HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-20 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,August 20, 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.July 16,2013
5.Public Hearings
a.7:00p.m. or later: St. Clair Hills Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request, Carver
Avenue and Sterling Street for Tyrus Land Company
b.7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit Revision for the Parking Lot Expansion at the
Bruentrup Heritage Farm, 2170County Road D
c.7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit Revision for theNew Tennis Courts at Hill Murray
High School, 2625Larpenteur Avenue
6.New Business
a.Ordinance Amendment For Warehousing in BC (business commercial) districts
7.Unfinished Business
8.Visitor Presentations
9.Commission Presentations
a.Commission presentation for the July 22, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler
attended.Items discussed were the CIP, the 3M TIF request, the CUP for auto sale for
Cooper Motors at the Maplewood Auto Mall and the CUP for a church at 1812 North St. Paul
Road.
b.Commission representation for the August 12, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner
Desai was scheduled to attend. There were no scheduled planning commission items for this
meeting. The CUP for auto sales for Cooper Motors was reconsidered.
c.Commission representation for the August 26, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner
Arbuckleis scheduled to attend. The anticipated itemsfor review arethe proposed land use
plan and zoning changes for Tyrys Land Company and the Bruentrup Farm parking lot
expansion.
10.Staff Presentations
11.Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 16,2013
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 Desai.
2.ROLL CALL
Paul Arbuckle, CommissionerPresentat 7:07p.m.
Al Bierbaum, CommissionerPresent
Tushar Desai,ChairpersonPresent
John Donofrio, CommissionerPresent
Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent
Absent
Lorraine Fischer, Commissioner
Allan Ige, CommissionerPresent
Bill Kempe, CommissionerPresent
Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agendaas submitted.
Seconded by CommissionerDonofrio.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve theJune 18,2013, PCminutes as submitted.
Seconded by CommissionerKempe.Ayes –ChairpersonDesai,
Commissioner’s Donofrio,
Durand, Ige, Kempe,
& Trippler
Abstention –Commissioner Bierbaum
The motion passed.
5.PUBLIC HEARING
a.2014–2018 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) Review and Debt Analysis
i.City Manager, Chuck Ahl gave the reporton the 2014 –2018 CIP and answered
questions of the commission.
ii.Maplewood Fire Chief, Steve Lukin addressed and answered questions of the
commission.
July 16, 2013 1
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
iii.Maplewood Public Works Director, Michael Thompson addressed and answered
questions of the commission.
iv.Maplewood Parks Director, Jim Taylor addressed and answered questions of the
commission.
The commission asked questions of the city staff regarding the 2014 –2018 CIP.
Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing.
Nobodycame forward to speak regarding the public hearing.
Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approvethe 2014 –2018 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan)
Review and Debt Analysis.
Seconded by Commissioner Bierbaum.Ayes –Chairperson Desai,
Commissioner’sBierbaum,
Donofrio, Durand, Ige, Kempe,
&Trippler
Nay
–Commissioner Arbuckle
Commissioner Arbuckle voted nay because he didn’t feel comfortable with all the information in
the document.
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city councilon July 22, 2013.
b.Conditional Use Permit for Maplewood Auto Mall a Used Auto Sales Business at 2529
White Bear Avenue.
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report on the Maplewood Auto Mall Used Auto
Sales Business and answered questions of the commission.
Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing.
Attorney for the applicant, Dan Westerman, 855 Village Center Drive, St. Paul, addressed and
answered questions of the commission.
Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approvethe resolution in the staff report approving a conditional
use permit for used car sales at 2529 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the findings
required by the code and subject to the following conditions:
1.All façade improvements for the Maplewood Auto Mall used auto sales business shall follow
the plans approved 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.
July 16, 2013 2
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
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. Therehave 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 completedinside 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 be come 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 citystaff.
Seconded by Commissioner Arbuckle.Ayes –Chairperson Desai,
Commissioner’s Arbuckle,
Donofrio, Durand, Ige,
Kempe & Trippler
Nay
–Commissioner Bierbaum
Commissioner Bierbaum voted nay because he didn’t feel thiswas an appropriate locationfor a
car lot.
The motion passed.
c.Conditional Use Permit for the Our City/Our Neighborhood Church at 1812 North St.
Paul Road
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report on the CUP for Our City/Our Neighborhood
Church and answered questions of the commission.
July 16, 2013 3
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Samuel Lee, Our City/Our Neighborhood Church, 1812 North St. Paul Road,
addressed and answered questions of the commission.
The applicant’s design professional answered a question of the commission.
Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approvethe resolution approving a conditional use permit for
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:(changes are in bold
and underlined.)
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.
be
5.All of the applicant’s parking shall be confined to the site and not allowed on city streets or
, unless there is a parking agreement made between the applicant
neighboring properties
and a neighboring property owner.
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.
Seconded by Commissioner Arbuckle.Ayes -All
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council August 12, 2013.
6.NEW BUSINESS
a.3M Company Tax Increment Financing Request
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced the item.
ii.Analyst, Tom Denaway with SpringstedInc., 380 Jackson St, Ste. 300, St. Paul, gave the
presentation on the 3M Company Tax Increment Financing Request and addressed and
answered questions of the commission.
Commissioner Bierbaummoved to approvetheresolution for the 3M Company Tax Increment
Financing request.
July 16, 2013 4
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
Seconded by Commissioner Kempe.Ayes –Commissioner’s Arbuckle,
Bierbaum, Desai, Durand, Ige,
Kempe & Trippler
Abstention
–Commissioner Donofrio
The motion passed.
This itemgoes to the city council July 22, 2013.
b.Discussion –Ordinance Amendment Request to Allow Indoor Storage/Warehousing in
BC (business commercial) Zoning Districts
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report on the Ordinance Amendment Request to
Allow Indoor Storage/Warehousing in BC Zoning Districts and answered questions of the
commission.
ii.Bill Piette,Representing U-Haul, 2242 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, addressed and
answered questions of the commission.They did however, direct staff to bring back an
ordinance amendment for indoor warehousing in a BC district for their consideration.
The commission did not like the Goodwill building sitting vacant but they also had concerns
regarding changing the ordinance for indoor storage/warehousing.
Staffwillbring a draft of the ordinance amendment for indoor storage/warehousing back to the
planning commission for their recommendation to the city council.
7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
None.
8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
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 items to present.
b.Commission presentation for the July 8, 2013, city council meeting. Commissioner Igewas
scheduled to attendbut staff reported the Harmony School CUP revisionwas approved.
c.Commission representation for the July 22, 2013, city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler
is scheduled to attend. The anticipated items for review will be the review of the 2014–2018
CIP and the 3M Company 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 Church CUP requests.
10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS
July 16, 2013 5
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
a.Staff stated the August 6, 2013,planning commission meeting is cancelled due to National
Night Out.
b.Staff mentioned to the new planning commission members that plans must be turned in at the
endof the meetings to reuse for other meetings.
11.ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Desaiadjourned the meeting at 9:51p.m.
July 16, 2013 6
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
MEMORANDUM
TO:Chuck Ahl,City Manager
FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning for St. Clair Hills Single-Dwelling
SUBJECT:
Development
(4/5vote required to approvethe land use plan amendment; 3/5 vote required to
approve the rezoning)
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Sterling Street and Carver Avenue
DATE:August 14,2013
INTRODUCTION
Request
Jamie Jensen, of Tyrus Land Company, is requesting approval of:
Acomprehensive land use plan amendment from R/LDR (rural/low density residential) to
LDR (low density residential)for a single-dwelling development proposal.
Arezoning of this property from R1R (rural conservationdwellingdistrict) to R1 (single
dwelling).
The reason for these requestsis to enable Mr. Jensento develop lots with a minimum of 10,000
square feet of lot areainstead of the two-acre lot sizeminimum required for lots in the R1R
district. If the council approves these changes, Mr. Jensen willsubmit his preliminary plat
request for the subdivisionproposal.
BACKGROUND
History of this Proposal
In 2006, Mr. Jensen requested approval to rezone the easterly of his two proposed lots to R1.
At that time, he was proposing 14 lots. He had proposed this rezoning during the South
Maplewood DevelopmentMoratorium and, therefore, also applied for a variance from the
moratorium ordinance for the consideration of this rezoning.
On February 12, 2007, the city council denied the proposed moratorium ordinance variance and
the rezoning to R1.
In March 2009,Mr. Jensen revised his previous proposal and submitted a rezoning request to
change the zoning for the easterly of his parcels from R1Rto R1S (small-lot single dwelling) to
plat the property into 16 home sites.
On March 3, 2009, the planning commission recommended denial of Mr. Jensen’s rezoning
request to R1S.
On March 23, 2009, the city council tabled the proposed zoning map change from R1R to R1S
at Mr. Jensen’s request. Mr. Jensen did not pursue this request.
Current Land Use Plan Adopted
January 25, 2010: The city council adopted the 2030 Land Use Plan Updatewhich established
the R/LDR land use category with itsdensity range of .5 to 1.5 units per acre.
DISCUSSION
Land Use Plan and Rezoning Requests
These two requests are about density.The applicant is asking for amendment of the land use
plan and zoning classifications to be permitted to develop his 8.61 acre property with the R1
density of 2.6 to 6 units per acre vs. the R1R density of .5 to 1.5 units per acre. With the 24 lots
proposed, the applicant is proposing 2.8units per acre.The existing R1R zoning would allow
four homes at the two-acre minimum lot size requirement or up to 13 homes with density
incentives applied (read below).
Density
As mentioned, the development density allowed in therequested LDR classification is 2.6 to 6
units per acre. This would allow lots with a 10,000-square-foot minimum area vs. the current lot
size requirement of a two-acre minimum. The R1R ordinance, further, allows an increase of
densityif the applicant would meet various density bonuses or density incentives. These
density incentives would be met by applying various “conservation principles” that allow a higher
density. For example, if a developer preserved trees or slopes, provided additional stormwater
management, clustered homes, developed trail connections or preserved views (to name some
of the 18 potential incentives), they could build at a density of 1.5 units per acre or three homes
on a two-acre-size area. Refer to the attached R1R ordinance for the complete list of
“Conservation Principles and Density Incentives.”
Applicant’s Justification
The applicant has given the following reasons for his requests(refer to the applicant’s letters as
well):
The property has sewer and water available, making 10,000 square foot lots feasibleand
proper.
The property is in close proximity to hospitals, schools, police/fire protection and two major
metropolitan cities making a standard 10,000-square-foot lot-size minimumsubdivision
concept appropriate.
Public agencies have provided the aboveurban amenities and a lesser density would not
provide a sufficient means to contribute toward recovering those costs and pay toward the
ongoing expenses.
The increase in housing density will allow more individuals to live within a close distance to
their place of business. This leads to less time spent commuting and in traffic. Additionally,
local businesses will have a greater potential for hiring employees.
By amending the zoning to permit smaller lots, the city will be guaranteeing proper spacing
and use of the land. Overcrowding would only occur if parcels like these parcels are
allowed to remain low density such that other parcels are required to reach higher density to
allow for all of the individuals who wish to live in the area.
A change in zoning to R1 would conserve and increase property values. Properties with
higher density values are more valuable. The improvement of the zoning for these parcels
will reflect positively on nearby parcels and their values.
The zoning change requested will bring these parcels in line with the zoning on the property
directly across the street. (Staff note: the property across the street is planned and zoned
the same as the applicant’s two parcels.)
The purpose of the R1R zoning designation is to protect those properties that do not have
access to city water and city sewer.”These parcels have access to city water and city
sewer and therefore should not be listed with the rural designation properties. (Staff note:
The R1R zoning ordinance does not stateas a reason or purpose for larger lots as the need
to protect properties that do not have access to city water and sewer.)
Engineering Comments
Refer to the engineering report by Jon Jarosch, staff engineer.Mr. Jarosch indicates that sewer
and water are available in the streets at the corner of Sterling Street and Carver Avenue. But,
essentially, there have been no engineering details submitted yet for a thorough review.
Environmental Comments
Shann Finwall, environmental planner, gave the following comments:
It appears that the proposed development would ultimately require variances to the City’s
wetland and creek buffer requirements.There is a 100-foot buffer requirement to Fish Creek.
Some of the grading for the lots maycome within that buffer area.Additionally, it appears that
there are some slope issues that might prove a hardship for development under the current
scenario.
Neighbor’s Comments
Staff surveyed the 21 surrounding property owners within 500 feet for their comments about
these requests. We received the following seven comments:
I am not for rezoning this land! I know Maplewood will do anything you want to do! (Robert
Woog, 2595 Carver Avenue)
I am concerned that lawn chemicals will runoff from lawns into the stream. (Amy Kaiser,
9880 Military Road)
This is Paul Schlomka. I own 2511 Carver Avenue and the lot next to it and 2591 Carver
Avenue. These Properties are straight across from the Proposed Land Development. We
would be the properties most affected by the proposed land development. We think the
zoning should stay rural because Fish Creek and the open space butts up to the proposed
land development. We do not think Carver Ave or Sterling St could handle all the extra
traffic from proposed land development. We do not want to be hooked up to city sewer and
water or be assessed for it on our taxes. We think the proposed land development would
increase our taxes, which are already extremely high.I’ve lived in South Maplewood for 42
yrs. We live here because it is still a rural area and we would prefer to keep it that way.
24 houses is far too many. I would be ok with maybe 8 houses. (Beverly Stielow, 1285
Sterling Street)
Ournames are Christopher and Jane Jenkins, and welive at 1435 Sterling Street S.Our
concern with Mr. Jensen's proposal is the rezoning which from our understanding would
exempt him from adhering to environmental issues such as setbacks from Fish Creek, run-
off into Fish Creek, preservation of trees and other changes that might increase already
evident erosion, etc.... What happened to his original plan he presented 6 years ago? We
feel that would be more fitting for the area. His proposal has just a few inaccuracies in it, i.e.
#3 rezoning would not affect light and open spaces (how could it not!); #5b rezoning brings
his parcels more in line with the property across the street (those 3 properties seen from the
street own a significant amount of land behind them, even if they may have access to city
sewer and water on Carver, so they are far from being comparable --these are just 2
examples although we have issues with several other claims in his proposal. There is also
the concern regarding traffic --how could there not be an impact? There are only 3 routes
available to exit this area north and then east or west on Carver or south to Bailey--what is
his planned exit from his property? In and out onto Carver; in and out onto Sterling or 2
exits onto both streets?The narrow bridge over Fish Creek has pavement that is dipping
now, there is a lot of bicycle traffic and there is no shoulder --the speed limit is 35, which is
too fast already in our opinion,with the deer and wild turkey prevalent in the area. We will
stop there--we know you don't have all day to read this! But, these are just a few of our
concerns. Thank you, Christopher and Jane Jenkins.
I am against this. It would not be fareto wildlife and environment. I feel it is wrong for the
farming that live on the site to deal with new development when we have shortage of clean
organic growing produce at this time. Maybe you should exercise more agriculture in
Maplewood. (Patty Gearin, 2575 Carver Avenue)
Refer to the letter from Jim Kerrigan, 2620 Carver Avenue.
Conclusion
Staff is not supportive of the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoningchangesto allow
development at 10,000-square-foot lot size minimums and depart from the conservation
principles outlined in the R1R ordinance. The city councilhas done considerable planning and
visioning regarding the future development of south Maplewood. In 2003, the council adopted
the original R1R ordinance, they then enacted the South Maplewood Development Moratorium
in 2006 and 2007 and finally established the R/LDR density of .5 to 1.5 units per acre for this
area in the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan updateadoptedin 2010. These actions all
point outthe council’s desirefor environmentally-sensitive and ecologically-aware development
practices in this remaining, largely undeveloped part of the city.
RECOMMENDATION
1.Deny the requested land use plan amendment fromR/LDR (rural/low density residential) to
LDR (low density residential) for a single-dwelling development proposallocated at the
southeasterly corner of Sterling Street and Carver Avenue. This recommendation for denial
is based on the following reasons:
a.The city council guided the subject properties as R/LDR on January 25, 2010with the
intention of limiting development impact and housing density in order to preserve and
enhance the ecological and aesthetic character of the property.
b.Nothing has changed in the neighborhood or on these properties which would warrant
changing their land use designation to a higher density.
c.Reclassifying the subject properties to LDR, a higher density, would create an
inconsistency between these parcels and the surrounding acreage which is also guided
R/LDR in the comprehensive planlike the subject properties.
d.A guiding principle of the land use plan is that “whenever possible, changes in types of
land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas
separated by major man-made or natural barriers.” A change to the land use plan to a
higher density would be contrary to this objective.
2.Deny the requested rezoning from R1R (rural conservation dwelling district) to R1 (single
dwelling) for the development proposal located at the southeasterly corner of Sterling Street
and Carver Avenue. This recommendation for denialis based on the following reasons:
a.The city council zoned the subject properties as R1R (rural conservation dwelling
district)with the intention of limiting development impact and housing density in order to
preserve and enhance the ecological and aesthetic character of the property.Rezoning
this land to R1 (single dwelling residential)would be contrary to that goal and eliminate
the intended environmental controls.
b.Nothing has changed in the neighborhood or on these properties which would warrant
rezoning this property to allow a higher density.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Lot Size:8.61 acres
Existing Land Use: Primarily undevelopedexcept for a single family home on the westerly side
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:Carver Avenueand large
Southand East:Fish Creekand Ramsey County open space land
West:Interstate 494
PAST ACTIONS
Previous Proposalsby Mr. Jensen
In 2006, Mr. Jensen requested approval to rezone the easterly of his two proposed lots to R1.
At that time, he was proposing 14 lots. He had proposed this rezoning during the South
Maplewood Development Moratorium and, therefore, also applied for a variance from the
moratorium ordinance for the consideration of this rezoning.
On February 12, 2007, the city council denied the proposed moratorium ordinance variance and
the rezoning to R1 as follows:
The city council denied the moratorium ordinance variance request because:
Strict enforcement of the moratorium ordinance would not cause an undue hardship to the
property or to the property owner. The applicant knew the property in question was zoned R-
1R (which limits the type of development possible on the property) when he purchased it
and that the property could be subject to a moratorium when he made application to the city.
There are no special circumstances or conditions in this case that warrant the city approving
a variance to the moratorium.
The proposed rezoning (and then the proposed subdivision) would be premature and would
not be compatible with the R1R zoning designation.
The proposed rezoning and subdivision would not meet the spirit and intent of the
moratorium ordinance. This is because the city put the moratorium ordinance in place to
study land use and zoning patterns in this area (among other things). The proposed
variance would remove the subject property from the study and thus from any possible
changes that the city decides to make to the land use and zoning designations as a part of
the study.
The city council denied the proposed zoning map change to R-1because:
The request does not meet all the criteria required by the city for a zoning map change. This
is because the city cannot determine if the proposed zoning change would have any
negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and
facilities.
Staff recommended that the city not grant the variance to the moratorium. The moratorium
prohibits the city from considering rezoning or development requests, unless the city
approves a variance to the moratorium.
The proposed rezoning was not consistent with the R-1R zoning that the city intended to use
to preserve the semi-rural lifestyle and to minimize tract housing. The city expects the R-1R
zoning and any development consistent with that zoning to have lots at least two acres in
size and to have wells and individual septic systems (not using city sewer and water). The
proposed plan as shown by the applicant for the rezoning was not consistent with the R-1R
zoning as it showed 10,000-square-foot lots and the use of city water and sewer to serve the
new lots.
March 2009: Mr. Jensen revised his previous proposal and submitted a rezoning request to
change the zoning for the easterly of his parcels from R1R to R1S (small-lot single dwelling) to
plat the property into 16 home sites.
March 3, 2009: The planning commission recommended denial of Mr. Jensen’s rezoning
request to R1S for the following reasons:
A rezoning would not be consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code
which is to provide larger lots.
The proposed R-1S zoning would not be in character with the neighborhood since this
neighborhood is not developed with lots of this small size.
The proposed change would not serve the best interests of the community since the city
council, based on substantial citizen input, has determined that a lower density in this
neighborhood is preferred.
The proposed change is not consistent with the current or future comprehensive plan.
March 23, 2009: The city council tabled the proposed zoning map change from R1R to R1S at
Mr. Jensen’s request. Mr. Jensen did not pursuethis request.
Current Land Use Plan Adopted
January 25, 2010: The city council adopted the 2030 Land Use Plan Update which established
the R/LDR land use category with its density range of .5 to 1.5 units per acre.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: existing—R/LDR; proposed--LDR
Zoning: existing—R1R; proposed R1
REVIEW DEADLINE
The applications for these requests were considered complete on June 28, 2013. State law
requires that the city make a decision within 60 days of a complete application, however, the city
can extend this deadline an additional 60 days. Staff has already extended the review period an
additional 60 days. The new deadline for a council decision is, therefore, October 26, 2013
P:Sec24-28\St. Clair Hills at Carver and Sterling Jamie Jensen Applicant\Plan Amendment and Rezoning for St. Clair Hills PC
Report#38 13 te
Attachments:
Location Map
1.
Land Use Plan Map
2.
Zoning Map
3.
Aerial Photo
4.
Proposed Development Concept
5.
Land Use Plan Letter of Justification dated June 22, 2013
6.
Rezoning Letter of Justification dated June 7, 2013
7.
Engineering Report dated July 10, 2013
8.
Letter from Jim Kerrigan dated July 17, 2013
9.
R1R Ordinance
10.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Charles Ahl, City Manager
FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Dave Fisher, Building Official
Turf Parking Lot at Bruentrup Farm
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:2170 County Road D East
DATE:August 5, 2013
INTRODUCTION
On July 23, 2012, the city council amended the parking ordinance to allow reinforced-turf,
overflow parking areas. This ordinance revision was proposed by the Maplewood Area
Historical Society(MAHS)in preparation ofinstallingsuch a parking lot. They now are
requesting approval to amend their conditional use permit (CUP) for the addition of a turf
parking lot east of their existing blacktop parking lot.Refer to the attachments.
Request
Amend the CUP to permit the addition of a reinforced-turf parking lotatthe Bruentrup Farm.
BACKGROUND
The MAHS manages the 2.36 acre Bruentrup Farm. The site is surrounded on three sides by
the 22-acre Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve, which ispart of the City’sNeighborhood
Preserve System.The 21-stall parking lot east of the farm buildings is on the preserve land and
is maintained by the city for visitors to the Farm and to the preserve.
Under the CUP approved for the Farm, MAHS may host six private events annually, such as
weddings andother celebrations.Revenue from these events goes to MAHS to help support
the Farm’sprograms and facilities.
The 21-stall parking lot is not adequate for large events. Under the terms of the CUP, MAHS is
required to have agreements with localbusinesses to use their parking lots.Getting permission
to use these lots has not been an issue,but it is inconvenientfor visitors, since they mustcross
a street and walk about a block to the Farm. While this can be an enjoyable walk and a fun part
of a public event, it is very inconvenientfor some elderly visitors and groups like wedding parties
that may come in formal clothing and footwear. In addition,MAHS hasconcerns aboutsafety
since some visitors park onlocal streetsand cross County Road D without a crosswalk. County
Road D is very narrow and it is dangerous for pedestrians to walk along this road.
DISSCUSSION
MAHS would like to expand the existing parking area to provide overflow parking foritsevents.
Because they are restricted tosixlarge events per year, they do not need an asphalt lot. They
would like to install a24-stall,overflow turf parking lot east of the existing parking lot.
Criteria to Allow Turf Parking
The parking ordinance would allow reinforced-turf parking lots when they would meet the
following criteria:
When the need for overflow parking is infrequent or limited to occasional parking events.
Where there is already hard-surfaced parking that provides for handicap-accessible parking
needs.
Where the turf parking lot would meet setback and screening requirements.
Where the parking need is seasonal (non winter) so snow plowing is not needed.
Where there would be an environmental benefit due to storm water management or meeting
shoreland/wetland/flood plain ordinance impact needs.
Where the turf-parking plan meets the approval of the city engineer from the standpoint of
using proven construction materials engineered for durability and aesthetics.
Where theturf-parking plan meets the approval of the police and fire chief from the
standpoint of meeting public safety requirements.
This parking surface alternative shall not apply to single and double dwelling residential
properties which are governed under Section 44-17 (j), the residential parking ordinance
apply.
The proposed parking lot expansion would meet thesecriteria, subject to the city engineer,
police chief and fire chief reviewingand approvingthe plans prior to construction.
Proposed Parking Lot Construction
The proposed overflow turf parking lotwould be alawn areathatis constructed of a durable
mesh toaccommodate occasional parking.This mesh product would be staked down to a
prepared soil base and would allow thegrass to grow through. This product helps spread out
vehicle weight and reduces soil compaction. Turf parking areas have environmental benefits
since they reduce the amount of impervious surface needed for parking,they allowrain to
infiltrate, and they are cooler than an asphalt lot. MAHS would like to use the product
TM
GrassProtectafor this project. Refer to the attached data sheet.
Neighborhood Supportand Screening
MAHS has talked to adjacentneighborsand neighborssupport this project as long as an
evergreen buffer is installed to screen the property to the east of the parking lot. The landscape
design includes evergreen screening.The city and MAHS would seek agrant from the Ramsey
Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD)for this project, with matching funds from
MAHS and in-kind services from Maplewood staff.
CONCLUSION
This would be the first reinforced-turf overflow parking lot in Maplewood. One of the city’s goals
is to continue to be an environmental leader. This project is consistent with that goal. The Farm
is an excellent site to demonstrate this type of project due to itslocation, existing parking lot,
and the level of use is appropriate for turfparking.
If this project is approvedby the citycouncil,it would proceed only if grant funding is received
from RWMWD.
COMMISSION ACTIONS
July 23, 2013: The community design review board recommended approval of this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt theconditional use permit revision resolution for the Bruentrup Farm, located at 2170
CountyRoad D East, to allow the addition of a 24-stall reinforced turf parking lot for overflow
parkinglot. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following
conditions(Additions are underlined):
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2.Before the city issues a building permit, the city engineer shall complete the necessary
grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans.
3.The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings:
a.Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b.Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap-parking space and an address on the building.
c.Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The
enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the buildings and
have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. If the trash container is not
visible to the public it does not have to be screened.
d.Install site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including
the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so the light source in not visible
and so it does not cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors.
4.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if the city
determines that the work is not essentialto the public health, safety or welfare.
5.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6.Update the January 2008 Bruentrup Heritage Farm Master Plan to include correct site
size, site conditions, parking references, and purpose and intent of uses including any
large non-historical fundraising events.
7.When the parking lot located east of the site cannot accommodate parking for an event
(i.e., events where there are more than 84 people based on 4 people per vehicle in the
21 space parking lot located to the east of the site) the society must supply off-site
parking to accommodate the events.
8.Off-site parking at Salvation Army (78 parking spaces at 2080 Woodlyn Avenue):
a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the
society and the owners of the Salvation Army for the use of the parking lot.
b.Transportation of guests in a wagon pulled by a tractor to and from the Salvation
Army parking lot (Woodlyn Avenue) on a trail through the Prairie Farm
Neighborhood Preserve is only allowed during daytime hours.
c.The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Woodlyn
Avenue and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Salvation Armyparking lot.
Safe pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards.
9.Off-site parking at Harbor Pointe (278 parking spaces at 2079 to 2127 County Road D):
a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the
society and the owners of Harbor Pointe which allows the use of this parking lot.
b.The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of County
Road D and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Harbor Pointe parking lot. Safe
pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards.
10.Any large scale music proposed for any event on the site (such as DJs and bands)
should be limited to inside the barn.
11.Use of the farm must comply with the city’s noise ordinancewhich requires that no
disturbing noises be generated before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m.
12.The society will work with Maplewood city staff to coordinate the management of the oak
savanna located west of the entry drive within the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site with the
intent of continuing to manage that portion of the site as oak savanna.
13.The barn must be posted with a maximum occupancy of 290 people.
Conditions Which Apply to the Subleasing of the Site by the Society for Large Non-Historical
Fundraising Events:
14.Subleased large non-historical fundraising events are allowed six times per year.
15.Subleased large non-historical fundraising events are allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.
16.Parking for subleased large non-historical fundraising events in which alcohol will be
served is limited to the parking lot on the east side of the site and the Harbor Pointe
parking lot located about a block west of the site on the north side of County Road D.
17.Maximum number of occupants allowed on sitefor large non-historical fundraising
events in which alcohol will be served is limited to 290 people.
18.Appropriate liquor licenses must be obtained prior to serving alcohol on the site.
19.The society must obtain the appropriate liability coverage for large non-historical
fundraising events which holds the city harmless.
20.A rental agreement must be approved by the city which dictates hours of use, maximum
number of people, location of parking,etc.
Conditions Relative to the Proposed Reinforced-Turf Parking Plan:
21.The site and landscaping plan dated July 17, 2013, showing the proposed turf parking
plan is approved.
22.Minor revisions may be approved by staff.
23.Construction shallbegin on the proposed turf parking lot within one year or this approval
shall end. The city council may extend this approval for one additional year.
24.The city engineer, police chief and fire chief shall review the plans, as required by
ordinance, before construction on the turf parking lot can begin.
25.Screening must be provided, as proposed, to buffer the proposed parking lot from the
neighbor to the east.This screening shall be completed before the parking lot may be
used, unless the applicantprovides escrow to guarantee its completion. Escrow shall
be, as is typically required, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing the
landscaping.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 2.36 acres
Existing land use: Bruentrup Heritage Farm
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: County Road D and Single Family Homes
South: Maplewood Prairie Farm Heritage Preserve
East: Single Family Homes
West: Maplewood Prairie Farm Heritage Preserve
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: OS(open space)
Zoning: F (farm)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44-1092(1) of the city ordinances requires a CUP for public service and public building
uses.
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 considered complete on July 17, 2013. State law requires
that the city decide on these applications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on
this proposal is September 15, 2013.
P:Sec2N\Bruentrup Farm\Turf Parking Lot Request\Bruentrup Farm Turf Parking Lot PC CUP Report 8 13 te
Attachments:
1.Resolution of CUP Revision to allow turf parking
2.Zoning Map
3.Land Use Plan Map
4.Parking lot designdate-stamped July 17, 2013
5.Landscape designdate-stamped July 17, 2013
TM
6.GrassProtectaCase Study
7.Turf-Parking Ordinance
8.Existing CUP Conditions dated July 27, 2009
9.Letter from Robert Jensen of MAHS dated July 9, 2013
Attachment 1
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Maplewood Area Historical Society has applied for a conditional use permit
revision to construct a 22-stall reinforced-turf parking lot at the Bruentrup Farm.
WHEREAS, Section 44-17, the off-street parking ordinance requires city council approval of turf
parking lots.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(1) of the city code requires a conditional use permit for public
building uses.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2170 County Road D East. The
property identification numbers for this property is:
022922110009
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1.On ____________, 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 ___________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 _________ 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.
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council also determines that the above-
described conditional use permit for a reinforced-turn parking lot meets the following criteria:
1.When the need for overflow parking is infrequent or limited to occasional parking events.
2.Where there is already hard-surfaced parking that provides for handicap-accessible
parking needs.
3.Where the turf parking lot would meet setback and screening requirements.
4.Where the parking need is seasonal (non winter) so snow plowing is not needed.
5.Where there would be an environmental benefit due to storm water management or
meeting shoreland/wetland/flood plain ordinance impact needs.
6.Where the turf-parking plan meets the approval of the city engineer from the standpoint of
using proven construction materials engineered for durability and aesthetics.
7.Where the turf-parking plan meets the approval of the police and fire chief from the
standpoint of meeting public safety requirements.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2.Before the city issues a building permit, the city engineer shall complete the necessary
grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans.
3.The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings:
a.Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b.Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap-parking space and an address on the building.
c.Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The
enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the buildings and
have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. If the trash container is not
visible to the public it does not have to be screened.
d.Install site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including
the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so the light source in not visible
andso it does not cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors.
4.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if the city
determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
5.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6.Update the January 2008 Bruentrup Heritage Farm Master Plan to include correct site
size, site conditions, parking references, and purpose and intent of uses including any
large non-historical fundraising events.
7.When the parking lot located east of the site cannot accommodate parking for an event
(i.e., events where there are more than 84 people based on 4 people per vehicle in the
21 space parking lot located to the east of the site) the society must supply off-site
parking to accommodate the events.
8.Off-site parking at Salvation Army (78 parking spaces at 2080 Woodlyn Avenue):
a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the
society and the owners of the Salvation Army for the use of the parking lot.
b.Transportation of guests in a wagon pulled by a tractor to and from the Salvation
Army parking lot (Woodlyn Avenue) on a trail through the Prairie Farm
Neighborhood Preserve is only allowed during daytime hours.
c.The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Woodlyn
Avenue and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Salvation Army parking lot.
Safe pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards.
9.Off-site parking at Harbor Pointe (278 parking spaces at 2079 to 2127 County Road D):
a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the
society and the owners of Harbor Pointe which allows the use of this parking lot.
b.The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of County
Road D and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Harbor Pointe parking lot. Safe
pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards.
10.Any large scale music proposed for any event on the site (such as DJs and bands)
should be limited to inside the barn.
11.Use of the farm must comply with the city’s noise ordinance which requires that no
disturbing noises be generated before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m.
12.The society will work with Maplewood city staff to coordinate the management of the oak
savanna located west of the entry drive within the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site with the
intent of continuing to manage that portion of the site as oak savanna.
13.The barn must be posted with amaximum occupancy of 290 people.
Conditions Which Apply to the Subleasing of the Site by the Society for Large Non-Historical
Fundraising Events:
14.Subleased large non-historical fundraising events are allowed six times per year.
15.Subleased largenon-historical fundraising events are allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.
16.Parking for subleased large non-historical fundraising events in which alcohol will be
served is limited to the parking lot on the east side of the site and the Harbor Pointe
parking lot located about a block west of the site on the north side of County Road D.
17.Maximum number of occupants allowed on sitefor large non-historical fundraising
events in which alcohol will be served is limited to 290 people.
18.Appropriate liquor licenses must be obtained prior to serving alcohol on the site.
19.The society must obtain the appropriate liability coverage for large non-historical
fundraising events which holds the city harmless.
20.A rental agreement must be approved by the city which dictates hours of use, maximum
number of people, location of parking, etc.
Conditions Relative to the Proposed Reinforced-Turf Parking Plan:
21.The site and landscaping plan dated July 17, 2013, showing the proposed turf parking
plan is approved.
22.Minor revisions may be approved by staff.
23.Construction shall begin on the proposed turf parking lot within one year or this approval
shall end. The city council may extend this approval for one additional year.
24.The city engineer, police chief and fire chief shall review the plans, as required by
ordinance, before construction on the turf parking lot can begin.
25.Screening must be provided, as proposed, to buffer the proposed parking lot from the
neighbor to the east. This screening shall be completed before the parking lot may be
used, unless the applicant provides escrow to guarantee its completion. Escrow shall
be, as is typically required, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing the
landscaping.
The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on __________.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charles Ahl,City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Approval of a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit Revision
and Design Approval, Hill-Murray School
LOCATION: 2625Larpenteur Avenue East
DATE: August 12, 2013
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Larry Wacker, of Sanders Wacker Bergly,representing Hill-Murray School, is proposing to
construct tennis courts at the southeast corner of the school property, adjacent to Larpenteur
Avenue. The tennis court facility would include eight tennis courts, sidewalks, bleacher seating, a
small plaza for staging and gathering and a small storage shed. The tennis courts will not have any
lighting. The school does not currently have any tennis courts because of a previous building
expansion that removed the courts.
According to the applicant, the proposed location of the facility is the only buildable space on the
school property that is large enough to accommodate the courts and is not devoted to other uses.
The project design will require minor grading on the adjacent property, now owned by the Harriet
Tubman Center. Officials of HillMurray and Harriet Tubman have met and have agreed on the
design of the tennis court project as shown on the attached drawings.
To move forward with this project Mr. Wacker and Hill Murray School is requesting city approval of
the following:
1.Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They are proposing changes to the
approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools.
2.Design approval for tennis courts on the east side of the property. This includes the
architectural, site and landscape plans for the project.
BACKGROUND
August 24, 1992: Council approved a sign size variance for a 99-square-foot wall sign for Hill-
Murray. At the time the code allowed 24 square feet.
On April 8, 1996, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for Hill-Murray to make
changes and improvements to their athletic fields. This approval was subject to ten conditions.
On July 14, 1997, the city council reviewed the CUP for Hill-Murray. At this meeting, the council
changed Condition 8 of the 1996 approval to read as follows: “Applicant may be required to plant
30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle,
as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit.”
1
On May 11, 1998, the city council approved a wetland buffer setback variance and a conditional
use permit revision for the Hill-Murray athletic facilities. These requests were to update and revise
the plans that the city had approved for the school’s athletic facilities in 1996 and in 1997 and were
subject to several conditions.
On June 28, 1999, the city council approved the following for Hill-Murray High School:
1.Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They proposed several changes to the
approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. This approval was
for the school to replace and expand the school’s main entry, which they have now completed.
The school also proposed an expanded parking lot on the east side of the school building.
2.The designs for an addition to the mainentry of the school. This included the architectural, site
and landscape plans for the project.
On November 13, 2001, the city council approved a CUP revision for the school. This revision was
for plans for an addition on the west side of the school that included a chapel and a student
entrance.
On August 28, 2006, the city council approved a CUP revision and the project plans for the school.
These approvals were so that Hill-Murray could:
1.Put a 31,500-square-foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and
locker room space.
2.Renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit Revisions
The proposed tennis courtaddition meets the findings for aCUP approval and would be
compatible with the existing school and the development in the area. None of the proposed
changes nor the addition should cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors.
Design Review
Site and Layout Plan
The proposed tennis courts will have roughly a north-south orientation with foursets of bleachers
on the east and west sides of the facility. An existing sidewalk will provide a path from the school
to the tennis courts and the walk will continue around the perimeter of the facility to each of
bleacher sets. A proposed concrete pad on the northeast corner of the site would be for a 12’ by
12’ wood storage shed. Because of the grading of this site,retaining walls are required on both the
east and west sides of the complex. Any retaining walls four feet or over will be required to have a
fence as required by code.
2
Parking Considerations
The school is not proposing an increase in itsstudent population with this project. As such, this
project will not create a need for additional parking for the school.However, the removal of 20
parking spaces is needed for the tennis complex. In 2006, the school added these 20 spaces for
additional parking but they were not required by city code. The city code requires schools to
provide one parking space for every 20 seats in an auditorium. After the removal of the 20 spaces
the school will still have 405 parking spaces which far exceeds the code requirements for this site.
Landscaping
Within the project site, there are 40 significant trees. The applicant is proposing to remove 28
significant trees. Because the overall campus is large, the applicant is removing less than 20
percent of the significant trees on site and is only required to replace trees on a one-to-one basis.
The code requires 28 trees beplanted and the applicant is proposing 30 new deciduous trees.
South of the tennis courts, the applicant is proposing a basin to help meet its stormwater treatment
requirements. The applicant has proposed to seed the basin but staff is concerned with the
amount of water entering the basin, which would wash awaythe seeds. Staff recommends the
basin be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs and perennials.
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Staff engineer Jon Jarosch and the city’s natural resources coordinator Ginny Gaynor have both
reviewed this proposal and submitted reports. Please refer to the attachments for their reports.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A.Adopt the attached resolution. This resolution approves revisions for the conditional use
permit for Hill Murray Schooland tennisfacilitiesat 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by ordinance. Approval is based on the
findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions(deletionsare crossed
outand additions are underlined):
1.All construction shall follow the plansdate-stamped July 29, 2013as noted below:
a.For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998.
b.For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May
19, 1999.
c.For the chapel addition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001.
d.For the field house, follow the plans dated June 28, 2006.These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes required by the city engineering
department.
The interimdirector of community development may approve minor changes.
3
2.The proposed construction for thetennis court complexfield houseaddition must be
substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall
end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking
situations related to the use of the athletic fields.
4.Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be
screened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or
residential properties.
5. Post and maintainsigns on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs
in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn.
6. That portion of the proposed walking/running path that is within 50 feet of the
wetland shall be built with a pervious material.
7. Ensure that allbleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street
and Larpenteur Avenue right-of-ways.
8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening
between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at
a future hearing on the conditional use permit.
9. Theschool shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic
fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the
school willfollow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall
prepare and follow the plan sothe practices will minimize the impact of the storm
water runoff on the nearby wetlands.
10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide
sedimentation control at the stormwater discharge point before it dumps into the
south wetland area.
B. Approve the project plans date-stamped July 29, 2013, (site plan, landscape plan, grading
and drainage plans and elevations)for the tennis court complexaddition at HillMurray
School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by
the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2.Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a.Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and sidewalk plans. The
plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Jon Jarosch’smemo dated
August 1, 2013 and in Ginny Gaynor’s memo dated August 6, 2013.
4
b.Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
3.Complete the following before occupying the addition:
a.Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b.Restore and sod damaged turf areas.
c. Complete all landscaping for theaddition.
d.Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including theplantings around
the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code
requirement).
4.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a.The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b.The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required
exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished
landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or
winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
5
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Staffsurveyed the owners of properties within 500 feet of the projectsite. Staff received one
positive comment from the Tubman Center.
For:
I have reviewed the Hill Murray Tennis Court proposal received from the City of Maplewood.
As stated in the memorandum from the landscape architects, Tubman representatives havemet
with Hill-Murray and have agreed on the location and design, and we are in support of Hill-Murray
moving ahead with their project. (Christine M. Brinkman,Chief Operating Officer, Tubman)
6
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 47 acres
Existing land use: Hill-Murray School and athletic fields
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:Single dwellings and undeveloped property
South:Larpenteur Avenue and single dwellings
West:Sterling Street, ponds and The Maplewoods Apartments
East:Tubman Center and the St. Paul Priory
PLANNING:
Land Use Plan designation: I (Institution)
Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwelling residential)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 44-1092(3) requires a CUP for schools.
Section 44-1103(b) requires a CUP to enlarge a use for which a CUP is required.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-290(b) 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 contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3.That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
7
Application Date
The city received the complete applicationsand plansfor this development on July 29, 2013. State
law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by September 27, 2013,
unless the city files for or the applicant agrees to a time extension.
P:\SEC13-29\LARPENTEUR_2625_Hill Murray\CUP Revision_2013
Attachments:
1.AreaMap
2.LocationMap
3.Land Use Map
4.Zoning Map
5.Project Narrative
6.Proposed LayoutPlan
7.Proposed PlantingPlan
8.Jon Jarosch Report, dated August 1, 2013
9.Ginny Gaynor Report, dated August 6, 2013
10.Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution
11.Project Plans (Separate Attachment)
8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Hill-Murray School requested that the city revise their existing conditional use
permit for a school and athletic facilities.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The legal
description is:
Part of the S ½ of the SE ¼ of S 13, T 29N, R22W, Ramsey County,MN (PIN 13-29-22-43-
0002)
WHEREAS
, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1.On August 20, 2013the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surroundingproperty
owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and
recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that
the city council_________the conditional use permit.
2.On September 9, 2013, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use
permitrevision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning
commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit revision, 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 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.
9
9.
The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following
conditions(deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined):
1.All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped July 29, 2013as noted below:
a.For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998.
b.For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May
19, 1999.
e.For the chapel addition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001.
f.For the field house, follow the plans dated June 28, 2006. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes required by the city engineering
department.
The interimdirector of community development may approve minor changes.
2.The proposed construction for the tennis court complexfield houseaddition must be
substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall
end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking
situations related to the use of the athletic fields.
4.Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be
screened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or
residential properties.
5. Post and maintainsigns on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs
in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn.
6. That portion of the proposed walking/running path that is within 50 feet of the
wetland shall be built with a pervious material.
7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street
and Larpenteur Avenue right-of-ways.
8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening
between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at
a future hearing on the conditional use permit.
9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic
fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the
school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall
prepare andfollow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm
water run off on the nearby wetlands.
10
10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide
sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point beforeit dumps into the
south wetland area.
The Maplewood City Council _____________this resolution on September 9, 2013.
11
Attachment 1
Public Safety
Training Center
Hill Murray School
Priory Open Space
Chad Bergo
Proposed Tennis Court Complex - 2626 Larpenteur Avenue
Area Map
12
Attachment 2
Proposed
Tubman Center
Tennis
Courts
Hill Murray School
Priory Open Space
Proposed Tennis Court Complex - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue
Location Map
13
Attachment 3
High Density Residential
Proposed
Tennis
Courts
Institutional
Low
Density
Residential
Open Space
Proposed Tennis Court Complex - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue
Future Land Use Map
14
Attachment 4
Multi-Family Residential
Proposed
Tennis
Courts
Farm
Open Space
Proposed Tennis Court Complex - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue
Zoning Map
15
Attachment 5
16
Attachment 6
17
Attachment 7
18
Attachment 8
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Hill Murray Tennis Courts
PROJECT NO: 13-08
COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer
DATE: 8-1-2013
PLAN SET: Preliminary Plans dated 7-10-2013
REPORTS: Storm Water Management Report dated 7-10-2013
Hill Murray is proposing to construct a tennis court facility at the south east corner of its
property.The proposed court area currently consists of a grassy hillside.Due to the addition of
impervious surfacesin excess of 5,000 square-feet,the applicant is required to meet the City’s
storm water quality and rate control requirements. The plans as proposed do not appear to
meet these requirements and will need to be modifiedas further detailed below.
The applicant is requesting design review. Thisreviewdoes not constitute a final review of the
plansas the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review, along with
ratified agreements, prior to issuing building and grading permits.The following are engineering
review comments, and act as conditions prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, or building
permits.
Drainage and Stormwater Management
1)It appears from the hydraulic calculations submitted that the proposed storm sewer
system and infiltration basin does not meet the City’s rate control requirements. The
system shall be modified to meet the City’s requirements.
2)The pipe between CBMH-2 and the infiltration basin is shown to have flow velocities in
excess of 10 feet per second. Flow velocities such as this are likely to cause erosion at
the outlet. This pipe run shall be modified to slow the flow velocity. A drop structure is
advised before the pipe outlets into the infiltration basin.
3)A high water level and emergency overflow shall be shown on the plans fortheboth the
infiltration basin and thebasin surrounding CBMH-2. The overflowswill need to have
proper stabilization.
4)Energy dissipation (rip-rap, etc.) shall be extendedto the basin bottom from the pipe
discharging into the infiltration basin. A dropstructure and pipe extending to the basin
bottom is recommended.
19
Attachment 8
5)The maximum depth of infiltration basins is 2-feet per the City’s Stormwater Standards.
The infiltration basin shall be revised to reflect this requirement.
6)Soils information shall be submitted providing support for the infiltration rates utilized in
the hydraulic calculations. The soil boring utilized for the basins infiltration rate shall be
taken within the basins footprint.
7)It appears that over double the required infiltration volume has been provided. It is
recommended that drain-tile be installed beneath the basin to ensure the basin draws
down. Adding drain-tile would result in the basin being considered a filtration basin,
receiving a 70% credit for volume reduction. The basin wouldstill meet the volume
reduction requirements with this reduced volume credit.
8)Submit specifications and sequencing for the proposedstorm sewer andinfiltration basin
construction such that impacts to the basin bottom do not affect the infiltration capability
of the soils.
9)The applicant should consider connecting the infiltration basin overflow pipe to the
existing catch-basin near the entrance drive.
10)The applicant shall ensure that the inlet capacity of the slot drain system is adequate for
the area draining to it.
11)It appears that an existing storm sewer pipe crossing the entrance drive is to be
removed. Please call this out on the plans.
Grading and Erosion Control
12)It appears that retaining walls are proposed in excess of 4-feet in height. As such, these
retaining walls shall be designed and certified by an engineer licensed in the state of
Minnesota. Likewise, a fence is required along the portions of the wall 4-feet in height or
taller.
13)Due to the steep slopes and high potential for erosion, all disturbed areas shall be
stabilized immediately after final grading.Steep slopes should be broken into shorter
runs through the use of silt fence, bio-rolls, or other methods of erosion control.This is
crucial in the infiltration basin area to prevent sedimentation.
14)All emergency overflows shall be adequately stabilized.
15)There is a high potential for erosion off of the northeast corner of the tennis courts. The
applicant shall ensure that this area is adequately stabilized.
20
Attachment 8
16)Silt fence, bio-rolls, etc. shall be installed at the limits of grading along the north and
west sides of the site.
17)Infiltration basins shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation throughout
construction.
18)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on the existing stormsewer in the entrance
drive area as well as all proposed storm sewer.These inlet protection devices shall be
noted on the plans.
19)Larpenteur Avenue and the entrance drive areashall be swept as needed to keep the
road clear of sediment and construction debris.
20)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant.
21)A right-of-entry or agreement shall be obtained from the adjacent property to perform the
grading work shown on the plans east of the tennis courts. A copy of this document shall
be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits.
22)It appears that a significant amount of cover (7-feet) is proposed to be removed over the
existing water service. The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to Saint Paul
Regional Water Services (SPRWS) for review. The applicant shall meet all requirements
of SPRWS prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A copy of their approval shall be
submitted to the City of Maplewood.
Other
23)All civil plans shall be signed and dated by an engineer currently licensed in the state of
Minnesota.
24)The developer shall submit a copy of the MPCA’s construction stormwater permit
(SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project.
25)The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of allpermitting and reviewing agencies
including, but not limited to, theMPCA, SPRWS, and RWMWD.
26)The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all stormwater
treatment devices (sumps, basins,infiltration basins, etc.).
21
Attachment 9
Infiltration Basin Planting Review
Project:
Hill Murray School Tennis Court Construction
Date of Plans:
July 10, 2013
Date of Review:
August 6, 2013
Location:
2625 Larpenteur Avenue
Reviewer:
Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
(651) 249-2416, virginia.gaynor@ci.maplewood.mn.us
The proposalcalls for seeding the infiltration with Seed Mix B. Due to the volume and
rate of water entering the basin, seeding is not appropriate. The seed would be
washed away and will not establish. Rather than seeding, the basin should be planted
with trees, shrubs, and/or perennials.
Please submit a landscape plan for the basin that showstheplanting design and
includes species, quantities, and container size.
City staff is happy to answer any questions you have on planting design. If planting
costs arean issue, you may want to consider having students plant the basins. Our
staff has done numerous plantings with students and can share ideas on that with you
as well.
22
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Hill-Murray School requested that the city revise their existing conditional use
permit for a school and athletic facilities.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The legal
description is:
Part of the S ½ of the SE¼ of S 13, T 29N, R22W, Ramsey County, MN (PIN 13-29-22-43-
0002)
WHEREAS
, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1.On August 20, 2013the 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 persons at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and
recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that
the city council _________the conditional use permit.
2.On September 9, 2013, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use
permitrevision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning
commission and citystaff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit revision, because:
1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's ComprehensivePlan 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 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.
23
9.
The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following
conditions(deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined):
1.All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped July 29, 2013as noted below:
a.For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998.
b.For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May
19, 1999.
e.For the chapel addition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001.
f.For the field house, follow the plans dated June 28, 2006. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes required by the city engineering
department.
The interimdirector of community development may approve minor changes.
2.The proposed construction for the tennis court complexfield houseaddition must be
substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall
end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking
situations related to the use of the athletic fields.
4.Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be
screened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or
residential properties.
5. Post and maintainsigns on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs
in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn.
6. That portion of the proposed walking/running path that is within 50 feet of the
wetland shall be built with a pervious material.
7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet fromthe Sterling Street
and Larpenteur Avenue right-of-ways.
8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening
between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at
a future hearing on the conditional use permit.
9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic
fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the
school will follow in the care of their athletic fields andgrounds. The school shall
prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm
water run off on the nearby wetlands.
24
10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide
sedimentation control atthe storm water discharge point before it dumps into the
south wetland area.
The Maplewood City Council _____________this resolution on September 9, 2013.
25
MEMORANDUM
TO:Chuck Ahl,City Manager
FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Ordinance Amendment for Warehousing in BC (business
SUBJECT:
commercial) districts—Section 44-512
VOTE:Simple Majority Required to Approve
DATE: August 2,2013
INTRODUCTION
Proposal
U-Haul, located at 2242 White Bear Avenue, would like to buy the neighboring Goodwill
Store, now closed, and expand their business to that site. They would use this building
for warehousing. The city ordinance, however, does not permit warehousing in a BC
district. The zoning code allows warehousing in the M1 district, but code does not
mention warehousing as a permitted or a conditional use in BC. Part of U-Haul’s
proposal is also to use the Goodwill parking lot for truck and trailer parkingand rental.
Refer to the letter from Daniela Warren.
Planning Commission Direction
On July 16, 2013, the planning commission considereda request by U-Haul that the city
amend the BC (business commercial) district provisions to allow warehousing by
conditional use permit (CUP).
The planning commission directed staff to present them with an ordinance amendment
for their consideration to allow warehousing in a BC districtby CUP. Their reasons were
thatthey acknowledgedU-Haul as a long-term member of the Maplewood business
community. They wanted to help them grow and to show support. In addition, the
Goodwill property has been vacant for two years and this would be a use for that unused
property.
The planning commission, however, expressedaconcern that amending the ordinance
to allow warehousing in BC districts would affect all BC districts throughout the city
where such ause may not be appropriate.
Request
Amend theBC district ordinanceto allow warehousing by CUP.
BACKGROUND
Current Code Requirements
Sections 44-511 (permitted uses) and 44-512 (conditional uses), in the BC District
regulations, do not permit warehousing. Warehousing is not mentioned, therefore, it is
not allowed.
Warehouses are allowed in the M1 (light manufacturing) district, indicating that it was
clearly the intent of the code to allow warehousing in those areas but not in other zoning
districts.
DISCUSSION
Code Amendment to Allow Warehousing by CUP
The BC ordinance already allows “exteriorstorage” by aCUP as follows: “the exterior
storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials, but not including a junkyard,
salvage automobile, or other wrecking yard. The city may require screening of such
uses pursuant to the screening requirements of subsection (6.a.)of this section.”
Staff does not see a problem with the applicant’srequest to amend the ordinance for
indoor storage or warehousing by CUP, since the code already allows exteriorstorage
by CUP. It should be understood, though, that the city has land zoned BC in some
highly visible locations that would not be appropriate for warehousing, such as the
Maplewood Mall area as an example. If the council amendsthe ordinance to allow
warehousing by CUP,this would permit warehouses by CUP in any BC district, not just
the former Goodwill site.
Findings to Approve a CUP
The zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine that all nine “standards” for
CUP approval be met to allow a CUP. Therefore, to approve a CUP for warehousing,
the council would need to determine that a proposed warehouse would:
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.
Truck and Trailer Rental on the Former Goodwill Site
Section 44-512(5), under conditional uses, states the following:
(5)For motor vehicles, the following activities (are allowed conditionally), if not within
350 feet of any property that the city is planning for residential use:
a.The sale or leasing of used motor vehicles.
b.The storage or rental of motor vehicles.
The important point in this ordinance is that vehicle sale, storage or rental activities must
be at least 350 feet from property planned for residential use. The former Goodwill site
is directly next to (north of) the townhomes to the south and is 170 feet from the
residential land across Van Dyke Street.
Amending the ordinance to allow indoor storage activities by CUP would not allow
U-Haul the full use of the Goodwill propertysince code prohibits vehicle rentals closer
than 350 feet to residential property. The applicant would have to apply for a variance
from the 350-foot distance requirements from residential property to expand their rental
activities to this site.This is a substantial request and would be difficult for the city to
approve.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution amending Section 44-512(4) to allow warehousing in BC (business
commercial) districts by conditional use permit.
p:\ORD\Warehousing in BC Districts\Code Amendment Report for Warehousing in BC Districts PC Report 8
13 te
Attachments:
1.Ordinance Amendment to Section 44-17
2.Zoning Map U-Haul/Goodwill Area
3.Land Use Plan Map of U-Haul/Goodwill Area
4.Aerial Photo
5.BC Zoning Ordinance
6.Letter from Daniela Warren dated May 29, 2013
7.Certificate of Survey
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
WAREHOUSING IN BC (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL) ZONINING DISTRICTS
BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The Maplewood City Council approves the following revisionto the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances. (Additions are underlined.)
Section 1. Section 44-512(4) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinancesis hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 44-512.Conditional Uses.
In a BC business commercial district, the following uses must have a conditional use
permit:
(4)Warehouses, the exterior storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or
materials, but not including a junkyard, salvage automobile,or wrecking yard.
The city may require screening of such uses pursuant to the screening
requirements of subsection (6.a.) of this section.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and
publishing in the officialnewspaper.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on ___________.
_________________
Mayor
Attest:
______________________
City Clerk
Attachment 7
--————— -- — ---I L ----------------
msw sca.ue
.., a m., c. s„" • ate.
BMIS BAG NVA
1-----T-----'-'---------------i—
r I I I
\ 11 p I I LL�4 I
\ at •� I I � '�ti I
\ / A
L— — — — — — — — ———— — — — - -f �_-
u- w --I --
}p S
i
I
I
I
I
I
ti :N
i
I !
I
o' l
I
i
I
�
�T
I
! o
al p
i
I
I
A
�T
514