 2013, planning commission meeting.Staff said because the
commission would like to meet to review the changes the commission requested to the CIP
there will bea Planning Commission meeting now.
b.Date new chairperson and vice chairperson duties beginafter the re-election of
commissioners.
11.ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 8:28p.m.
June 18, 2013 5
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
CharlesAhl, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:2014-2018 CIP Plan Review and Debt Analysis
DATE:
July 10, 2013 workshop
INTRODUCTION
On June 18, 2013, the planning commission reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) but
tabled their review due to questions raised. In response:
1.We acknowledge that some descriptions are not specific enough.Those will be improved in
the 2015-2019 CIP document.
2.The project descriptions for the Park system are guides for future expenditures, but we
acknowledge that the on-going Parks Master Plan Task Force may revise, enhance or
eliminate any and all of those proposed projects based upon their findings in 2014.Due to
the need forfinancial planning, we believe it is appropriate to place projects in years to
accommodate that financial plan.Revisions are acceptable, but we believe that it is not
good financial planning to not acknowledge that there will be some expenditure of park
funds, albeit, it may change substantially.
3.We also note that the expenditure in funds on the streets program is being reduced
substantially from the previous year’s investments.Our engineering staff evaluatedall City
streets on a 3-year rotating basis.If those ratings indicate that we are not still making
progress on improving the overall condition of the City streets, then investments into the
streets program will need to be increased.Within this plan, we believe that our conditions
for our streets will continue to improve, albeit at a lesser rate than over the past 7-10 years,
when we were investing at an accelerated rate.
Representatives from the Fire Department, Parks Department and Public Works Department will
be available to address concerns and issues on the CIP from the Planning Commission.
Staff has attached the CIP memo that was previously presented to them for review in June. The
planning commission has already received full copies of the CIP so staff has not reprinted the
document for inclusion in this packet.
P:CIP\Planning Commission CIP Cover to Main Memo for 071613
Attachment:
1.2014-2018 CIP Plan Review Memo dated June 7, 2013
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Gayle Bauman, Finance Director
CharlesAhl, AssistantCity Manager
SUBJECT:2014-2018 CIP Plan Review and Debt Analysis
DATE:
June 7, 2013 workshop
INTRODUCTION
The Capital Improvement Plan is an annually prepared document that coordinates the
planning, financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects.
The 2014-2018 CIP document has been released for review by the various
Commissions and a Public Hearing on the CIP will be held at the Planning Commission
meeting in June. As part of our paperless efforts, a copy of the CIP is available in
electronic format on the City’s webpage.
A Public Hearing has been called for 7:00 pm and is on thePlanning Commission
agenda to allow thePlanningCommission to review the draft CIP as proposed by the
staffand discuss ourproposeddebt levels.Afinding by the Planning Commission on
the CIPthat “…the proposed CIP is consistent with implementing thegoals of the
Comprehensive Plan.”is recommended. Following the receipt of recommendations
from all the Commissions, the City Council will be asked to adopt the CIP in July 2013.
Adopting the CIP does not commit the council to the proposed projects, norimplement
the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2014
Budget as we proceed with its preparation.
There is a fairly significant decrease in the cost of projects included in the 2014-2018
CIP compared to previous years. The proposed 2014-2018 CIP contains $46.7 million
in expenditures while the 2013-2017 CIP contained $67.7 million. The two main
reasons for this decrease are1) the once-in-a-decade interchange improvement at
TH36-English was included in the 2013-2017 CIP at a cost of $16.2 million and it is not
included in the 2014-2018 CIP; and 2) the City’s shift in focus from an accelerated
streets program to controlling our debt levels.
Debt Analysis
Beginning in 2007, the City made a conscious decision to takeadvantage of the
favorable construction market and expand its street repair/reconstruction program.
Some of the outcomesof this decision are:
Many of the badly deteriorated streets in the City were repaired and/or improved.
Projects were completed at a lower cost than originally anticipated.
More projects could be completed because of the lower costs.
Our outstanding debt amount has increased.
Two of the internal policiesthe City hasregarding debtservicefund balances and debt
leviesare:
1.The ratio ofdebt service fund levies combined with capital expenditure levies to total
levies shall be targeted to maintain a level in the range of 15-25%. This policy will
help to ensure that the city is always maintaining its infrastructure, either through use
of debt or current funding.
2.The City’s fund balance in the Debt Service fund shall be at a minimum level of 50%
of annual debt service expenditures. Because the majority of annual debt service is
paid on February 1 and August 1 of each year, funds must be onhand for payment
of February 1 debt service.
With the expansion of the streets program, the City is currently exceeding the targeted
level of 15-25% for its debt/capital levy. For 2013, the ratio of debt service fund levies
combined with capital expenditure levies to total levies was 26.7%. The proposed CIP
includes an increase in the debt/capital levy of $105,070broken down as follows:
FUND2013 LEVY2014 LEVY
Debt Service4,313,5304,658,600
Capital Improvement Projects180,000180,000
Fire TruckReplacement50,00050,000
Park Development30,00030,000
Public Safety Expansion260,0000
Redevelopment20,00040,000
Economic Development Authority89,27089,270
TOTAL DEBT/CAPITAL LEVY4,942,8005,047,870
Exceeding our target in this case does not have a negative impact on the Cityas long
as it doesn’t continue indefinitely. The City consciously made a decision to put more
funding toward infrastructure and staff hasbeen able to maintain its operations side.
This was accomplished by implementing many different strategiessuch as:
Early retirement program
Not filling or eliminating vacant positions
No COLA increases
Deferring projects and/or purchases
Deferring repair and maintenance items
Changes to health insurance
By managing our street projects through the CIP process, we currently anticipate that
there will be no bonding requirement for street projects in 2015 and debt service
requirements will begin to decrease in 2016. This will eventually bring our debt/capital
levy back in line with our internal policy.The history of the debt/capital levy to total levy
is as follows:
2007200820092010201120122013
20.2%22.0%20.9%21.7%22.6%25.8%26.7%
Based on projections for the Debt Service funds, it appears the City will not be able to
maintain a minimum level fund balance in the debt service funds of 50% of annual debt
service expenditures for a few years starting around 2016,without a significant increase
in the debt levy. While the debt service funds will continue to have a positive total fund
balance at the end of each year, there would not be sufficient funds on hand at
stst
February 1and August 1to make the required debt service payment. What this
means is that the debt service funds would temporarily borrow money from the General
Fund and pay interest expense on these borrowings. This would continue for a few
years until someof our bond issues are paid in full and drop offthe City’s payment
schedule. Though this is not an ideal situation, staff does understand that going against
the policy in the short term is a better alternative than havingalarge levy increase to
avoid the drop in fund balance. Also, new legislation was passed this session which
should bring in an additional $530,000 in Local Government Aid and potentially another
$300,000 due to the return of the sales tax exemption for cities and counties.The City
would look at utilizing these funds to manage our debt levels in the short term.Based
on current information,the following table shows the projected year end fund balance
for the debt services funds for 2014-2018:
20142015201620172018
YE Fund Balance$6,897,820$4,672,360$3,201,030$2,022,020$1,238,100
% of debt service costs64%46%32%21%13%
% of debt service costs w/
69%56%49%42%42%
LGA funds($530,000/yr)
CIP Summary
A copy of the draft 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan has been distributed and can
be found on the City’s website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. The Transmittal Letter
highlights the major projects within the Plan for consideration. The document explains
each of the proposed projects, as well as analyzes the impacts on the budget for the
various funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as
proposed. The staff submits projects based upon goals set at the Council/Management
Team retreats. The finance staff analyzes the funds available for capital projects along
with the impacts of the staff proposals. A number of revisions are made in the project
submittals based upon the analysis of finance, aswell as management priorities to
achieve the attached CIP plan. The attachedtable shows the changes that were made
to the original requests based on the City’s financial means and meetings with the
various department heads.
Planning Commission Consideration
There are a couple of programs that are important to consider for thePlanning
Commission to make their finding during the 5-year planning period covered by this CIP
as follows:
1.Housing Replacement Program:
a.Proposes $100,000 in 2014, again in 2016 and again in 2018.
b.The proposal is that the HEDC develop a program for housing
rehabilitation or improvement on an every other year basis.
c.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for reinvestment into
the City’s housing stock.
2.Commercial Property Redevelopment
a.Proposes expenditures of $2,500,000 over the 5-year period.
b.Revenue from this program comes from the sale of property that has been
purchased and redeveloped [$1,800,000 is estimated], plus the annual
levy of $89,270.
c.The proposal is that the HEDC will be involved in the purchase of
redevelopment properties, improve the property and then resell the
property for increased tax base. The HEDC would make
recommendations to the Economic Development Authority.
d.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for business
retention and expansion.
3.Replacement of Fire Station and Public Safety Training Facility
a.Proposes $10,750,000 of expenditures over the 5-year period.
b.The proposal calls for a new fire station on the 3M Campus and upgrades
to the Hazelwood and Gladstone stations while abandoning the stations
on Londin Lane, Century Avenue and McMenemy Street in an effort to
consolidate service for overall operational cost savings, while improving
response times.
c.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining an
effective and cost-efficient Public Safety services.
4.Park System Investments
a.Proposes $7,428,000, including Prior Year investments into the Park
System for upgrades and replacements.
b.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining an
effective and quality Park and Open Space system.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that thePlanning Commission review the projects within the 2014-
2018 Capital Improvement Planand makea finding to the City Council that the2014-
2018 Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Note:
EachCommission may haveappointeda representative to deliver their
recommendationon the CIPto the Planning Commission. Thefinding of Consistency
th
with the Comprehensive Planneeds to delivered the City Council on July 8
;a
representativeshoulddeliver the PC recommendationthat evening.
ƌĂĨƚϮϬϭϰʹϮϬϭϴ/W
Review by ENR Commission on May 20, 2013
ϭ͘ ĂƐƚDĞƚƌŽ&ŝƌĞdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJʹŽŶ͛ƚŽƚŚĞƌĐŝties that are in the joint powers agreement help
pay for this facility?
Ϯ͘WĂƌŬ^LJƐƚĞŵƐWůĂŶʹtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽĞdžƉůŽƌĞĂƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĚƵŵĨŽƌĂƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞƉĂƌŬƐLJƐƚĞŵ͍
ϯ͘WŽŶĚůĞĂŶKƵƚͬƌĞĚŐŝŶŐWƌŽũĞĐƚƐʹtŚĞƌĞǁŝůůĂůůthe sediment go and how will it be treated?
ϰ͘^ƚƌĞĞƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐʹtŝůůĂůůŽĨŽƵƌĨƵƚƵƌĞƐƚƌĞĞƚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞ>ŝǀŝŶŐ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͛Ɛ
policy?
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Charles Ahl,City Manager
FROM:
Michael Martin, AICP,Planner
SUBJECT:Conditional Use Permit for Maplewood Auto Mall a Used Auto Sales
Business
LOCATION:
2529White Bear Avenue (former Super America building)
DATE:
July 9, 2013
INTRODUCTION
Lyudmila Cooper, of Maplewood Auto Mall, isproposing to sell used autos in the vacant, former gas
station building (building “B”) located at 2529White Bear Avenue. Selling used autos requires a
conditional use permit (CUP) be approved bythe city council. In addition, the applicant is proposing
to repaint the façade. There are two existing CUPs for used auto sales at this site; however both only
allow “by appointment only.” Ms. Cooper is requesting a CUP that would allow for regular, walk up
costumers.
BACKGROUND
March 22, 1988: The community design review board approved the plans for the Maplewood Auto
Center. This facility was developed as an automotive center for auto parts, sales, and vehicle repairs.
April 24, 1989: The citycouncil denied an appeal of two of the community design review board’s
conditions for approval of the Maplewood Auto Center (Attachment 2) including: 1) The exit on White
Bear Avenue shall have only one exit lane, a “no left turn” sign and stop sign; and2) there shall be no
outside storage or displays of products or merchandise.
November 22, 1999: The city council approved a CUP for Credit Equity Sales to open a motor vehicle
sales business for this location. In the year 2000, this permit was taken over by Midwest Auto.
July 9, 2001: The city council approved a CUP for Credit Equity to reopen a motor vehicle sales
business for this location.
August 27, 2001: The city council approved a CUP for Alamo Car Rental to lease motor vehicles.
April 22, 2003: The CDRB (community design review board) approved a comprehensive sign plan
amendment and design review change.
July 27, 2004: The CDRB approved changes to the property owner’s color scheme for the larger
building and its pylon sign.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
Staff’s initialconcern was allowing a used car sales business that was not by appointment only.
However, considering the site’s previous use as a gas station, which created frequent activity with
customers driving in and out of the lot, adding another used auto business would not be detrimental to
the character of this development.
Staff’s other major concern for this site is the allocation of parking spaces. For the past couple of
years, staff has dealt with complaints from tenants within the development about other tenants’ use of
spaces. Staff alerted the applicant and the property owner that a parking plan would be a conditional
of approval for the CUP. The applicant has submitted a parking plan which shows how the parking
spaces would be allotted among all the tenants. The parking plan is attached to this report.
Currently there is not an enclosed structure for trash servicing the old gas station building. A
condition of approval would be for the applicant to submit aplan to staff for how it intends to deal with
trash and if needed to submit design plans for an enclosure, subject to the city’s design review
process. Staff recommends conditioning the issuance of a license for auto sales on the applicant
addressing thetrash enclosure issue.
Design Review
Staff does notfind any problem with this proposal, especially due to the fact that the applicant is
proposing to paint the building with the same color scheme as the adjacent multi-tenant building. The
proposedrepainting of the building will give the building a fresh look after sitting vacant for many
years. The renderings submitted by the applicant do not appear to match the intent of applicant’s
color scheme. The design approval is conditioned on the applicant matching the color with the multi-
tenant building.
Signage
There is a comprehensive sign plan approved for this site. Wall Signs for Tenants of building B
(former Super America Gas Station) have the following requirements:
a.Wall signage is limited to two signs including one of individual channel letters not to
exceed 28-inches high and one readerboard sign not to exceed 24 square feet. Both
signs to be placed on the east side of the building.
b.Canopy signage is limited to one individual channel letter sign not to exceed 24 inches
high. Canopy signage is limited to the east side of the canopy.
DEPARTMENT REVIEW
Fire Marshal’s Comments
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, has the following comments regarding this proposal:
Fire protection systems (fire extinguishers and a sprinkler system) shall meet all requirements
of the code. These systems shall be approved and installed before the applicant begins his
business.
All vehicles shall be operational. There have been problems with inoperable vehicles on site.
There shall be no parting-out of vehicles outside the building and left in the parking lot.
The parking lot shall be kept clear of junk.
All service work that is needed on vehicles shall be completed inside a proper service garage.
There shall be an after-hours contact person on record with the city’s emergency dispatcher.
Police Comments
Lieutenant Richard Dobblar, of the Maplewood Police Department, finds no public safety concerns,
but has concerns regarding the traffic patterns through the lot and the adjacent Mapleridge Shopping
Center.
Building Official’s Comments
David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, has the following comments. The applicant shall:
Verify what was in the space in the past. If the building occupancy has changed, the
applicant shall need to comply with all applicable code requirements relative to his new
building use. A building permit may then be required.
Verify that the parking used with this business does not obstruct fire department
access for their trucks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A.Adopt the resolution attached to this reportapproving a conditional use permit for used car
sales at 2529White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and
subject to the following conditions:
1.All façade improvementsforthe Maplewood Auto Mallused autosales business shall
follow the plansapproved by the city. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
2.The applicant shall comply with the signage requirements of the city code and the auto
center’s sign criteria.
3.Fire protection systems (fire extinguishers and a sprinkler system) shall meet all
requirements of the code. These systems shall be approved and installed before the
applicant begins his business.
4.All vehicles shall be operational. There have been problems with inoperable vehicles on
site.
5.There shall be no parting-out of vehicles outside the building and left in the parking lot.
6.The parking lot shall be kept clear of junk.
7.All service work that is needed on vehicles shall be completed inside a proper service
garage.
8.There shall be an after-hours contact person on record with the city’s emergency
dispatcher.
9.Verify what was in the space in the past. If the building occupancy has changed, the
applicant shall need to comply with all applicable code requirements relative to his new
building use. A building permit may then be required.
10.Verify that the parking used with this business does not obstruct fire department access for
their trucks.
11.Theproposed motor vehicle sales use must be substantially started within one year of city
council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this
deadline for one year.
12.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
13.The property owner shall provide city staff a plan for trash removal or design plans for a
new enclosed structure, subject to the city’s design review process.
14.All tenants at the Maplewood Auto Center must adhere to the parking plan, dated July 8,
2013,assubmitted bythe property owner to city staff.
B.Approve the design plans attached to this report for the façade improvements on building B
(former Super America) located at 2529White Bear Avenue.
1.Color of stucco should be tan, matching building A.
2.Color striping sequence on the canopy shall match the existing sequence on building A.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the owners of the 18 properties within 500 feet of the proposed used auto sales
business for their comments. Of the three replies, one had “no comment,” one was in favor and one
was opposed.
In Favor
I have no objections as long as they maintain a clean operation especially along White Bear Avenue.
A landscaped buffer along White Bear Avenue would be preferred. (Bachmans, 2600White Bear
Avenue North)
Opposed
My name is Antoniette Guzzo. Per my mother’s (Carol Guzzo) request, I am responding to your
request for my mother’s opinion regarding the Maplewood Auto Mall Proposal.Carol has reviewed
the proposal to have a used auto sales at 2525 White Bear Avenue and with careful consideration has
decided not to provide a favorable opinion. She would not like to see a used car lot in this area is it
does not fit within the demographics of the area.
White Bear Avenue has been an area where people come to frequent specialty stores and Hwy 61
has been delegated for new and used car dealers. Carol would like to preserve White Bear Avenue's
slow paced family orientated atmosphere and request that this Auto Mall is located somewhereon
Hwy 61.Carol is also concerned with the following points if this Auto Mall is approved.
Bright Lights -Car lots usually require brighter lights to showcase their vehicles and to help
detour theft. If more lights are added it would be an eye soar to surrounding residence which
would bring down the value of their homes.
Theft -There is a potential of people using the land behind Carol's property to access the Auto
Mall.
(Carol Guzzo 1876 County Road C. E.)
No Comments
I have no comments. (Alerus Financial, 401 Demers St., Grand Forks, ND)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:4.8 acres
Existing Use: Maplewood Auto Center and former Super America building
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:A multi-tenant commercial building and vacant property.
South:Mapleridge Shopping Center
West:Undeveloped wetlands owned by Ramsey County.
East:Across White Bear Avenue are Bachman’s and the Goodwill.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (Commercial)
Zoning: BC (Business Commercial)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following
findings to approve plans:
1.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 contemplatedby 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.
Section 44-512 (5) (a) requires a CUP for the sale of used motor vehicles.
Section 44-1097 (a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer
to the findings in the attached resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
Staff received the complete application and plans for this proposal on June 11, 2013. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City
council action is required onthis proposal by August 10, 2013, unless the city needs an extension.
p:sec11\Fleetwood Motors
Attachments:
1.Location Map
2.Aerial Map
3.Land Use Map
4.Zoning Map
5.Site Plan
6.Parking Plan
7.Façade Update Plans
8.Applicant’s Letter of Request
9.Conditional Use Permit Resolution
Attachment 1
2525 White Bear Avenue
(Proposed Use Auto Sales)
Chad Bergo
Proposed Used Auto Sales - 2525 White Bear Avenue
Location Map
Attachment 2
2525 White Bear Avenue
(Proposed Use Auto Sales)
Chad Bergo
Proposed Used Auto Sales - 2525 White Bear Avenue
Aerial Map
Attachment 3
2525 White Bear Avenue
(Proposed Use Auto Sales)
Open Space
Government
Commercial
Commercial
Chad Bergo
Proposed Used Auto Sales - 2525 White Bear Avenue
Future Land Use Map
Attachment 4
2525 White Bear Avenue
Farm
(Proposed Use Auto Sales)
Business
Commercial
Commercial
Chad Bergo
Proposed Used Auto Sales - 2525 White Bear Avenue
Zoning Map
Attachment 6
6IGIMZIH
.YP]
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Lyudmila Cooper, of Maplewood Auto Mall, applied for a conditional use permit for the
saleof used motor vehicles at the Maplewood Auto Center:
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2529 White Bear Avenue. The legal
description is:
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE
MALL (PIN 11-29-22-22-0040)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1.On July 16, 2013, 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 written statements. The planning also considered reports and
recommendations of the city staff.
2.On _________, 2013, 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 this Code.
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 not exceedthe design standards of any affected street.
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.
The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
9.
Attachment 9
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.All façade improvementsforthe Maplewood Auto Mallused autosales business shall
follow the plansapproved by the city. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
2.The applicant shall comply with the signage requirements of the city code and the auto
center’s sign criteria.
3.Fire protection systems (fire extinguishers and a sprinkler system) shall meet all
requirements of the code. These systems shall be approved and installed before the
applicant begins his business.
4.All vehicles shall be operational. There have been problems with inoperable vehicles
on site.
5.There shall be no parting-out of vehicles outside the building and left in the parking lot.
6.The parking lot shall bekept clear of junk.
7.All service work that is needed on vehicles shall be completed inside a proper service
garage.
8.There shall be an after-hours contact person on record with the city’s emergency
dispatcher.
9.Verify what was in the space in the past. If the building occupancy has changed, the
applicant shall need to comply with all applicable code requirements relative to his new
building use. A building permit may then be required.
10.Verify that the parking used with this business does not obstruct fire department access
for their trucks.
11.The proposed motor vehicle sales use must be substantially started within one year of
city council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend
this deadline for one year.
12.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
13.The property owner shall provide city staff a plan for trash removal or design plans for a
new enclosed structure, subject to the city’s design review process.
14.All tenants at the Maplewood Auto Center must adhere to the parking plan, dated July
8, 2013, as submitted by the property owner to city staff.
The Maplewood City Council ___________this resolution on ____________, 2013.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Charles Ahl,City Manager
FROM:Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Conditional Use Permit for Our City –Our Neighborhood Church
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:1812 North Saint Paul Road
DATE:July 9, 2013
INTRODUCTION
Samuel Ly, on behalf of OurCity –Our Neighborhood Church,is requesting approval of a
conditional use permit (CUP) to locate their congregation to avacant medical office building,
located at 1812 North Saint Paul Road.The proposed seating capacity for the church is 187.
Refer to the attachments.
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 1972, the city council approvedbuilding plans for a medical building.
On March 1, 1973, the city council approved building plans for an expansion to the existing
building.
DISCUSSION
Parking
The applicant indicated the congregation is made up of 45 families. The proposed church
seating capacity is 187 seats. Based on the seating capacity the code requires 47parking
spaces,based on an average of four persons per vehicle (the average noted in the city’s parking
code). The existing parking lot provides spaces for up to 48cars –meetingthe code
requirements. The applicant has submitted a letter from the CFO of Junior Achievement which
has a large parking lot across the street from the proposed church location. This letter describes
a willingness to develop a shared parking agreement ifneeded. At this point, city staff does not
see the need to require a shared parking agreement, but if parking becomes an issue any
parking agreements need to be approved by the city council.
As conditions of approval for the CUP, staff is recommending the applicant submit a plan for
restriping the parking lot as the current lines have faded. This plan should detail the number and
dimensions of each space. Also, the applicant shall ensure none of the congregation members
park on the street or on neighboring parking lots.
Trash Enclosure
Currently the site has no enclosed structure for trash receptacles. Code requires any exterior
storage of trash receptacles to be within an enclosed structure. The applicant should be required
to submit design plans for a trash enclosure to be built on site.
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 naturaland scenic features.
Not cause adverse environmental effects.
The proposed church would meet these nine criteria.As mentioned above,though,parking
should be restricted to the site and should be monitored and considered during the annual CUP
reviews.
Staff Comments
Building Official
Dave Fisher, the building official, stated the proposed church is a change in use and change in
occupancy. A new certificate of occupancy is required. The building is required to be fire
sprinklered. A design professional is required for building code analysis. This will provide the
new owner with all the requirements.
Assistant Fire Chief
Theapplicantwill need to install fire protection and alarm system per-code. The applicant will
also need to provide access for the fire department in cases wherethe parking lot is full then the
applicant will need to maintain both exits/entrances in and out of the parking lot.
Police
LieutenantRichard Doblar had no concerns.
City Engineering
A SAC determination will be required for the change of use. The applicant shall pay all fees
associated with this determination.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permitfor Our City –Our Neighborhood
Church, located at 1812 North Saint Paul Road.Approval is based on the findings required by
ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1.No exterior site or building exterior changes, except signage, shall take place unless
approved by the city. Signs shall follow the city’s sign ordinance. Signs shall not be installed
unless the applicant first obtains sign permits.
2.Any and all trash receptacles shall be contained within an enclosed structure. Any design of
a new structure shall be subject to the city’s design reviewprocess.
3.The proposed usemust be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
4.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
5.All of the applicant’s parking shall be confined to the site and not allowed on city streetsor
neighboring properties.
6.The city shall monitor any parking complaints and report to the city council about compliance
annually during the CUP review.
7.The applicant shall submit a parking restriping plan for staff approval.
8.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the building official, assistant fire chief
andcity engineer.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the owners of the 29properties within 500 feet of the proposed church for their
comments. Of the fourreplies, one had “no comment,” one was in favor, onewas opposed and
onehad a parkingcomment.
In Favor
As long as they comply with all applicable city ordinances –especially noise and garbage, we
have no objections. (Junior Achievement,1800 White Bear Avenue North)
Opposed
I would be opposed to another church in the area. We need more tax based businesses. How
would parking be accommodated. (Debra Pedro,1829 North Saint Paul Road)
Parking Concners
We, as Landlod, currently lease the adjacent property to O’Reilly Automotive Stores, who are
concerned about the church utilizing O’Reilly’s parking lot which is closer to the proposed church
than their existing parking. This is obviouslya major concern to our tenantand us, as Landlaord
as well. As you may be aware, O’Reilly Stories are openand operational on Sundays, and
parking and traffic congestion are items of concern. (Kin Properties, 185 NW Spanish River
Blvd., Boca Raton FL)
No Comments
I have no comments. (Alerus Financial, 401 Demers St., Grand Forks, ND)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 0.58acres
Existing land use: Vacant, former medical office building
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: North Saint Paul RoadandJunior Achievement
South: Branch28Building
East: Auto repair business
West: Auto parts retail store
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: MU(mixed use)
Zoning: MU(mixed use)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a CUP for churches.
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 application for this request was complete on June 11, 2013. State law requires that the city
decide on land use applications within 60 days. The deadline for council action, therefore, is
August 10, 2013.
P:\SEC14\1812 North St Paul Road\1218NorthStPaulRoad_CUP_PC_071613
Attachments:
1.LocationMap
2.AerialMap
3.Land Use Plan Map
4.Zoning Map
5.Applicant’s Written Narrative
6.Applicant’s Proposed Floor Plan
7.Letter from Junior Achievement, dated June 6, 2013
8.CUP Resolution
Attachment 1
1812 North Saint Paul Road
(Proposed Church)
Chad Bergo
Proposed Church - 1812 North Saint Paul Road
Location Map
6
Attachment 2
1812 North Saint Paul Road
(Proposed Church)
Chad Bergo
Proposed Church - 1812 North Saint Paul Road
Aerial Map
7
Attachment 3
1812 North Saint Paul Road
(Proposed Church)
Chad Bergo
Proposed Church - 1812 North Saint Paul Road
Future Land Use Map - Mixed Use
8
Attachment 4
1812 North Saint Paul Road
(Proposed Church)
Chad Bergo
Proposed Church - 1812 North Saint Paul Road
Zoning Map - Mixed Use
9
10
Attachment 6
11
Attachment 7
12
Attachment 8
CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Our City – Our Neighborhood Churchapplied for a conditional use permitto
operate a church.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for
churches and institutions of any educational, philanthropic and charitable nature.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1616 Gervais Avenue. The property
identification numberis:
14-29-22-33-0012
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1.On July 16, 2013,the planning commission held a publichearing. 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 report and recommendation of
city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council _______this
permit.
2. On ___________, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________ 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 this Code.
2.Theuse 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 not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
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.
13
The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
9.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.No exterior site or building exterior changes, except signage, shall take place unless
approved by the city. Signs shall follow the city’s sign ordinance. Signs shall not be
installed unless the applicant first obtains sign permits.
2.Any and all trash receptacles shall be contained within an enclosed structure. Any
design of a new structure shall be subject to the city’s design review process.
3.The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one
year.
4.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
5.All of the applicant’s parking shallbe confined to the site and not allowed on city
streets or neighboring properties.
6.The city shall monitor any parking complaints and report to the city council about
compliance annually during the CUP review.
7.The applicant shall submit a parking restriping plan for staff approval.
8.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the building official, assistant fire
chief and city engineer.
The Maplewood City Council __________ this resolution on ___________.
14
Attachment 7
II I
-----
-----------J -----— .__.--_.-_- L_----__--
L—
T �
I I I
j } 1 a
0
F.
,
. o
II I
-----
-----------J -----— .__.--_.-_- L_----__--
L—
T �
I I I
j } 1 a