Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 17, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. October 3, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive) Conditional Use Permit 7: 15 Carpet Court (Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street) Zoning Map Change (R-1 (single dwelling) to Be (business commercial)) Conditional Use Permit for a metal building Impervious Surface Variance NOTE: The applicant requested the planning commission table action on this item until November 7, 2005. Therefore, there is no staff report and no action required at this meeting. 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations October 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich October 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer November 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover? 10. Staff Presentations a. Rescheduled 12-5-05 meeting - now will be on Wednesday 12-7-05 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 3,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Coleman requested additional discussion under Staff Presentations. She requested adding item d. Gladstone Meeting for October 17, 2005, item e. Update on Appreciation Event October 20, 2005, and item f. city council vacancy update. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for September 6,2005. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 6, first paragraph, 8th line, after the word "owner" delete the words "tho application". Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for September 6, 2005, as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -2- Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Grover, Pearson The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler said because he has asked this question before he would like staff to get an answer to his question regarding how many parking spaces were approved for Best Buy and were the parking spaces approved at 9 feet wide or 9~ feet wide? V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Ramsey County Public Library (3025 Southlawn Drive) (7:03-7:30 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, has submitted applications for the relocation of the Ramsey County Library to Legacy Village. Ramsey County has outgrown the current library building on Beam Avenue and would like to build a new facility at the southwest corner of Southlawn Drive and Legacy Parkway in the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development). The proposed library would be approximately 35,000 square feet on this 4.7 -acre site. The county is also proposing to put in a coffee shop with a drive-up window as part of the usual library operations. (The submitted site plan is conceptual at this time. Ramsey County will make application for architectural and site plan approval later.) Commissioner Trippler asked if the city would receive any tax dollars if this proposal is passed by the city council? Mr. Roberts said this property would come off the city's tax roll. That issue is outlined on page 2 of the staff report in the tax abatement analysis by Mr. Steinman, the financial advisor for the city. Mr. Steinman stated that the construction of the new library (a tax-exempt use) would not have a significant impact on the city's projected tax abatement ability related to Legacy Village. The loss of taxable land value would be $3 million. This is only 1.9 percent of the projected total taxable overall value of $162,175,000. Therefore, a small decrease such as this being proposed with a potential reduction in value by $3 million will not have an impact on the abatement. The positive thing is Ramsey County would try to sell the existing library building on Beam Ave., and if the property is purchased by a private owner, it would go back on the tax rolls. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood the analysis correctly, he asked if the financial consultant considered just the taxable value of the property or did he consider the taxes that would have been generated by the two restaurants and the retail building that were planned for that area? Ms. Coleman said it is her understanding that Mr. Steinman made his analysis based on the taxable value of what it would have been versus the completion with the building value that will be there. The overriding development agreement has some assessments that Hartford Group will pay for that would help contribute to the tax abatement plan and road and other improvements that will occur in this area. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -3- Ms. Coleman said each lot in the Legacy Development had an assessment tied to it that will be paid which will help pay the cost of the overall improvements for the project. In a sense the city is collecting some of the costs that the city would have gotten over the years of taxable property taxes. Commissioner Trippler said if the development went on as projected for two restaurants and a retail building there would have been taxable income that the city would have gotten. There also would have been employees paying taxes and some of those employees may even be residents in Maplewood which would be tax money generated as opposed to the library that would not. Ms. Coleman said correct, but as Mr. Steinman stated in the staff report, that is only 1.9 percent of the projected total taxable value overall. This is a policy issue for the city council to decide as to whether or not they want to take this parcel off the tax roll or not. If the existing library is sold and the building goes back on the tax roll that may make it more palatable for the city council. The city feels when they did the tax abatement plan the estimates were very conservative and there should be room for this proposal to happen. If the financial advisors did not think so they would have told the city right away. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the drive-up window for the coffee shop, as he understands the zoning for the current library location, a drive-up window would not be allowed because of the zoning. If the city didn't want a drive-up window on the south side of Beam Avenue (as the planning commission saw with the Dairy Queen proposal for a drive-up window) does the city want to see a drive-up window on the north side of Beam Avenue where this will be a high residential area. Mr. Roberts said the zoning on the south side of Beam Avenue is all BC(M) (business commercial modified) which would not allow a drive-up window. The theory behind that is there is residential property immediately abutting those properties to the south of Beam Avenue especially near Southlawn Drive. The difference between that area and the new proposal is there is a sculpture garden on one side of this parcel and Ashley Furniture to the north. The nearest residential property is across the trail and ponding area. Yes there is a lot of residential building in Legacy Village but not right next to the library site which could have occurred along the south side of Beam Avenue. The way the current library site was configured the library could not make any revisions to the site which is why the planning commission is looking at this new proposed site for the library. Commissioner Dierich said she was considering the issue of the drive-up window and coffee shop as well. She asked how this could occur on a library site compared to a business commercial site? She asked if the profits from the coffee shop would go to the library? Would taxes be paid on the coffee shop portion of the building? Mr. Roberts said he would let the library representatives answer the financial questions along with the use of the property. The coffee shop is an accessory use for 2,500 square feet versus 35,000 square feet for the whole library building. Some could argue that this coffee shop could be an attractive feature to the library. As an example, look at the Roseville Library site with the coffee shop that was added to their library. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -4- Ms. Susan Nemitz, Director of the Ramsey County Library, addressed the commission. Ms. Nemitz gave the recording secretary a handout from Sandy Welsh, the Manager of the Ramsey County Library in Maplewood, to distribute to the planning commission regarding how they would like to see the Ramsey County Library site. Ms. Nemitz said the Roseville Library coffee shop pays property taxes and the operational revenue from the coffee shop goes to support the Roseville Library. This has been a positive partnership and since opening the coffee shop it has raised the library circulation 10% just in the first year of opening the coffee shop. Commissioner Yarwood asked who runs the coffee shop? Ms. Nemitz said the Roseville Library coffee shop is run by Dunn Bros. and they have been a wonderful partner. The Ramsey County Library may go to an RFP process for the Maplewood site to create an equal playing field. Commissioner Desai asked how large the current Ramsey County Library site is versus what is being proposed at the new library site? Ms. Nemitz said the current Ramsey County Library site is 22,000 square feet. The Department of Public Health is renting some of the property in the basement. One thing they discovered over the last 15 years, especially with technology, is that it is very expensive to run a two-story library. They propose to create a single-story, 34,000-square-foot library on the proposed site in Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler asked how the drive-up window for the coffee shop would operate. Chili's and Outback Restaurants have drive-up service where customers call ahead and the restaurants bring the food out to the customers. He asked if that type of thing would work for the coffee shop? Ms. Nemitz said they are willing to look at anything. While working with the exploration process for Dunn Bros. at the Roseville Library site they worked with commercial real estate agents and they in turn were talking with coffee vendors, and the coffee vendors said they could substantially increase their revenue with a drive-thru window. The purpose of creating a drive-thru window for the coffee shop was to create a profitable venture for a private partner and for the library as well. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible for the employees of the coffee shop to bring the coffee out as opposed to using microphones or would that be too confusing? Ms. Nemitz said they are happy to explore anything but she suspects a consequence of a decision like that would be a lower rent rate. They are interested in maintaining the integrity of the wetland and they think the library will enhance the quality of the park and the sculpture garden. They think this could be an extraordinary library for the citizens of Maplewood and for the surrounding cities. The handout discusses how this new proposal could be different from the Beam Avenue site. The Beam Avenue site is also on a wetland. Unfortunately at the time the library was built 15 years ago, the building was built backed up to the wetland rather than facing the wetland, and they don't want to make that mistake again. Their hope is to integrate the new library with the park and the sculpture garden and vice versa. They are establishing contacts with the city so they can work with the Parks and Recreation Director to make this an extraordinary facility. She thanked the planning commission for their time and consideration. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else in the audience wanted to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -5- Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Yarwood said he has issues with the coffee shop being run by a separate entity. Other than that it seems like the library is the ideal building to go on this site. It's a good use of the land and it fits well in the overall intention of the site combining the library with the local park. He thinks this is a better use of the land than the original proposed commercial use with two restaurants and a retail building. He hoped the rest of the planning commission felt the same way. Ms. Coleman said from a staff prospective she would echo Commissioner Yarwood's comments. The library is trying to be very creative and aggressive in trying to find a public/private partnership with the city and contributing to the Legacy Village development which will bring other people in from other communities. Having a coffee shop is a creative way to bring in funds in hard economic times. The city is always looking for this type of opportunity for additional revenue to be brought in so she thinks this is a positive thing. If the city can collect additional property taxes on the coffee shop portion, then that is a positive thing as well. A coffee shop will definitely draw people to the library. She recently went to the Roseville Library and waited in line 10 minutes for a cup of coffee because there were so many customers. She got her coffee and enjoyed her time at the library with a good book. Ultimately the city council makes the final decision but as a staff person she sees this is a very creative way to help supplement the funding issues that we have in government today. Commissioner Trippler said the location for the proposed library is marvelous, they would have a built in audience with all the building in the area and certainly this proposed parcel is a nicer location than the current location. As a taxpayer in the city he doesn't like the idea that government builds a building and 15 years later decides they need a new building. He wishes the county would have more foresight and think ahead more. He likes the idea of a coffee shop but he isn't sure about the microphone system with the drive-up window. He wants to make sure the library will be considerate of the people who will be living in the area and the problems that drive- ups can cause. Commissioner Dierich said this is a great idea and a great use of the land. She loves the fact that this is where "the people" live. The current library site is difficult to get to. As a person visiting the park she wouldn't like to listen to the loud speaker and she would hope they consider that when putting together the plan for the drive-thru window. Commissioner Pearson said this is an ideal situation and an ideal spot for this proposal and he is in full support of the plan. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from BC (business commercial) to L (library) for the proposed Ramsey County Library to locate at Legacy Village. Approval is based on the following reasons: Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -6- 1. Libraries are desired and beneficial facilities in both residential and commercial areas. 2. The proposed library would not negatively affect the approved tax-abatement financing plan for Legacy Village. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution approving a PUD (planned unit development) revision for Legacy Village to allow the proposed Ramsey County Library. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Compliance with the following PUD revisions: 6) Library Commercial Site (Outlot D): a. This The commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The library Ono of tho buildings on tho commorcial sito should be sited close to the corner of South lawn Drive and Legacy Parkway, within 30' of the Southlawn GAve right-of-way or as close as practicable; c. Allowed signage should only be wall signage or ground-mounted monument signs no more than 12' in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and onto South lawn if approved by the city engineer; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment will be completely screened from eye level of adjacent streets and adjacent properties, including the park and trail around the ponding area to the west; g. Tho parking lot on this sito must provido through connoctions and cross parking eosomonts with the parcol to the south (Outlot E); h. There must be sidewalks connecting ontrios to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Southlawn Drive and the path around the pond to the west, and to Outlot E. Such sido'Nalks must bo soparatod from tho parking lot at curb 10'101, not parking lot level; The developer must enter into a development aqreement with the citv to dedicate a trail alonQ the south side of the propertv to connect the existinQ park trail to a future sidewalk alona Southlawn Drive. The developer must construct these trails and sidewalks, and any others deemed necessary by the citv enaineer. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -7- i. Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; j. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of Legacy Parkway and the west side of Southlawn Drive an average of 30' - 40' on center. k. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 7) Rostaur::mt Sito (Outlot E): a. Tho restaurant site is plan nod in concopt only within tho PU D and will come in for dosign reviov: and approval at a lator dato, but the uso is allo'Nod as long as the provisions of tho Be zoning district and conditions outlinod horo are met; b. 1\lIowod signago should only bo w~lIsign~ge or ground mountod monument signs no moro than 12' in hoight; c. Tho architectural charactor and extorior building matorials must bo in kooping with tho noarby sonior assisted li'ling building, townhomos and othor buildings if present; d. .^.ccoss to tho site will bo off a shared drive'.'.lay with tho shopping centor proporty to the south, provided oasoments and agroements can bo re~chod with that proporty owner to provide such access. Accoss 'NiII bo provided onto South~wn if approvod by tho city onginoor; o. 1\11 ground mounted and roof mountod mochanical oquipment will bo complotely scroonod from oye levol ':iow of adjacont streots and adjacont proporties, including the park and trail around the ponding area to tho 'Nost; f. Tho parking lot on this sito must provido through connoctions and cross p~rking oasemonts with tho parcol to tho north (Outlot D); g. Thore must bo a sidowalk on tho south side of the site connocting Southlawn Drive with tho tr~i1 around tho ponding area to the wos!. Thore must also be sido'Nalks connecting tho building ontry to tho sharod driveway on the south sido, Southlavm Drivo, and to Outlot D. Such sidmvalks must be sep~ratod from the parking lot at curb levol, not parking lot lovol; h. Usos on tho sito ~re encouraged to take advant~go of tho park and tr~i1 system around tho ponding area to tho west by providing outdoor soating, plazas, ovorlooks or similar featuros; i. Ovorstory treos must bo plontod ~Iong tho west side of South lawn Drivo and the north side of the driveway accoss on the sido of the site at an ~vorago of 30' or -10' on centor. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -8- 2. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the city's wetland-protection ordinance. 3. All construction shall follow the site plan (review pendinQ) approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor chanqes. 4. The proposed construction shall 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. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 6. If the proposed library has any impact on the terms of the development aqreement for Leqacy Villaqe. the applicant or county shall pay for any costs associated with the library proposal. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on October 24, 2005. b. Maple Ridge Leaf Business Center (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive) Mr. Roberts reported the applicant for the proposed Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center has requested a postponement of their public hearing and review by the planning commission. They are redesigning the site as a three-building project instead of the four-building layout shown on the current plans. This will increase the proposed setback from the westerly lot line and improve the grading and drainage plan. This item will be rescheduled for a public hearing for October 17, 2005. Staff mailed notices to the neighbors to inform them of this change. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Ahlness was the planning commission representative at the September 12, 2005, city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -9- Mr. Ahlness was absent from this evening's meeting so Mr. Roberts reported the only item to be discussed was the Woodlands of Maplewood (McMenemy Street north of Kingston Avenue) for the Land Use Plan Change, Zoning Map Change, Street Right-of-Way Vacation, CUP and Preliminary Plat that was heard for the second time. The/applicant had revised plans for the city council to review and the proposal was approved ayes all. b. Mr. Kaczrowski was the planning commission representative at the September 26,2005, city council meeting. The only planning commission item was the conditional use permit for K and W RolI-Offs at 1055 Gervais Avenue, which was passed by the city coul"lcil. c. Ms. Dierich was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the October 10, 2005, city council meeting, however no representation was needed. d. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the October 24, 2005, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is the Ramsey County Public Library, 3025 Southlawn Drive for the Land Use Plan Change and for the PUD revision BC(business commercial) to L (Library). X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Letter of request from WBABA Ms. Coleman passed a letter out from the White Bear Avenue Business Association (WBABA) dated September 16, 2005, regarding the northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue. The letter was regarding the July 18, 2005, planning commission meeting when the commission recommended the adoption of the land use planning change for the west 290 feet of the vacant property from limited business commercial to business commercial. Then on August 8, 2005, the city council voted to deny that recommendation and the proposed zoning change. Ms. Coleman said part of that is because there is still a dispute between the property owner and Premier Bank which, leases the property where they want to have Walgreen's built. That issue is still to be resolved. The owner of the property is not interested in allowing a Walgreen's to be built on this property. The letter was presented to try to persuade the planning commission to pursue a zoning change ofthe subject property which would allow a Walgreen's Pharmacy to be constructed on the said property. They WBABA offered five reasons why they think the zoning change should be approved. Commissioner Desai asked why the letter from the WBABA was not signed. Ms. Coleman telephoned Premier Bank and spoke with someone she knows there. She asked if he knew who sent the letter from the WBABA because it was not signed by anyone. He said he would ask around and pass it on that there was no signature on the letter. b. Possible Planning Commission Training Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -10- Ms. Coleman asked the planning commission to think of ideas for items to discuss or something they would like to receive additional training on. This is something that would be done when there are no agenda items to have a meeting for. They would hold the meetings in the Maplewood Room and the meetings would not be cablecast. Items commissioners would like to have training on or discuss include: a. 9-foot-wide parking stalls versus 9%-feet-wide parking stalls. b. In-fill development: most of the property in Maplewood is full now. Many of the proposals the commission sees lately are demo and rebuild. Ordinances may need to be updated or changed. How do these changes affect the neighborhood characteristics and historical property. Developments seem crammed in but are below the city's criteria for number of units. c. The planning commission has been changing the land use plan and zoning for various reasons. How does this fit in with the overall plan for the city? Why does the planning commission have to make land use plan and zoning changes just to fit the applicant needs? d. Reconsider the density ordinance for both single family homes and multi-family homes. e. Southern Maplewood property (Schlomka property) and how the city wants to move forward on that property regarding number of units, what type of housing etc. f. Identify other redevelopment areas in the city or areas the city doesn't want to redevelop. c. Reschedule December 5, 2005, planning commission meeting until Tuesday, December 6, 2005, or Wednesday, December 7, 2005, because of a budget meeting. The planning commission decided to reschedule the Monday, December 5, 2005, planning commission meeting to Wednesday, December 7,2005. Commissioner Grover has a conflict with his turn to represent the planning commission at the Monday, November 14, 2005, city council meeting and asked planning commissioners to check their calendars to see if anyone could exchange dates with him. d. Gladstone Joint Meeting October 17, 2005. Ms. Coleman said there will be a joint meeting between the HRA, PC, CDRB, Parks Department, and Open Space Commission at 6:00 p.m. in the city council chambers to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment process. Following the Gladstone joint meeting will be the regularly scheduled planning commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the city council chambers. For more information on the Gladstone Redevelopment area you may go to the city website at www.cLmaplewood.mn.us e. October 20, 2005, Appreciation Event. Ms. Coleman reminded the planning commission of the Appreciation Event on Thursday, October 20, 2005, from 5:45-9:00 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center. Tickets are required and are limited for the performance of comedian Alex Cole. f. City Council Vacancy Update. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-03-05 -11- Ms. Coleman stated with the resignation of former city council member Jackie Monahan- Junek there is a temporary city council position opening. If you are interested in applying you may obtain an application by going to the city website www.cLmaplewood.mn.us and clicking on Maplewood City Council Vacancy or contact Melinda Coleman directly at 651- 249-2052. Applications are due on October 14, 2005, and interviews for the city council opening will be held October 17,2005, from 5:00-7:00 p.m. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park 2488 & 2497 Maplewood Drive October 12, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61), between Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9,120 square foot, two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440 square foot, one-story building and Building #3, the westerly building, would be a 16, 320 square foot, two-story building. The front of each building would have the appearance of offices. The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fa~de. The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fa~de with overhead garage doors. Refer to the applicant's letter, narrative and the attached maps. Plan Revisions The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fa~de (now overhead doors) and the proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout. The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage concerns by the city's engineering staff. Requests Mr. Kellison is requesting: . A CUP for a reduced setback from the residential lot property line to the west. The code requires that buildings in M1 (light manufacturing) districts be 350 feet or more from abutting residential property, unless a CUP is granted. The proposed westerly building would be 250 feet from the abutting residential lot line. BACKGROUND The subject property previously had two single family dwellings. The applicant demolished these homes to make way for the proposed project. The property to the north was recently converted from an industrial complex to the Hmong American Alliance Church. The property to the south was developed a few years ago with Acorn Mini Storage. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning provisions. The reason for this CUP request is because the westerly building would be 250 feet from the back lot line, not 350 feet. Code requires a CUP for a lesser setback to allow the city to consider impacts on the abutting residential neighborhood. Typically, with such requests, the main concern is to protect the abutting home owners from any negative impact due to the reduced setback. Possible negative impacts can be from the physical and visual proximity of the structure and from any business activity that may cause nuisances such as noise. Screening is an important concern. The applicant previously proposed a row of evergreen trees along the westerly lot line with their earlier submittal. They have not provided revisions yet, however, but are working on these plans for the planning commission meeting. The previously- proposed evergreens were a good start (see attachment), but they did not provide the amount of screening needed for an adequate buffer. Code requires an 80 percent opaque, six-foot-tall buffer of evergreens, decorative fencing, berming or a combination of these. Staff recommends that the applicant extend this screen to the back line of Building #3 along each side property line. The screening along the side lot lines is to provide buffering for the neighbors that are northwest and southwest of this property who can view this site at an angle from their homes and yards. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. With an appropriate and effective landscaping/screening plan, staff finds the proposed setback acceptable. Noise One concern noted by neighbors is what type of businesses might there be? Could there be nuisance-causing or noisy operations taking place? A recent example of such a business activity is that of the St. Paul Pioneer Press' night-time paper distribution activity at the Maplewood Business Center on Gervais Avenue and Germain Street on the north side of Highway 36. Staff feels that the council should require specific noise controls for this project to try to protect the neighbors from "after hours" disturbances. City Enoineerino Department's Concerns Chuck Vermeersch, of the Maplewood engineering staff, is in the process of reviewing the applicant's revisions. Mr. Vermeersch had several problems with the previous grading and drainage plans. The revised plans are much better in his opinion, but these plans were not provided early enough for a thorough review prior to the completion of this report. Staff will 2 present the engineer's report at the meeting. On initial review, however, Mr. Vermeersch feels that the revised grading and drainage plans are much better than the previous ones. Neiahbor Concerns Staff surveyed the neighbors for their input. Their complete replies are listed in the Citizen Comment section of this report and included in their letters as attachments. The following is a summary: . Don't remove all the trees. Keep a buffer. . Provide a sufficient buffer. . Concerns include: Noise, lights, mosquitoes from the proposed pond and traffic increase. . Require a greater setback. . Don't allow the reduced setback. . Loss of trees and wildlife . The existing buildings should not be construed to set a precedent due to the difference in the types of uses. Staff shares many of these concerns. Primarily, sufficient screening should be provided. The applicant has a right to develop this property, but in exchange for the reduced setback, there should be better than average screening. Architectural and Sign Plan Considerations Staff will address building design in a separate report to the community design review board. The city code requires that there be a comprehensive sign plan for complexes with five or more tenants or individual businesses. This sign plan must be submitted for review board approval. Site Considerations Parkina The use of the proposed complex is anticipated to be 30 percent office and 70 percent warehouse. To determine parking needs, staff took the total square footage and applied these percentages. By these ratios, the applicant would need 141 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 156. There would be sufficient parking provided. Site Liahtina The applicant is working on the photometric plan which they anticipate to be provided for the planning commission meeting. The lighting-fixture plan, for the west side of the site, should be the type with concealed light bulbs and lenses to keep light-glare low for the neighbors. Landscapino Staff already addressed screening/buffering for the homeowners to the west. The applicant is preparing a landscaping plan which they anticipate to have available for the planning commission meeting. 3 Trash Outdoor trash storage is not proposed on the plans. If the applicant later wishes to provide outdoor trash storage, they should provide a plan for the design and location of the dumpster enclosures. Dumpsters kept between buildings may not need to be screened if they are not visible to neighbors or streets. The community design review board would review this matter. City Department Comments Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, has the following comments: . There must be a 20-foot-wide emergency-access road provided around all buildings. . There must be a fire protection system, pre-codes and monitored. . There must be proper marking of doors where fire protection systems are located. . There must be a fire department lock box installed. See the fire marshal for an order form. Police Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed this proposal and has no public safety concerns. He recommends the standard business security lighting and video surveillance systems. BuildinQ Official Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Refer to his attached report. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a proposed building setback of 250 feet from the rear lot line for an office/industrial condominium development at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday or all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements should specify this. 4 5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a building permit for this development. 7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall. This screen shall be an all-seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, berming or evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for architectural design, landscaping and site lighting. 9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage and erosion control. 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 38 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinions of this proposal. Of the nine replies, many were clearly opposed. Some were accepting of the proposed type of development, but noted concerns about the plans. 1. No objection. 2. Refer to the letter from Gwen Kingsbeck, 2498 Adele Street. Ms. Kingsbeck stated that, though they understand the land will be developed and accepts the proposed usage, they have concerns about there being a sufficient buffer. They also feel that there is too much development proposed for this site. 3. My main concem is the "noise" level. What kind of businesses exactly will be in this site? Many of us do not work 8-4, Monday through Friday. Hours of work fluctuate with the neighbors who will be affected by this. (Cathy Brown, 2496 Cypress Street) 4. My concems are: any water/drainage from the development that would affect the water table for my property, light leakage to the residential area, noise during non-normal business hours. Also, how far away from the north property line will any of the development be? (Margaret Peterson, 2522 Adele Street) 5. Refer to the letter from Daniel Ward, 2514 Adele Street. Mr. Ward stated concerns about clearing this site to the property line and constructing a mosquito-infested slough. The applicant should consider alternative designs that impact the site less. 6. I "do not" support a conditional use permit for this development. I also do not support removing any existing trees on the current property. (Kristen Scholl, 1017 Demont Avenue) 7. The applicant's letter states that the mini storage already infringes on the 350 foot setback, thereby setting the standard. This is not true. Codes and ordinances are written for a reason and should not be routinely dismissed. This building will lower my property value. (As stated by a realtor.) Please do not allow this. (Mike Trenda, 2474 Adele Street) 8. Refer to the letter from Deanne Lynn Dick and Jeffrey Scott Dick, 2505 Adele Street. Ms. Dick stated that this development would be a hindrance to the neighborhood. The tree loss is a detriment and there would be too much traffic. Mr. Dick stated that he too is adamantly opposed to the tree removal. The office condos, themselves, are not a problem, but the tree removal proposed would ruin a wonderful barrier between them and Highway 61. 9. Refer to the letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor of 2506 Adele Street. Their comments and concems are, in summary, loss of trees and the minimal screening proposed. Loss of privacy with the small trees planted as a buffer to attempt to screen a two story building. There is no comparison with Acorn Mini Storage's reduced setback. This should not set a precedent. The two uses are distinctly different. 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.6 acres Existing Use: Two single dwellings (soon to be demolished) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Hmong American Alliance Church Acom Mini Storage Maplewood Drive Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan: M1 Zoning: M1 eode Reauirements Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a residential district. Findinos for CUP Approval eity code requires that to approve a eup, the city council must base approval on the nine required findings for approval. Refer to the attached resolution for a listing of these findings. APPLICATION DATE We received the revised and resubmitted plans for this proposal on October 11, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is required by December 10, 2005. p:sec9\Maple Leaf Ridge Office Condos 9'05 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Original 4-Building Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Applicant's Letter dated June 23, 2005 6. Amenities Statement 7. Building Official's Report dated July 5,2005 8. Letter from Gwen Kingsbeck 9. Letter from Daniel Ward 10. Letter from Jeffrey and Deanne Dick 11. Letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor 12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 7 rsisl. ~~~"'!rmi 1041 1104911055 '110!'flfri -I "811ill1 !d'~s__C0fner ; ; ~o, I ' ! ;. I I" _....l_--L--L.._--1-.1.- .-- . ___~__l_h--~---'----"'-~--'- -----CO-liNTY ROAD C . . i :.; !i! 110~: ~~1Sl !liillWi, ! I! ~ !C 10 i Iii ,! 1 IElIlBl' ! cr: '-. j--.,1---.....----.....1--.----i w 'I~ lu '. !- _....i..~~._..h ._~.._------....---) > . i cr: iUJ !W l~ 1 - t i .~I&: ~,.,if.", ~1 \ SI i 2611 .c_____1 ~ ..~~---f;"i. 2600 ',B__ . .._ 'po.---r 2~~nl ).J~-; 219 . -~;: ~~ .. 57 '. i-~, ,~~~~ 1:!lpl~!e unflll i H.i---~l --<---T---'~ :~-~-II lit, aiLLEctl11 R2557 '" 1, .It.'~~: ~ ~"' ._\\~. i IIi) ~ '. __.....J~t~: '1 4T ~ .. ~_~JlIU, '-. .-''- I" I! I t I I .,... i ,2. I! ! ~ m .. B II 18\ I ~:. ::987 !-- .1! '~~~I\l~[f---- ----I ..., / .-,!~ 2~: '----~-..r' I 2515 .I ~~.~ I j III j! I ; >_-1-.-1- "\ ! i d i 11025,.' 1033 .' _I i "-'---,",:--,,_.j'-If- ! 1.j~i~/1t., .' i / ~,";"d! . ;W-------------'.._:#'22. i .~ ~I; \. l----~Cf.) 1--'--;'.- - '\ \.~. --- 'dO- 11I'/ , _-~--~~. ~~~ :_f!<> ~ 1_1 ~ "4 PROPOSED i ~. i ~ iQ. I ~2 i 2IJ! i ji6 SITE ,~.3 ! _ it; i~'i 25'(rif- r'~" . . i-~ 1~ : . ..JW i V'" l--j 2d!l: ! ~ i 2a i..J \-~ . ffll'r I W I' i pw i ~:UJ' ~ ' .-~. _4 r-,,'- --'=-r---' '---'---' ~8 :~ ~~l:~~i~~ - .._!-~--r--.;.I ..! i mr..:.: ! 'Rr i : ~ 4 I r- 247..~ i-&.---rli~ ni..~ . ./ i..!.._:!lJ i.. i 2' ,.: !_~ ~I ~~ I.___~~ $EXTANT AVE,,,,/.JlI---j,' .... ! . ,'iiili:r,' f-.-r.----r--.~ A~458"., I . '2441 -.-~:' "f;'~, '!liP; 1111~jimi.il.,..' f , ...~-/ .~_~/ J~J-...1ffl26\\-1032~"'li' ,i 1l\2W/ ~ .....,...~. .,l~....'!!I1I '_L. ....-.-::..~_R__. . ). ,/ .... ... - I I II " 21m\ "/ /, ~ii. ...,' ~. I! I ,.. ---:---i ( '- /1041: 1055 ! i 2411 2~ i j"'" -I ~I r@ i I _____J ! ! ~! Il!ll I I .' :~ _~__ L__. ---------cfE~viIS AVg---'--"--.l-' I '-.. ---- ..'--1- ..---7---.-....----.--.--- -1......-.---..----:-" I 1- / .., , ill Attachment 1 <.~ j .t-- - ---- ----t [~. J i I {~,~; .. I i.~j i (I- j ;~ ,I : en j :1 L..____.._______j ~! ; CONNOR AVE :::l I r-...----...---....----; ..J ! 1 :::l L7 j C q 't'- co >- ~ :r C> X , ,i " ,.... j ./ , I t i-' v ,/1------ I I!iI I, / ! .j 249l!iJ1 . ! /' ./ m_ 2464 - : illi&' 1--1__.- ,--,---~ , . i i j1~~ L-_---. ~ ..j j l~ i, :1 :j .," i .' .' " .' .. / /" I J i " i /I ~ i..; . I :' ;! .,,---_..<.--( i ... .,--o.) ,/ ~;~.iIE;;tl,,~1!~ . / .... .~F---- .," .-' fi1i ~---- ~ ~... a I ._______ __._.__..~_--l-__ i'-.--------.....--i-.~-_;-..--.'.i "--"."--"', I Spoon Lak i _.--1---" __"__h.'__ l ./ ;l i , :.:i '<"\~ . I -.\ Y H__Lq___ .Hj...._____~~ ~ y..\G I _.__....-.___...______--r__~.-_..-_ "\ i i ! ' I LOCATION MAP / l;l~~~~}~~~~~(l~~~$l II ~U . 1211 - I 8 r---------------------------------'-"'1 I ~jJ ~ .. " " .... U'" c-4.... ... 4'-6',:,\ 74'4" "... ,"'.eo ~ CS' <J1 ~~ '" ~ ~ $ " ~ . . 'H ~ n~ 0 ~- ~ " ~~ ~ :: m ~~ --0 '\'\ r :~ l> ~~ Z ~11< ~ ;= '" '" ~ -l>. iii " <J1 CS' .. ~~ ..: " ~ .. ; , ~ l! @ ~ ~ ~~ '" -I ~ IU :. -< ~ U> ~ 0 "rll< ~ '" IJ '" m d~ .. -I -< :ll ss ~ ~~ IU ::' l> ~" :I :i --0 .x "11< IJ m :I~ ~ .. m r -I -< :ll ~ 1';.. <\ ~~ 2", ~~ ~... ~ ~~ Attachment 2 I~ d .. ': .. ~~ a " . RECElVED f\ ~-\' ~ \Jl ~ i ;c""f'G: -1 "il.!.,) ~ iav.... > MAPLE LEAF flUSINE55 CENTER SITE PLAN ~.~ \I d MAPLEUl::lOD, i'1'4 Dft,tOlIST, R"l' 0EYl0l,",~ ~ f--->- 73llO HUDSON fLvo. sum: 230 ~ ::I~ ca1MERCIAL EGlJITT PARTNERS CWCIW..E, YH 551211 f--->- . OAKDALE, MN II II II PIt (B5f) 714-3tt5 fAX. (651) 735-1228 SITE PLAN 9 Attachment 3 r r- ------------- ---------------------, li~~ ,.. . .. I I I I I Q' \J1 U> :. -#I' .c"-6"':-l 74'''' -#I' . ~~ . I . Q' \J1 U> I I( I " I I . I .. ! " . I I I I ~m II! . " I Q' \J1 U> I . -N U I 0 ." f; ~ .... ~li ~ ~; j$~ . . l> Q' \J1 U> ...., . ~.,. . ,,'I ::I I :i II r "x ~ . "II: 0 . ~.. I m 'I L I J,; . . I I , f~ . I, . I i . . I I gP: (p ~ - m -l -:~ m ;~ ""0 .." r ., po ~; z :;: , ~ I r Z I ' ~ ~ I ~ .. ~ I 0 oho- ~r ~ , ' iiI .. : ~ ~jt:~ ii ~ d~ ~ ~I~ Ii ~ !! ~ J' ~ I ORIGINAL 4-BUILDING SITE PLAN ~~ l~:MAPLE LEAF BUSINESS CENTER S'TE PLAN 6E~.~ il........ ~~ MAPLEWOOD. i'1'l . CIIUIIN .T, "" 1IIEVISlc;N"'I. I .... . !~ ITT PARTNERS 7JIlD1IllISDNlI.Vll.UE2JO ~........ I lWCDN.i. MIl 55121 ....-:1I0AKDALE, MN ' Ie>ea<zc>",.. "'" II Ii PIl (151)714-3"5 "" (15')7.15-1228 D. 10 ~ ~ h --{1 I; ~~ '" .. - i ~ 0. --1 ::\1 10 z :II" () ~~ ii .. j::: !! ::tj <{ ). H ll.l aa --1 ll.l 9Ul-~l (lsg) 'XVJ~IUJ-"ll (1~9)'Hd 9U!iSIlft"1'MVno ~Z J1tIS "lV1"S NOSQnH (Kl C~Q li! h I ~I; : 11 ! i -" .. ~1'Da ',lg IJ!lI 'J.ilN'WaICI Sl'()ll'l'A313 , t I . "'NIOllna ~ !I! ~ I 31~ ~I J -11 Ii Jj NI-J';!1'1'O)f\>'O . ~~'I'd .lllrl'3 1\l'1~~ ~~ NI-J'CJOa1131dV'W ~~ al3ll'W SS3Nlsna :2'1'31 31d1t1ol 8 ml: --1 ", 10 w ~ ~ .. I li! h I ~~ ~ Z :II" a ~~ j::: ~ ~ <{ !~ ). ~~ ~n ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ; ! ,. .. ~ 1;; I ~d ~ ~~ i ~; ~ ~~: 0. .. '< --1 10 .. f- :II" <f) Xx ill ;:t- j! ~~ II ~~ () -.. zh NOI.l3'I!!ti\lNC7.) ~ 03tiiIl 3'Ol OllON Attachment 4 ~ , . C"J: <t: 8 ml: --1 ", 10 ~ ~ ~ .. I -{1 !! II ~ I! II II II -~ 2 ~ I 11 9ll'\-m. (~S9) .Wl ~~Ur,~l (~S9) oKd II NJ,.j';l'l'Q)j'lfO C\l llZl!iSMft']"N'IDM) s:!l3NJ.0!I'I'd .ll11103 1'<11:Jl!j3\.ll.l:r.J till i Cl:Z1lJ1S"'MlJ MOSQnH QCl(L c.~a "NO"""" J..I!II 'J.&INInIICJ ~ 'ClOc:m31d'11J ~t C"'J SNOll'l'^313 ~. '9NICI1lne 0!I3lN3:) SS3Nlsne 11'31 31d'11J <r: i ~ Ii ~ ~ ::>~ ~ ~ . li! ~~ " g~ Ii ~ g:;; " ~ ~~ " .fl . " " " II -fl --fl II " " " " " " " if {- " " " " '" '" " " " " ~ ~ " " u " Q Q -" " " " ....I a : ....I t G u " lD lD -" " " " " " '" " _J 1 i " z ~" z ~c ~ " J n " G Xx J G Xx " " ;!;- I .- JI Q . . . . n " t- ~~ 1 t- .; " ....I " <:t J <:t " lD " II . . " -fl > !~ II > !~ II " ill " ill " --u ee II ae II ~- " ....I II ....I " Z x- " ill " ill " G ~~ " " " . . J A~ " II -'" " t- !! " ~ " <:t 1 " " > ~~ 1 " 1 '" " ill ee 1 " ....I 1 ~~ " III 1 " 1 " 1 g~ " 1 " 1 " ~ ~ " " ~ J if 1 ~ ~ I l; 1 i 1 I ! 1 --u 1 i 1 1 5 I~ " ~ I I , , " , / " ~ I~ " ~ ~ li! " " ~~ ~~ h ~ " ". i ~ " " ~if ~If ~ " " ".~ .J ~~ 'f " " " " 1 1 1 .fl J " 1 " 1 " 1 " " " " " " " { " '" " " ~ " " " Q ~~ " ....I " " lD ~ : " ~ i " " " z ~c in .fl " G Xx ;!;= -u . . " t- ~~ " <:t " " > !l~ " III " B5 " ....I " III " " "'~ " " " " II " " " " " " " " -u 12 9W-ill(IS9)'ll'iJl#lllr"~l(~S9J.1Id II II NW 'nvQ)lltO . C? 9z,l9.iNn"IM1>llo ~3~\fd J.lU103 1't1~ ~~ <<z 31J1S 1],\11 NOSQnH 0IItl C'~Q "'NO",^", 1Jll'J..Q~ N.J 'aocm31d'o'~ C02 Si'011'1 A313 . . 'OIN1a1100 ~IDW SS3NlSI1Q :l'<t31 31d'o'~ <t: :i! Ii I ~6 : -On I ; II ~ II ~ JI ; ~ --i1 ~!! > ~~ ~ ~a _A .. " ~~ !l~ li! Is ~ h il ~il ~ Ii II --11 II ~ III !! l! ---u ~., :sa ~~ II II II 11 g ml: --1 "- [Q w ~ ~ .. I li! hI ~~ ~ NOI.1:xI!Il'ONC7.l ~ ~~OllON ----.--(1 ~ !I: i i [Q ~ ~ :: :d Q :: I iiz tto ii i= ii <t ii> iiw I I --1 !!w r' [.i--n z ;II o x ';:t ! > !! w. ill a M~ ~ i ~d ~ a~ I ~l ~ il: a.... irlL ~ ~; W ;>;- 3 .' I !! II ~~ o '!jw z \l~ i ! Imm imm II r l.i--f] Ii 13 Attachment 5 . KELCO 7300 Hudson Blvd. Suite 245 Oakdale, MN 55128 Office: [651] 730-2020 Fax: [651] 730-2055 Real Estate Development Services June 23, 2005 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maple wood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 1U05 RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Maplewood Drive Maplewood, ~ Dear Tom: I am representing Mr. Mark Gossman, principal of Commercial Equity Partners in the development of the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park to be located at 2483 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood, MN. The project is intended to consist of four building totaling approximately 45,000 sf of footprint and, with second floors, a total of approximately 55,000 sfwhich will be divided into bays of approximately 2,400 sf each and sold as condominiums for use as office/showroom, office/industrial! and office/warehouse uses, all of which are approved uses in the Ml zoning that covers this property. Enclosed please find the applications for design review and condition use permit as well as the requisite drawings for submittal and review and approval. Since the property abuts a residential neighborhood, the 350' setback requirement' is applicable to the property. The conditional use application is to allow for the westerly most building to be constructed at a distance of 157' from the west property line to the front door of the vestibule of the building. As can been seen from the rendering, these buildings will be of an office nature in appearance from the exposure to the residence and, by allowing for this building to be constructed facing west, the overhead doors will all be inboard and not visible :from the residential neighborhood. The types of uses anticipated in this project will not generate high volumes of visitor traffic and are typically open weekdays during normal business hours. Also, since the units will be individually owned, there is a sense of ownership, pride, and neighborliness will be more prevalent than if the spaces were leased. The mini storage project to the south of this property is encroaching in the 350' setback and therefore has established a precedent to allow for relief from the maximum setback. 14 Mr. Tom Ekstrand June 23,2005 Page 2 A neighborhood meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at the fire station in the local neighborhood. All landowners within 500' of the property have been notified to attend this meeting for information regarding the project. A separate report will be sent to the City of impressions we have from the neighbor~ at that meeting. When the City approves this project, it is our intent to start construction late this summer for occupancy in mid-winter. The project will probably be phased with two buildings constructed initially and the other two buildings to be completed in 2006. I have enclosed for your review an amenities list that has been developed for promotional purposes for these buildings. As you can see, these will be very high-quality and aesthetically pleasing buildings that will lend themselves well to this neighborhood. The additional tax base and the new jobs created will benefit the City and the neighborhood in general. I look forward to the opportunity to present this project in the approval process for the City of Maplewood. Please call me with any questions are any requests if additional information is required. ames E. Kellison President JEK!jjc Enclosures 15 Attachment 6 Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Amenities 1. Integral colored concrete block units for much grater aesthetic appeal and for minimum maintenance. Resealing is only necessary every 5-7 years at approximately 1/3 the cost of painting. 2. The metal coping material for the parapet and canopies is factory painted finish over aluminum so that it does not rust. 3. All exterior windows are 1" insulated glass set in thermally broken aluminum mullions which are factory anodized for extended life on this finish. The glass is a light tint with low E for superior solar reflectance and minimum transmission. 4. The rear man doors have glass above them for natural light into the warehouse areas. The man doors have drip caps to minimize water getting in through the door or into the door system causing rust. The doors have anti-pick plates. The thresholds are bronze anodized material which wears much better than aluminum. 5. The overhead doors have high lift tracking and 30,000 cycle commercial grade spring and track systems. 6. The roofis a 45-mil EPDM rubber roof system with rock ballast. It is installed with a 10- year guarantee for labor and materials from the manufacturer and a prorated warranty on the material ror an additional IO-years. 7. The concrete block is insulated using a 2-part foam which produces a R-ll insulation factor for the concrete block. 8. The concrete slab is 5" thick of 4,000 psi concrete with a fiber mesh system which reduces hairline cracking and crazing." 9. The roof system has a polyisosanurated and expanded polystyrene foam insulation system providing an R-22.2 insulation factor. 10. Each vestibule will have a 12" x 12" porcelain tile floor with 4" bull-nose base. The walls of the vestibule will be taped, sanded and painted as will the drywall ceiling. The vestibule will have a sprinkler head, 2 kW electric fan driven wall heater and light fixture. 11. T4e demising walls will be constructed of full height 2 x 6 steel studs at 24" on center with the bottom track being caulked to the concrete and the, top being stuffed with insulation and filled with Struct-O-Lite. The studs will be insulated with R-19 insulation and 5/8" drywall will be installed on each side of the wall, full height with taping and two coats of drywall joint compound. 16 12. Each unit will be provided with a floor drain connected to a flammable waste system as required by code for vehicle entry into the building. 13. There will be a continuous 3' wide concrete apron along the overhead door side of each of the buildings constructed of 6" of concrete with fiberglass reinforcing mesh. 14. Six-inch diameter steel pipe bollards are installed at each side of each overhead door for protection from vehicles. 15. The air conditioning units are a 10 SEER rated unit providing a very economical operation. Thermostats for the air conditioning units are night setback programmable thermostats. 16. Each bay will be served with 200-amps of 110/208 volt, 3-phase, 4-wire electrical service. Each bay will have a 1" empty conduit back to the equipment room for telephone home runs. 17. The paved areas will receive two 1-1/2" lifts of asphalt over minimum of 6" of Class 5 recycled base material. 18. The site will have 20' tall pole lighting with two heads on each pole in locations that provide for security lighting. There will be wall packs for lighting of the truck areas between the buildings to provide for security and loading illumination. Each canopy will have a metal halide down light for illumination of the entry. All exterior lighting will be controlled with a photocell to turn on and a time clock to turn off 19. All landscaped areas will be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system with a rain sensor system. 11 Attachment 7 Memo From: David Fisher, Building Official July 5, 2005 To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Re: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - New Multi-tenant Condo Style Office/Industrial Buildings. A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permit. All new office buildings over 2000 square feet are required to be fire sprinklered and to meet NFPA 13. The new building must be built to meet Minnesota State Building Code and 2000 IBC. Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for accessibility. The accessible parking needs to spread out for the tenants and one van accessible space will be required for each building. Must meet the Minnesota State Energy Code. Any occupancy with the occupant load of 30 or more requires an elevator for accessibility. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building department. 18 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 8 Tom Ekstrand From: Gwen Kingsbeck [gwen@resolutiongraphics.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 200510:29 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Maple Leaf Ridge Business eenter Tom, My husband Jeff and I live at 2498 Adele Street, directly behind the proposed development. We received a request, for our opinions regarding the development, dated August 8th. I didn't immediately respond to your request because an additional informational meeting had been scheduled between Kelco and the affected neighbors. While we do understand that this land will be commercially developed and we are accepting of the proposed usage, we do have have deep concerns regarding the eup, layout and landscape. At the informational meeting held June 28th the neighbors let Mr. Kellison know that we were extremely unhappy about the proposed removal of all of the natural buffer between the neighbors property and the proposed development. The existing commercial developments in the area have kept a much wider buffer zone between themselves and the neighbors. At the additional informational meeting on August 9th Mr. Kellison proposed a more acceptable landscape plan which includes a row of evergreen trees as a buffer between the development and the neighbors. Mr. Kellison is also looking into saving the existing 20 foot evergreens near the property line. The big issue for us is the requested 150 foot setback as well as paved parking with in 50 feet of the property line. Mr. Kellison has informed us that if the 150 foot setback is granted we will look at the nicely finished front side of a building, however, if the CUP is not granted we will look at the back side of building with large dock doors and paving will be 50 feet from the property line regardless of the eup issue. While Jeff believes the best choice is to have the buildings as far away as possible and look at dock doors, I feel there is no good choice is this situation - I don't want to look at dock doors but I also don't want a 2 story building 150 feet away looking directly into my family room and bedroom windows with nothing to block the view. In conclusion we would be happy to have Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center as a neighbor but we feel their proposed development, as planned, is to large for the site and would not leave a reasonable buffer between them and the neighborhood. Sincerely, Gwen Kingsbeck 2498 Adele Street Maplewood, MN 55109 651-481-0785 Home 651-697-1100 Office 8/17/2005 19 Attachment 9 August 21, 2005 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Maplewood Drive Maplewood. MN Dear Tom, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Kelco development. My concern is not with where Kelco wants to constuct their building, but rather with what they intend to do right up to the propertyline: cut down all existing trees and constuct a mosquito infested slough. I notice they made reference to to the adjoining mini storage for a precedent in not conforming to the 350' setback requirement, even though their proposal is in no way remotely similar to what the min storage contructed. I'm certain there are alternate plans that could be enacted that would be both profitable and satisfactory to their prospective neighbors. If Kelco believes they need to construct such a large com pies to make the project a worthwhile venture, then maybe the property is'nt as valuable as the they and the seller think it is. t apologize for not getting back to you sooner as I have been out of town. I've offered very brief comments on the subject, but I think you probably have a feel for what I'm thinking, (the same thing any resident would be thinking in this position). Thank you for your involvement with this, and if I can be of any further help please let me know. Sincerely, Daniel Ward 2514 Adele Street Maolewood,MN55109 651-486-7824 20 Page 1 of 1 Attachment lC Tom Ekstrand From: Dick, Jeff S. [JDick@northstar.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 17,20053:31 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Cc: DeanneDick@comcast.net; Jeff.Dick@comcast.net Subject: Comments regarding Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Here are comments from my wife and me regarding the Development Proposal for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center: Comments from Deanne Lynn Dick: My family and I thoroughly enjoy the trees on the site of the proposed development. They not only offer beauty, they also provide a sound and visual barrier from Highway 61. I've sat on our porch many evenings and relaxed to the swaying sound of the leaves and the great view of the sunset reflecting off the trees. I'm finding it very hard to believe that cutting the trees would benefit the neighborhood. From talking to the neighbors, it would be doing quite the opposite. One resident is already selling their house due to the condominiums and another resident, who is directly affected, will sell if the plan passes. From where I stand, the business condos are already causing problems without even being built., not to mention the increase in traffic to the area if the plan goes through. I see them and everything that comes along with them as a hindrance to our neighborhood rather than an attraction. Comments from Jeffrey Scott Dick: I am adamantly opposed to the removal of the trees on the proposed site. While I don't have a problem with the office condos themselves, I think removing the trees would be a major detriment to our neighborhood. The trees offer a wonderful barrier from highway 61 that gives our neighborhood the feeling of being "tucked away" from the neighboring areas. These trees are also the home of plenty of wildlife, including many deer that feed behind 2506 Adele St. I urge you to reject any proposals that involve removal of the trees from the proposed site. Thank you in advance for considering our comments. Sincerely, Jeffrey S. Dick & Deanne L. Dick 2505 Adele St. N. 651.482.1905 8/17/2005 21 Attachment 11 Thomas F O'Connor Melissa L O'Connor 2506 Adele St N Maplewood MN 55109 We are the O'Connor family and live at 2506 Adele St directly behind the proposed development. When we bought our home in June of2001 we were told that the property's behind us were zoned commercial but that the burm and several feet on the other side of the burm including the main tree line were owned by the developer of the residential neighborhood as a buffer between the new residential development and the two at the time residential properties. This was something we considered when buying our home but thought as long as the burm and the main tree line would not be affected by a commercial property we would welcome a commercial project because we wouldn't see it and would be able to maintain our wooded view and buffer from Hwy 61. So you can imagine how disappointed we are to see the Maple Leaf Ridge proposal removing all mature trees and coming right up to our property line. A lesson learned I guess. Just a comment on how much we have enjoyed our wooded view and the wildlife that comes with it. We have watched for the last four years a doe have two fawns every mating season and have greatly enjoyed watching them grow. We also have for the past year watched the Bald Eagle collect from our woods materials for the new nest on hwy 36 and 61 which has been wonderful to be a part of. Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Our main concerns are the proposed buffer between the proposed commercial development and our residence and the conditional use permit that has been requested. The proposed plan includes removing all mature trees along the entire back and both sides of the properties opening us up to not only this new development but to the American Hmong Church, Acorn Mini Storage and to all ofHwy 61 traffic noise, car dealership speaker noise and lighting from all. The proposal replaces them with small 8 to 10 foot trees along the back that won't even attempt to cover the 24 foot tall two story building looking us straight in the eye 157 feet away. We have attended two meetings with Jim Kellison and representatives from Commercial Equity Partners. In the first meeting we expressed our biggest concern being the buffer between the two properties that we didn't have a problem with what types of business that were going in as long as we didn't have to be exposed so openly to them. They stated they would go back and redo some landscaping and show us views of what we would see from our properties and have a second meeting. When we attended the second meeting we were very disappointed. They had one sketch only showing our homes from behind only two levels high and they are three levels high. Our lower levels are below the burm and with the proposed two story building facing our direction being built up to the height of the top ofthe burm the first level of the building will be level with our main floor and the buildings second story would be level with our upstairs. The houses this is affecting are all designed with the main living spaces facing the back family rooms, kitchens, kitchen eating areas, dining room, master bedrooms and baths all with large windows. The new proposal had such minor changes moving the holding pond back a little allowing room for 10 foot trees on top of the burm for our buffer and that's it. The building is 24 feet tall with 8 to 10 feet buffer trees. The top floor businesses will be looking directly into our upstairs level and our main living level. With that building being requested to be 157 feet from our property we feel this is way to close, we will have to have every window covered at all times and any outside activities will be easily viewed by several business units which is not very comfortable. When we mention this being to close the response we received was that the 350 ft was an archaic rule and we should worry more about what types ofbusiness's were coming in and not the buffer between us so if they got moved back that we would not be seeing the astatically pleasing front of one of the buildings but they would have to put in shipping and receiving dock type building facing us. Which they stated didn't matter to them either way. Being they want to open everything up and only buffer with small trees and if this building is 350 ft away we would prefer this also at 350 ft we shouldn't be able to see much and wouldn't have office window units looking directly at us. 22 As far as Acorn Mini Storage setting precedent encroaching in the 350 ft which I believe it is sti1l220ft back. These are two totally different types ofbusiness's you barely have any workers or customers at Acorn Mini Storage and they also hide the holding pond from our sights keeping it forward on the property and they left all trees and foliage on the remainder of there property as a good buffer between us all you can't even see them. The American Hmong Church also left the tree line alone. It is our request that since there is going to be a removal of all mature trees and a parking lot within several feet of our property regardless of how close the building is that you enforce the 350 ft which we believe is there to protect us as home owners living in the City of Maplewood. 23 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Kelco Real Estate Development Services has applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to build an office/industrial complex 250 feet from the abutting residential district. The code requires 350 feet. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 N 85 FT OF LOT 3. W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 AND EX N 85 FT LOT 3. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On October 17,2005, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The planning commission held a public hearing. 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 considered the recommendations of city staff and the public. 2. The city council reviewed this request on , 2005 and considered the recommendations of the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 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, induding streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 24 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday or all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements should specify this. 5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a building permit for this development. 7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall. This screen shall be an all-seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, berming or evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for architectural design, landscaping and site lighting. 9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage and erosion control. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2005. 25 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Carpet Court 1685 Arcade Street October 12, 2005 Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,644 square foot building to house his retaillwarehouse carpet store called Carpet Court. The building will be constructed on a 30,000 square foot vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Highway 61). Mr. Blair currently operates this business in St. Paul. The original proposal required a conditional use permit to construct a metal building within the business commercial zoning district, rezoning one-third of the property from single- family residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC), design review, and possibly an impervious surface variance in order to allow up to 50 percent impervious surface within the Shoreland Overlay District (unless bonuses apply). This proposal was scheduled for a public hearing by the planning commission on October 17, 2005. During review of the project the Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated that they would like to study the possibility of vacating the frontage road which runs between Mr. Blair's property and Highway 61 (Arcade Street). To ensure the city and the Minnesota Department of Transportation have adequate time in which to study the impacts of the vacation of the frontage road on the properties serviced by the road, the applicant has agreed to table this item until the next planning commission meeting (November 7,2005).