Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-06 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,May 6, 2014 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.April 15,2014 5.Public Hearing a.7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of a Shorelend Setback Variance Resolution for the Construction of a Home Addition, 2843 Meadowlark Lane b.7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of a Variance Resolution for the Construction of a New Garage, 798 McKnight Road c.7:00 p.m. or later:Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Plans for a Building Addition to Beaver Lake Elementary School d.7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Reduce the Parking Lot Setback for the Hobby Lobby Dock Addition at the Plaza 3000Shopping Center, 3000 White Bear Avenue e.7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of Home Occupation License for Just Rita’s a Hair Salon Located at 2139 Edgerton Street 6.New Business 7.Unfinished Business 8.Visitor Presentations 9.Commission Presentations a.Commission presentation for theApril 28, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler wasscheduled to attend. There wereno items requiring planning commissionrepresentation. b.Commission representation for the May 12, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Desaiis scheduled to attend. The anticipated itemsfor review are the Verizon Wireless CUP,the Plaza 3000 parking lot setback reduction CUP, the Beaver Lake Elementary School CUP, the shoreland setback variance for 2843 Meadowlark Lane and the garage setback variance for 798 McKnight Road. c.Commission representation for the May 26, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Arbuckle isscheduled to attend. This meeting falls on Memorial Day and is cancelled. d.Commission representation for the June 9, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Diatta is scheduled to attend. Items to be reviewed are the Just Rita’s Home Occupation request at 2139 Edgerton Street and the reconsideration of an ordinance amendment requested by U- Haulto allow indoor warehousing in a BC district. 10.Staff Presentations 11.Adjournment DRAFT MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 15,2014 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 Acting Chairperson Arbuckle. 2.ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, Acting ChairpersonPresent Al Bierbaum, CommissionerPresent Absent Tushar Desai,Chairperson Yaya Diatta, CommissionerPresent John Donofrio, CommissionerPresent Allan Ige, CommissionerPresent Bill Kempe, CommissionerPresent Donn Lindstrom, CommissionerPresent Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerKempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Trippler had a correction to the minutes on page3, item 10. It should say April 15 not 28. CommissionerTripplermoved to approve theMarch 18,2014, PCminutes as amended. Seconded by CommissionerKempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. 5.PUBLIC HEARING None. 6.NEW BUSINESS a.Overview of Gladstone Phase 2 Improvements i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced Jon Horn from Kimley-Horn & Associates to give the presentation. April 15, 2014 1 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes ii.Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates, St. Paul addressed the commission and gave a presentation on the Gladstone Phase 2 Improvements and answered questions of the commission. No action was required. 7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS None. 8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a.Commissioner presentation for the March 24, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Lindstrom was scheduled to attend. There were no planning commission items requiring planning commission representation. b.Commissioner presentation for the April 14, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Ige was scheduled to attend. There were no items requiring planning commission representation. c.Commission representation for the April 28, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend. At this time there are no anticipated items requiring planning commission representation. d.Commission representation for the May 12, 2014, city council meeting. Chairperson Desai is scheduled to attend. The anticipated items for review are the Verizon Wireless CUP and the Plaza 3000 parking lot setback reduction CUP. 10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS Staff stated the next planning commission meeting of May 6, 2014, will have at least five items to review. The only city council meeting of the month will be May 12, 2014, and will be a very busy meeting. The last city council meeting of May 26, 2014, falls on Memorial Day so it has been cancelled. 11.ADJOURNMENT Acting ChairpersonArbuckleadjourned the meeting at 7:34p.m. April 15, 2014 2 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Ahl,City Manager FROM: Michael Martin,AICP, Planner Melinda Coleman,Assistant City Manager DATE: April 29, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of a Shoreland Setback VarianceResolution for the Construction of a Home Addition, 2843 Meadowlark Lane Introduction David and KathleenGabel are proposing to build a364 square foot addition to their home located at 2843 Meadowlark Lane. Their home is currently 50 feet from the edge of Kohlman Lake. City ordinance requires a 75-foot setback from the lake. The addition would be 45 feet from the lake, thus requiring a 30-foot setback variance. Discussion Shoreland Ordinance Kohlman Lakeis a Class 4 Public Water. The shoreland ordinance requires structures to have a setback of 75 feet to the ordinary high water mark of a Class 4 Public Water. The maximum percentage of impervious surface for a single family waterfront lot is 30 percent, with the possibility of increasing that to 40 percent with stormwater best management practices approved by the cityengineer. The house is located 50feet fromthe ordinary high water mark of Kohlman Lake. City staff calculates the dry land of the lot to be 18,368square feet in area with 3,475 square feet of impervious surface coverage (19percent). The lot currently exceeds the shoreland structure setback requirements of 75 feet to the ordinary high water mark but is well below theimpervious surface coverage maximums of 30 percent. The additionwill be located within 45feet of the lake and will require a 30-foot shoreland structure setback variance. As part of the applicant’s current plans, they are removing 998 square feet of existing concreteandto be replaced by an 850 square foot permeable paver patio. The applicant has alreadyrestored the shoreland with native vegetation. DepartmentComments Engineering The engineering department has no concerns with this proposal. Building Official Nick Carver, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: Must meet all building code requirements. Environmental Planner Refer to the report by Shann Finwall and Virginia Gaynor dated April 29, 2014. Ms. Finwall and Ms. Gaynor’s conditions noted in their report should be made conditions of this project. Commission Action Planning Commission On May 6, 2014, the planning commission will hold apublic hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. Budget Impact None. Recommendation 1.Adopt the resolution approving ashorelandsetbackvariance from KohlmanLake –a Class 4 Public Water.Approval is based on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the shorelandsetbackrequirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. B.Approval of the requested shorelandsetbackvariance would benefit the adjacent lake because the site will have its impervious surface area reduced. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed additionwould be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. D.The Minnesota Department of Natural Resourceshas reviewed the applicant’s plans and does not require a permitor have any state statutes that prevent the additionfrom being built. Approval of the shorelandsetbackvariance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in Shann Finwalland Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. Citizen’s Comments City Staff surveyed the owner of the 32properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments about the proposal. Of the 9replies, were in favorand one had concerns. In Favor My husband, Vaughn, and I have no objection to the variance request set forth by the Gabels. (Liz Jefferson,974Kohlman Lane) Thank you for sending the letter and attachment. The plan looks very nice and I have no objection. I met Mr. Gabel last summer when he stopped by to inquire about ourshoreline restoration. He strikes me as a thoughtful and considerate neighbor who would not want to negatively impact his neighbors and natural surroundings. (Bill Hjort, 970 Kohlman Lane East) OKbuild it! (John Anderson, 2878 Meadowlark Lane North) It’s fine with us. (Terry and Shirley Mens, 2856 Meadowlark Lane North) Approve (Thomas and Ediner Ogwangi, 2875 Meadowlark Lane North) He should be allowed to build. (Edward Komac, 2865 Meadowlark Lane North) My husband and I have no isses with this and would approve of the request. (985 Kohlman Lane East) We support. It’s great to see properties (and values) upgraded and the Gabel family are great stewards of the lake. (Christopher and Kirstin Jacobson, 2846 Meadowlark Lane North) I believe the proposed addition would bring value to the neighborhood andam in favor of granting permission. (Ronald Mader, 970 Kohlman Court) Concerns Thanks for sending out this information. It looks as though there are only a few other homes with this option to expand on Kohlman Lake. I think it would be important to get those neighbors feelings and possibility of them wanting to expand at a later date. If one is OK, can you say no to others? Also where do you stop at; 35’ –20’ –15’…(Bernard and Margaret Flicek, 969 Kohlman Lane East) Reference Information Figure 1 –Location Map Site Description (Figure 1) Site size: 0.42acres Existing Use: Single family home Surrounding Land Uses North:Single family homes South:Kohlman Lake Building East:Single family homes Addition West:Single family homes Planning(Figure 2) Land Use Plan: LDR(low Figure 2 –Land Use and Zoning Map density residential) Zoning: R1(single dwelling) Building Addition Criteria for Variance Approval Section 44-13 of the city code allows the city council to grant variances. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes. State law requires that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be: 1.In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; 2.Consistent with the comprehensive plan; 3.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Application Deadline City staffreceived the complete application and plans for this proposal on April 21, 2014.State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. Therefore, the deadline for city action is June 20, 2014.If the city needs extra time to review this application, state statute allows the city to take an additional 60 days but must notify the applicant by letter. Attachments 1.Site Plan 2.Building Plans 3.Letter from Watershed District, dated April 11, 2014 4.Applicant’s Letter of Request dated April 14, 2014 5.Environmental Plan Review, dated April 29, 2014 6.Shoreland Buffer Variance Resolution P:\SEC4\Meadowlark Lane_2843 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Environmental Review Project: David and Kathleen Gabel House Addition - Shoreland Setback Variance Dateof Plans: April 14, 2014 Date of Review: April 29, 2014 Location: 2843 Meadowlark Lane Reviewers: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us Virginia Gaynor, Natural ResourcesCoordinator (651) 249-2416;virginia.gaynor@ci.maplewood.mn.us Background The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 160 square foot, three season porch from the rear of their home at 2843 Meadowlark Lane, adjacent Kohlman Lake. In its place the applicant proposes to construct a 360 square foot addition. Shoreland Ordinance Kohlman Lake is a Class IV Public Water. The shoreland ordinance requires structures to have a setback of 75 feet to the ordinary high water mark of a Class IV Public Water. The maximum percentageof impervious surface for a single family waterfront lot is 30 percent. Existing Conditions The existing three season porch is located within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Kohlman Lake. City staff calculates the dry land of the lot to be 19,402square feet in area with 4,367 square feet of impervious surface coverage (23 percent). Shoreland Impacts Addition: The addition will be located 5 feet closer to the lake, maintaining a 45-foot setback to the ordinary high water mark of Kohlman Lake. Rain water runofffrom the addition will be channeled through gutters, downspouts, and possibly a rain barrel before draining to the existing rain garden on the east side of the lot. This rain garden was added in 2006 as part of the applicants’ shoreline restoration project. In addition to the shoreline improvements, the applicants have planted ten trees on the property. No trees will be removed as part of the project. Patio: From the rear of the home, the applicant will remove a 998 square foot concrete patio andfencing surrounding the patio. In its place an 850 square foot permeable paver patiowill be constructed. The permeable paver patio will be designed with a special drainage base to allow water to infiltrate the soil, with portions of the patio closest to the house foundation (4to 6 feet) with a more Attachment 5 standard paver design to minimize potential water encroachment to the home. After improvements are made, the impervious surface coverage on the lot will be reduced to approximately 2,816square feet (not including the new patio which is permeable), which is 15 percentof the lot area. Summary The applicants have taken steps to mitigate impacts to the shoreline and Kohlman Lake with the construction of the addition including: Decreasing the amount of impervious surface on the lot from 23 percent to 15 percent. Ensuring that water runoff from the new addition is infiltrated in a rain garden and not running directly to the lake. Good land stewardship with the restoration of the shoreline and tree plantings since 2006. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the shoreline setback variance with the following conditions: 1.Directing all water runoff from the addition through gutters, downspouts, possibly rain barrels, and into the existing rain garden located on the east side of the property. 2.Removal of the 998 square foot concrete patio and replacement with an850 permeable paver patio designed with a drainage base to allow water to infiltrate the soil, with portions of the patio closest to the house foundation (4 to 6 feet) with a more standard paver design to minimize potential water encroachment to the home. 2 Attachment 6 SHORELAND SETBACKVARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, David and KathleenGabel applied for a variance from the shoreland protection ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property located at 2843 Meadowlark Lane North. The property identificationnumberfor thisproperty is: 04-29-22-31-0005 WHEREAS, Ordinance Section44-1242 of the Shoreland Overlay District, requires a setbackof 75feet in width adjacent to a Class 4 Public Water. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a setbackof 45feet, requiring a variance of 30 feet, from the Class 4 Public Water. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On May 6, 2014, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. 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 the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council _________ the variance request. 3. The city council held a public meeting on May 12, 2014, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________ the above- described variances based on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the shoreland setback requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. B.Approval of the requested shoreland setback variance would benefit the adjacent lake because the site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. D.The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the applicant’s plans and does not require a permit or have any state statutes that prevent the pool from being built. Attachment 6 Conditions of Approval Approval of the shoreland setbackvariance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in Shann Finwall and Virginia Gaynor’s Environmental Review. The Maplewood City Council ___________this resolution on _________, 2014. MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Ahl,City Manager FROM: Michael Martin,AICP, Planner Melinda Coleman,Assistant City Manager DATE: April 28, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of a Side Yard Setback VarianceResolution for the Construction of a New Garage,798McKnight Road North Introduction Stephen Mosner isproposing to build anew 832square foot garage at his home located at 798 MnKnight Road North. The new garage would replace the existing 400 square foot garage. The current garage is setback three feet from the property line. City code now requires new garages to be setback five feet from a side property line. Mr. Mosner is proposing to build his new garage utilizing the existing setback, which requiresa two-foot variance. Discussion Code directs garage setback variance requests to be processed administratively. The applicant is required to get signatures of approval from every neighbor and then submit an application to staff to review. Staff either approves or denies the variance request with the applicant having the option to appeal to the city council. If any neighbor objects to the variance then the city council will consider the request. In this case, Mr. Mosner could not contact all of his neighbors. There has been no stated objection to this request. When Mr. Mosner’s current garage was built is met the setback requirements. Since that time the city has increased the side yard setback to five feet. Mr. Mosner would like to keep the existing setback because his driveway is already in place. The driveway placement and the placement of the house limit his ability to site the garage in a different location. Staff does not have any concern with the applicant utilizing the existing setback to build his new garage. All other coderequirements regulating the building of a new garage will be met. DepartmentComments Engineeringand Fire Marshal No concerns with this proposal. Building Official Nick Carver, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: The wall 3 feet from the property line be one-hour fire resistive construction. No openings (windows and doors) on the wall. Over-hang is limited to 1 foot, maximum. Commission Action Planning Commission On May 6, 2014, the planning commission will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. Budget Impact None. Recommendation 1.Adopt the resolution approving aside yard setbackvariance.Approval is based on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the side yardsetbackrequirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of a new garage because of the existing locations of the driveway and house. B.Approval of the requested side yardsetbackvariance would benefit the adjacent propertiesbecause the site will be improved. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed garagewould be built in an area that is already maintained as a garage. Approval of the side yardsetbackvariance shall be subject to complying with all zoning and building code regulations regarding the building of garages. Citizen’s Comments City Staff surveyed the owners of the 88properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments about the proposal. Staff did not receive any replies. Reference Information Figure 1 –Location Map Garage Site Description (Figure 1) Figure 2 –Land Use and Zoning Map Site size: 0.45 acres Existing Use: Single family home Surrounding Land Uses Garage North:Single family homes South:Single family homes Garage East:Town house development West:Single family homes in Saint Paul Planning(Figure 2) Land Use Plan: LDR (low density residential) Zoning: R1 (single dwelling) Criteria for Variance Approval Section 44-13 of the city code allows the city council to grant variances. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes. State law requires that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be: 1.In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; 2.Consistent with the comprehensive plan; 3.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Application Deadline City staffreceived the complete application and plans for this proposal on April 21, 2014.State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. Therefore, the deadline for city action is June 20, 2014. If the city needs extra time to review this application, state statute allows the city to take an additional 60 days but must notify the applicant by letter. Attachments 1.Site Plans 2.Applicant’s Letter of Request dated April 14, 2014 3.Side Yard SetbackVariance Resolution P:\SEC25\McKnight Road_798\Setback Variance_2014 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 SITE YARDSETBACKVARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Stephen Mosnerapplied for a variance from the shorelandprotection ordinance. WHEREAS, this varianceapplies to property located at 2843 Meadowlark Lane North. The property identificationnumberfor thisproperty is: 25-29-22-33-0056 WHEREAS, Ordinance Section44-108of the R-1 ResidenceDistrict, requires a setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line for garages and accessory buildings. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a setbackof 3 feet, requiring a variance of 2 feet, from the side yard property line. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On May 6, 2014, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. 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 the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council _________ the variance request. 3. The city council held a public meeting on May12, 2014, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________ the above- described variancebased on the following reasons: A.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the side yard setback requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of a new garage because of the existing locations of the driveway and house. B.Approval of the requested side yardsetback variance would benefit the adjacent propertiesbecause the site will be improved. C.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed garagewould be built in an area that is already maintained as a garage. Conditions of Approval Approval of the side yardsetback variance shall be subject to complying with all zoning and building code regulations regarding the building of garages. TheMaplewood City Council ___________this resolution on _________, 2014. MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Ahl, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager DATE: April 24, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Plans for a Building Addition to Beaver LakeElementary School Introduction Mike Boland, representing Independent School District 622, is proposing to add onto the Beaver Lake Elementary School, located at 1060 Sterling Street North. This proposal will also require a conditional use permit (CUP) from the planning commissionand design approval from the community design review board (CDRB). Along with the proposed building addition, the applicant would: Upgrade the obsolete and inefficient heating, ventilating and plumbing systems. Abate hazardous materials. Improve building security. Add onto the building to meet space needs due to increased enrollment. Refer to the enclosed plans. Requests Approval of a CUP to add onto the school since the city zoning code requires a CUP for schools. Approval of design plans. Background Beaver Lake Elementary has been in existence for many years. Archived Ramsey County aerial photographs show the school from 1953. It likely predates that. Discussion Building Design The proposed addition would go between the existing east and west wings of the school. Both wings are of different ages and have non-matching brick exteriors. To achieve a uniform southerly appearance on the south elevation, the applicant is proposing toapply a mix of metal panels, brick and cast stone veneer across the entire south elevation. These materials will wrap around each front corner to architecturally terminate these new materials as it blends into the existing east and west walls. Refer tothe applicant’s colored renderingof the proposed south elevation. Landscaping The applicant will be removing four mature trees. Shann Finwall, the city’s environmental planner, reviewed this proposal and determined that the removal of the four trees will not be over 20 percent of the overall tree coverage. Therefore, the tree preservation ordinance would require that they replace one tree for each treeremoved. Replacement trees must be at least twoinches in caliper fordeciduoustrees or six feet tall for evergreens. Trash Storage There is no trash enclosure presently at the school. The applicant should provide a trash enclosure for the two dumpsters that are behind the building as part of the proposed expansion project. Parking Lot Repair The parking lot and driveways should be patched due to the many pot holes. Also, there is a graveled parking area behind the building which should be paved. The applicant proposes to repair pot holes with the proposed construction project. Mr. Boland requested to be able to pave the rear parking lot a year from now when they would have the funds to do so. Staff feels that this is reasonable. Building Official’sComments Nick Carver, the building official, commented thatall building codes must be met. Engineer’s Report Jon Jarosch, staff engineer, has reviewed the proposal. His report is attached. The applicant should comply with Mr. Jarosch’s requirements as stated in his report. Assistant Fire Chief’sComments Butch Gervais, assistant fire chief, commented that all fire codes must be met. Police Comments Chief Paul Schnell has no issues with the proposal. Commission Actions April 22, 2014: The CDRB moved to approve the plans for the addition with the staff recommendation. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Adoption of the attached conditional use permit resolution approving the plans for the addition to Beaver Lake Elementary, located at 1060 Sterling Street North. Approval is subject to the followingconditions: 1.All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped April 15, 2014. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction shall besubstantially started within one year of council approval orthis permit shall be null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.The applicant shall plant four trees to replace the four that are to be removed. Replacement trees shall be at least twoinches in caliper if they are deciduous or at least six feet tall if they are evergreens. The applicant shall work with staff on this landscaping plan. 5.The applicant shall repair the pot holes in the parking lotsand drivewayfrom Stillwater Road.The graveled area on the north side of the building shall be paved within one year. 6.The applicant shall work with staff on the construction of a trash enclosure for the north side of the building to contain the two trash dumpsters. The trash enclosure shall be a material compatible with the building and have closeable gates. The trash enclosure shall be completed along with the construction of the proposed addition. 7.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the city’s engineering department report dated April 15, 2014. Reference Information Site Description Site size: 10.19acres Existing land use: Beaver Lake Elementary School Surrounding Land Uses North:Geranium Parkand single dwellings South: Single Dwellings West: Single Dwellings East:Maple Oaks Funeral Home Planning Land Use Plan designation: G(government) Zoning: R1(single dwelling residential) Code Requirement Section 44-1092 (3) requires a CUP for any educational institution. 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 applicationsfor theserequestswere complete on April 15, 2014. State law requires that the city decide on these applications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action is June 14,2014. Attachments 1.Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2.Location/Land Use Plan Map 3.Site Plan 4.Aerial Photo 5.Building Elevations 6.Colored Front Elevation 7.Applicant’s letter dated April 9, 2014 8.Engineer’s Report dated April 15, 2014 9.Plans date-stamped April 15, 2014(separate attachment) p:sec25\Beaver Lake School Addition PCReport 4 14 te Attachment 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Independent School District 622, has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building addition to the Beaver Lake Elementary School. WHEREAS, Section 44-1092 (3) requires a CUP for any educational institution. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1060 Sterling Street North. The legal description of this property is: This property lies within the NE ¼ of Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PID #252922130064 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1.On May 6, 2014, 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 ____________, 2014, 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 theCity'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 scenicfeatures into the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped April 15, 2014. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction shall be substantially started within one year of council approval or this permit shall be null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.The applicant shall plant four trees to replace the four that are to be removed. Replacement trees shall be at least two inches in caliper if they are deciduous or at least six feet tall if they are evergreens. The applicant shall work with staff on this landscaping plan. 5.The applicant shall repair the pot holes in the parking lots and driveway from Stillwater Road. The graveled area on the north side of the building shall be paved within one year. 6.The applicant shall work with staff on the construction of a trash enclosure for the north side of the building to contain the two trash dumpsters. The trash enclosure shall be a material compatible with the building and have closeable gates. The trash enclosure shall be completed along with the construction of the proposed addition. 7.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the city’s engineering department report dated April 15, 2014. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _______, 2014. Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Beaver Lake School Renovations PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer DATE: 4-15-2014 PLAN SET: Grading and Utility Plans – Dated 1-10-2014 REPORTS: Storm Water Management Report – Dated 1-10-2014 The Applicant is proposing an addition to the existing Beaver Lake School along with various site improvements. These improvements include the installation of new concrete sidewalks, sanitary sewer improvements, storm sewer installations, underground infiltration areas, and site restoration. Two alternates are also proposed including the expansion of the north parking lot and reconstructing the southerly parking lot.The project is proposed to disturb more than ½ acre,which will require the applicant to meet the City’s storm water qualityand rate control requirements.It appears that the storm-water management plan meets the City’s requirements as it pertains to infiltration and rate control. The applicant is requesting design review. Thisreviewdoes not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review, along with ratified agreements, prior to issuing building and grading permits. The scope of this review includes aspects of site design including, but not limited to, geometrics, paving, grading, utilities, and temporary sediment and erosion control. The scope of the review also includes storm water management. The comments contained herein are to be addressed by the applicant. The following commentsact as conditions prior to the issuance ofpermits: Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)The applicant is proposing underground infiltration. A test of the drawdown capacity of the in-situ soils in the vicinity of the infiltration areas, with City or Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District(RWMWD)observation is required on site.This test is required to verify the infiltration capacity of the soils as it relates to the assumptions made in the storm water calculations. 2)The applicant shall provide updated storm-water calculations, as necessary, depicting the project as ultimately proposed for construction (Base Bid Only, Base Bid + Both Attachment 8 Alternates, Etc.). The final product shall meet the City’s stormwater management regulations including rate control and volume reduction. 3)Emergency overland overflows shall be identified on the plans. These areas shall be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion during overflow events. 4)Provide 100-year HWL on plans for infiltration systems. 5)The 4-inch PVC line connecting the roof leaders with the catch-basin shall be reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, as this pipe is covered by the plumbing code. 6)The 4-inch PVC line connecting the roof leaders with the catch-basin shall be rated for vehicle loading. Grading and Erosion Control 7)All slopesshall be 3H:1V or flatter. 8)Silt fence or filter logs shall be placed along the perimeter of the new building addition and sidewalkreplacement areas during construction to prevent eroded materials from reaching the parking lot or street areas. 9)The proposed infiltration areasshall be protected from sedimentation throughout construction. 10)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on allexisting onsite storm sewer.Additionally, storm sewer inlets along Sterling Streetshall be protected throughout construction. These inlet protection devices shall be noted on the plans. 11)Sterling Streetand Stillwater Roadshall be swept as needed to keep the road clear of sediment and construction debris. 12)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliantincluding curb ramps. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 13)The applicant shall provide fixture unit design computations for thesanitary sewer service to ensure its adequacy for the buildings intended use.A SAC determination by the Met Council is required. 14)The applicant shall pay all SAC, WAC, and PAC fees associated with the proposed site improvements. Attachment 8 15)Cleanouts shall be provided every 100-feet and at bends on sanitary sewer services. 16)A sanitary sewer permit shall be submitted for the proposed sanitary sewer service and its connection to the existing system. 17)Any proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of Saint PaulRegional Water Services(SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may haveprior to the issuance of a gradingpermit by the City. Other 18)A right-of-way permit shall be obtained from the City of Maplewood for any work within the public right-of-way. The restoration of disturbed areas shall be as described in the City’s right-of-way ordinance including the restoration of pavement areas. 19)The applicant shall submit all necessary permit fees and lettersof credit/escrow prior to the issuance of any permits. 20)The applicant shall submit afully executedcopy of the MPCA’s construction storm water permit (SWPPP) to thecity before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 21)The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies including the Department of Labor and Industry, MPCA, SPRWSand RWMWD. 22)The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all storm water treatment devices (sumps, basins,infiltration systems, etc.). MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Ahl, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager DATE: April 24, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Reduce the Parking Lot Setback for the Hobby Lobby Dock Addition at the Plaza 3000 Shopping Center,3000 White Bear Avenue Introduction Azure Properties, owner of the Plaza 3000 Shopping Center, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to reduce the parking lotsetback on the south side of the building by Lydia Avenue. The affected parking lot driveway is adjacent to the new dock addition recently approved for the Hobby Lobby. On January 28, 2014, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the design plans for the new front entrance and rear dock additionsat the Plaza 3000for Hobby Lobby. One matterthat had not yet been determined was whether the rear driveway would need to be widened behind the building due to the dock addition. Azure Properties was able to design the site plan so they would not need to widen the rear driveway. However, this resulted in making this driveway suitable only for one-way trafficadjacent to the new dock. Though, one-way traffic meets code and satisfies the Assistant Fire Chief’s requirements for building accessibility, the property owner would prefer that the driveway be widened to allow two-way traffic for amore convenient traffic flow within the site. To do this, the applicant would need to reduce the parking lot setback from eleven feet six inchesto six feet ten inches. Being that the parking lot is currently setback 11.5 feet, rather than 15 feet,as code requires, the applicant is asking for approval of a CUP to “expand a non- conforming use.” Request Approve a CUP for the expansion of a non-conforming use by reducing a parking lot setback from 11.5feet to sixfeetten inches. Background 1974: The city council approved plans for the Plaza 3000 Shopping Center. January 28, 2014: The CDRB approved the design plans for the addition of the Hobby Lobby at the Plaza 3000. This approval included the following additions: A 15-foot by 59-foot front vestibule. A receiving dock on the back of the building with an adjacent trash compactor pad. A 2 ½ foot sidewalk extension in front of the proposed vestibule to provide a five-foot sidewalk around the proposed vestibule. One condition of approval bythe CDRB was that: If because of the dock addition, the applicant proposes to widen the parking lot drive aisle to provide 24 feet of drive aisle width this alteration must not reduce the parking lot setback less than the required 15 feet. If either thedrive aisle or the parking lot setback is lessened to fail to comply with code requirements, the applicant or property owner shall apply for a variance before obtaining a building permit. Discussion Existing Parking Lot Setbacks The applicant has provided a certificate of survey showing that their parking lot setbacks around the entire site are oftenunder the code requirement for 15 feet. They range from eight feet at the narrowestpoint to 29 feet at the widest. Staff cannot find why this is the case. The records back in 1974 do not address the parking lot setbacks.The site plan, however, was approved by the city council and the setbacks were approved as they are.The existing parking lot setback along Lydia is the most constantoneat 11.5 feet lying between the shopping center’s southerly driveway entrance and Ariel Street. Assistant Fire Chief’sComments Butch Gervais, the assistant fire chief, requires that there be at least 20 feet of driveway width south of the proposed dock addition. This would be provided by the applicant. An increase to 24 feet, to allow two-way traffic, is even better and supported by the Mr. Gervais. Police Comments Chief Paul Schnell has no issues with the proposal. Engineer’s Comments Jon Jarosch, staff engineer, has no issues with this request. CUP Findingsfor Approval The zoning ordinance requires that the city council find that all nine “standards” for CUP approval be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the complete wording): Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code. Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood. Not depreciate property values. Not cause any disturbance or nuisance. Not cause excessive traffic. Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection. Not create excessive additional costs for public services. Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features. Not cause adverse environmental effects. Staff’s Determination The proposal would meet these findings for CUP approval. Staff is supportive of this request provided the applicant replants this area to replace the six trees that will be removed. There will not be much room on site remaining, though, after nearly five feet of lawn is removedfor the parking lot widening. There would be approximately 6.75 feet lefton sitefor planting. Staff would like to see this area replanted, but trees with spreading roots should be avoided. Shrub varieties that grow tall enough to provide some screening, but not massive enough to have a substantial root spread,are preferred.Staff suggests six planting groupings of three shrubs each (18 shrubs) to replace the six trees to be removed. Commission Actions April 22, 2014: The CDRB moved to approve the plans for the proposed parking lot setback reduction. The board directed the applicant to work with the trash hauler to see if the trash compactor could be colored to match the color of the proposed dock addition. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Adoption of the attached conditional use permit resolution approving the plans for the widening of the Plaza 3000 Shopping Center parking lot on the south side of the building. This approval allows a parking lot setback reduction from 11.5 feet to six feet 10 inches. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1.All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped March 27, 2014. Staffmay approve minor changes. 2.The proposed parking lot widening shall be substantially started within one year of council approval of this permit shall be null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.The property owner shall replace the six trees that would be removed due to this parking lot widening. They shall plant shrub varieties that grow tall enough to provide some screening, but not massive enough to have a substantial root spread that would interfere with nearby buried cables in the street boulevard. The property owner shall plant six planting groupings of three shrubs each (18 shrubstotal) to replace the six trees to be removed.The planting plan shall be subject to staff approval. Reference Information Site Description Site size: 10.18acres Existing land use: The Plaza 3000 Shopping Center Surrounding Land Uses North:The Plaza 3000 North Annex Shopping Center, Denny’s and Firestone East:The Salvation Army Church South: Half Price Books, Michaels and Concordia Arms West: Maplewood Square Shopping Center Planning Land Use Plan designation: C(commercial) Zoning: BC (business commercial) Code Requirement Section 44-12 (e) requires a CUP to enlarge, reconstruct or structurally alter a non-confirming use. 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 March 27, 2014. State law requires that the city decide on zoning applications within 60 days, however, the city may extend this review deadline an additional 60 days if more time is needed to complete the review. Staff has extended this review period to make sure that there is sufficient time to conclude thereview since the anticipated council date to act on this request falls on Memorial Day. The deadline for action by the city council is now July 25, 2014. Attachments 1.Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2.Applicant’s letter dated March 21, 2014 3.Location Map 4.Aerial Photo of the Plaza 3000 5.Certificate of Survey 6.Site Plan Detail—Current Parking Lot Setback 7.Site Plan Detail—Proposed Parking Lot Setback 8.Plans date-stamped March 27, 2014(separate attachment) p:sec2N\Plaza 3000 Parking Lot Setback Reduction CUP PC Report 4 14 te Attachment 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Azure Properties has applied for a conditional use permit to reduce their parking lot setback on the south side of the building from the Lydia Avenue right-of-way. WHEREAS, Section 44-12 (e) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit to enlarge, reconstruct or structurally alter a non-confirming use. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 3000 White Bear Avenue. The legal description of this property is: That part of the South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of theNorthwest ¼, lying southerly of the north line ofWoodlynn Avenue, subject to Woodlynn Avenue, and lying easterly of White Bear Avenue as now located by Final Certificate recorded as Document Number 1813704, Section 2, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And The west 329.31 feet of the Northwest ¼ of the Northeast ¼ Section 2, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, except the north 1321.33 feet, thereof, City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And Part of the south 640.00 feet of the north 1321.33 feet of the west 329.31 feet of the Northwest ¼, of the Northeast ¼, Section 2, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is asfollows: 1.On May 6, 2014, 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 ____________, 2014, the city council considered reportsand 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 airpollution, 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 scenicfeatures into the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped March 27, 2014. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed parking lot widening shall be substantially started within one year of council approval of this permit shall be null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.The property owner shall replace the six trees that would be removed due to this parking lot widening. They shall plant shrub varieties that grow tall enough to provide some screening, but not massive enough to have a substantial root spread that would interfere with nearby buried cables in the street boulevard. The property owner shall plant six planting groupings of three shrubs each (18 shrubs total) to replace the six trees to be removed. The shrubs shall be at least three feet tall upon planting. The planting plan shall be subject to staff approval. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _______, 2014. Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Ahl, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager DATE: April 29, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of Home Occupation License for Just Rita’s a Hair Salon Located at 2139Edgerton Street Introduction Rita Johnson, at 2139 Edgerton Street, is requesting approval of a home occupation license to operate a hair salon from her home called Just Rita’s. Ms. Johnson would use the ground level of her homenext to the garage. She estimates this space would consist of about four percent of her home’s floor area and anticipates about 25 customers each week. Refer to the attachments. Background Section 14-56, the home occupation requirements state a homeowner must obtain a home occupation license if their home business activities occur more than 30days a year. The code requires the following for home occupations: 1.Notrafficshallbegeneratedbyahomeoccupationingreatervolumesthanwouldnormally beexpectedinaresidentialneighborhood.Theneedforoff-streetparkingshallnotexceed morethanthreeoff-streetparkingspacesforhomeoccupationatanygiventime,inaddition totheparkingspacesrequiredbytheresidents. 2.Nomorethanonenonresidentemployeeshallbeallowedtoworkonthepremises. Nonresidentemployeeswhoworkoffthepremisesmaybeallowedtovisitthepremises.If anon-siteemployeeisparkingonsite,off-siteemployeesshallnotleavetheirvehicleson site.Ifthereisnoon-siteemployeevehicleparkedonsite,oneoff-siteemployeevehicle maybeparkedonsite. 3.Novehicleassociatedwiththehomeoccupation,includingcustomersoremployees,shall beparkedonthestreetorblocksidewalksorpubliceasements.Privatevehiclesusedby theresidentsshallnotbeincludedinthissubsection. 4.Anareaequivalenttonomorethan20percentofeachlevelofthehouse,includingthe basementandgarage,shallbeusedintheconductofahomeoccupation. 5.Thereshallbenochangevisibleoffthepremisesintheoutsideappearanceofthebuilding orpremisesthatwouldindicatetheconductofahomeoccupation,otherthanonesign meetingtherequirementsofthecitysigncode. 6.Nomorethan20percentofbusinessincomeshallcomefromthesaleofproductsproduced offsiteunlessapprovedbythecitycouncil. 7.Noequipmentorprocessshallbeusedinsuchhomeoccupationwhichcreatesnoise, vibration,light,glare,fumes,smoke,dust,odorsorelectricalinterferencedetectabletothe normalsensesoffthelot.Ifelectricalinterferenceoccurs,noequipmentorprocessshallbe usedwhichcreatesvisualoraudibleinterferenceinanyradioortelevisionreceiversoffthe premisesorcausesfluctuationsinlinevoltageoffthepremises. 8.Thereshallbenofire,safetyorhealthhazards. 9.Ahomeoccupationshallnotincludetherepairofinternalcombustionengines,bodyrepair shops,spraypainting,machineshops,welding,ammunitionmanufacturingorsales,thesale ormanufactureoffirearmsorknivesorotherobjectionableusesasdeterminedbythecity. Machineshopsaredefinedasplaceswhererawmetalisfabricated,usingmachinesthat operateonmorethan120voltsofcurrent. 10.Anynoncompliancewiththissubsectionshallconstitutegroundsforthedenialorrevocation ofthehomeoccupationlicense. 11.Thecitymaywaiveanyoftheserequirementsifthehomeoccupationislocatedatleast350 feetfromaresidentiallotline. 12.Thecitycouncilmayaddanyadditionalrequirementsthatitdeemsnecessarytoensurethat theoperationofthehomeoccupationwillbecompatiblewithnearbylanduses. Discussion Neighbors’Comments Staff surveyed the 62surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the applicant’s home. Of the 17replies, four had no comment, tenwere supportive and three were against this request. For We have no objections to this proposal. (Clemens, 2177 Edgerton Street) We believe this small project will work out ok and not be a problem to the neighborhood. However, we do not want this project to become encouragement for more commercial growth in this designated residential area. (Erickson, 2094 Edgerton Street) As long as Rita abides by the laws that are within the code, she has my blessing and can go forward with her beauty shop. (Bean, 2098 Burr Street) My comment is that I believe Rita Johnson is a responsible and caring person and I see no reason why this shouldn’t be granted to her. (Smith, 608 County Road B) I believe the request should be granted. The operation is admirable and will not disturb the neighborhood. (Price/Madison, 2086 Burr Street) We have been neighbors for 33 years. Never had a problem and we don’t see any. Good for her new shop. (Rygwalski, 2086 Edgerton Street) We see no problems with Rita Johnson’s plans to open a hair salon. (Casadecalvo, 2167 Edgerton Street) We have no objection to this in fact we encourage small businesses. It will be nice to have this service available so close to home. (Cash, 2512 Clarence Street) We have no concerns with Ms. Johnson moving forward with the proposed salon. We support her business endeavor and hope our neighbors share the same consensus. (Pronschinske) I’ve had a business in Roseville. The city makes it literally impossible for anyone to do so. No signs allowed and other ridiculous rules that discourage future businesses. Absolutely, here’s a woman trying to find a way to support her family instead of sitting on her butt collecting welfare. More power to her. Now if you really want to do your job, spend some time ridding the city of people with signs around their necks asking for work but won’t work when asked. These people are making a thousand dollars a day intimidating people and paying no taxes as well. Your priorities are really screwed up. Let the woman open her business and support her family in an honest way. She has my vote definitely.(McGuire, 2080 Bradley Street) Against Allowing this home business would start others to want to have home businesses. (no name or address) Idon’t think there should be commercial businesses on Edgerton because of traffic, parking, etc. They would be backing out of driveway into Edgerton Street and the school doesn’t need more traffic on Edgerton Street. (Cecka, North St. Paul) We don’t feel that this use should be in a residential neighborhood. Home businesses don’t help the city’s commerce. (Bradley, 391 Belmont Lane) Department Comments Building Official Permits will be required for any building, plumbing, electrical or mechanicalwork that might be proposed. Engineering Department There are no issues. Police and Fire There are no issues. Conclusion Staff is supportive of this request. Ms. Johnson’s proposal would comply with the requirements for a home occupation. The additional customer cars coming and going would not create an increase in traffic over what may be expected on Edgerton Street or in this neighborhood. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Approval of a home occupation license for Just Rita’s, a hair salon to be operated from 2139Edgerton Street by Rita Johnson.Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall always comply with the requirements of the Home OccupationLicense requirements of the city ordinances. 2.The applicant shall obtain building permits for work she may do on her house for this home occupation, for example, building, plumbing, electrical or mechanicalwork. 3.The city council may review this approval, as needed, if there are any complaints received due to neighborhood impact. 4.The applicant may install one home-occupation sign up to two-square feet in area(code requirement). Reference Information Site Description Site size: .68 acres Existing land use: Single Dwelling Surrounding Land Uses Single dwellings, with the exception of anautotowing business across the street. Planning Land Use Plan designation: LDR(low density residential) Zoning: R1(single dwelling residential) Application Date The application for this request was complete on April 3, 2014. State law requires that the city decide on zoning applications within 60 days.However, the city may extend the review period an additional 60 days if more time is needed to conclude the review. Staff has extended the review period an additional 60 days because of the cancellation of the May 26, 2014 city council meeting which fallson Memorial Day. The deadline for city council action is now August 1, 2014. Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Land Use Plan Map 3.Applicant’s Home Occupation Questionnaire 4.Floor Plan p:sec17\Just Rita’s Home Occupation License PC Report 514 te Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 4