Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. February 6, 2006, 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. January 17, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Conditional Use Permit Revision - Menards (2280 Maplewood Drive) 7:15 Code Amendment - Nonconforming Uses 6. New Business Resolution of Appreciation - Eric Ahlness 5. Unfinished Business Noise Ordinance Discussion 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations January 23 Council Meeting: Tushar February 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski February 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule February 20 meeting (Presidents Day) - February 21 or February 22? 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL 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 Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts requested moving item 6. c. Cottagewood Development Concept Plan Review to 6. b. and making 6. b. 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report to 6. c. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for January 3, 2006. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the planning commission minutes for January 3, 2006. Commissioner Pearson seconded. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Abstention. Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (7:08 - 8:18 p.m.) For the last two years, the city has been conducting an extensive process for the possible redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood Area (the area near Frost Avenue and English Street). The process has included the hiring of consultants to prepare and evaluate development and redevelopment plans and alternatives for the area. It also included the formation of a task force of citizens and city commission members to provide input to the city and the planning consultants about the proposed plans. Through this extensive process, the city and the consultants recently completed a draft neighborhood redevelopment plan. The city is now asking all the city boards and commissions to each make a recommendation to the city council about the draft plan. Specifically, city staff is asking that the planning commission make a recommendation to the city council about the draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (dated November 14, 2005). A power point presentation about the planning process and the draft plan for the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan was given by Melinda Coleman and Chuck Ahl. Commissioner Grover asked what option B is and where did option B come from? Mr. Ahl said option B started as a discussion between himself and Councilmember David Bartol when they looked at the public investment for this plan. They asked the question "what is the bottom line or minimal amount that could be done and what is the minimal dollar amount that would have to be spent"? We asked is there a housing density under 800 units that make this financially feasible? Instead of redeveloping in a timely manner that pays for the public improvements, your redevelopment doesn't happen and properties sit vacant. Properties would continue to deteriorate even though the public improvements would be done. The city doesn't want to call it a "minimal" plan but the question is what is the minimal value of improvements that you would do in the area. Commissioner Grover said in terms of estimating the actual number of units, if you take $17 million, divide it by the 800, producing a per unit and apply it to the $11 million that gives you the 500 units. Mr. Ahl said that was the basis for the city council member who requested this. It is a much more detailed analysis the city has to do and that is what the consultants will work on. Commissioner Grover asked if the staff would be bringing this information back to the consultants at HKGI to have them run the numbers? Mr. Ahl said since they got the request last Monday, the city has started on the analysis to get the complete information to make a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there was any assumption made where the 500 units would be built in relation to where the 800 units would be built in the Gladstone area? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -3- Mr. Ahl said the tourist cabin site is one where both the 500 and 800 unit plan assumes the same intensity and density. The reduction in the housing density in the plan comes more in the outer fringes. The area closer to the existing residential neighborhoods have the lesser development possibly 6 units per acre in intensity. The core area around Frost and English Street and the north side between Flicek Park and the Maplewood Bowl have a higher density around 15 units per acre. The 1000 unit plan had about 34 units per acre. Does the city want five story complexes in this area? Is that too much for this part of Maplewood? The city has to decide these questions. They also have to decide if they have a maximum density they would use. Ms. Coleman said under the current zoning and the current comprehensive plan, there are certain development rights that are on the books right now that under the 500 units could actually be construed as a down zoning for some of the property owners. To go back through the planning process and reduce the zoning to something less could get the city into some trouble, so the city has to take a closer look at that scenario. Mr. Ahl said if the value of the units is less, than there would be less taxes and less money available for public improvements. The dollar figure the city is using as a reference now is $22,500 per unit. Commissioner Grover said the assumption is that the developers may be less amenable to coming back if they see an option such as an option B where they don't have some of the options they wanted to be able to work with. He asked if the consulting group was going to talk to developers as well to see if option B would even be something a developer would be interested in working with? Mr. Ahl said yes. There are five orsix developers that have called the city in the last week that are interested in this Gladstone Redevelopment Area. Commissioner Grover asked if the city would quantify the risk to the TIF as well? Mr. Ahl said yes, that is the main risk. If the city can't support the $350,000 per unit the city will have to reduce the price per unit to $250,000. That may not generate as much money for this project but the city has two choices, either cut improvements or increase density. Ms. Coleman said at the workshop in December, Peter Fischer asked what some of the densities were for housing projects around town. In response to this, Ken Roberts put a list together (which he passed out to everyone) of some of the apartment and townhome projects and what the dwelling units per acre were. She said the last two TIF projects for housing were the Sibley Cove Apartment project on County Road 0 and Ariel Street and the Van Dyke Village project on Van Dyke Street and County Road B. By the time the land was purchased and the structures were built there was a gap in the affordability component to make this work financially. That's what you will see here too. The city will have to look very carefully at the cost of the land, the cost of the street and the cost of the other improvements. With the help of HKGI (the consulting company), the city hopes to have a good analysis in place to help the commission and board members work through the details to help make a recommendation on development levels. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -4- Commissioner Trippler said he has been on the Gladstone Task Force for two years now representing the planning commission and he thinks it's really sad that in the ninth inning, with two out, we get this option B plan that came out of left field. It's too bad the city couldn't go ahead with the plans they already had in place and either vote it up or vote it down. He asked if the density of this development matches with the Legacy Village development or with any other of the high density developments? He thinks there's a misconception out there with the 800 unit proposal that far exceeds any other density in the city and that is not his understanding. Staff asked what kind of direction the commission would like to see? He thinks it's very important to have the trails and the walkability in this development. If this development is going to provide a living environment that is going to attract a full range of people such as young people with families through retired people, developing the trails and making the connection between the north part of Frost Avenue to the Savanna and to the Gateway Trail is critical to make this plan work. He has also been a strong advocate maintaining as much open space as possible. Once you lose the open space it's gone. He knows there are a lot of issues regarding funding parks and he has been opposed to that being a short term fix. That is putting off the inevitable that the city is eventually going to have to face. He said the consultant did a number of economic evaluations of the three proposals, the garden city plan, the mid point plan and the village plan. He asked how far off the garden city concept was to this left field proposal of 500 units? Mr. Ahl said the question is how can the city tweak the improvements down to the $11 million dollar mark? The city is getting those numbers together and then we can tell if $11 million dollars will work with 500 units or not. The original garden city concept plan was for 300 units and that just wasn't financially feasible. The original garden city plan had the extent of the improvements from Highway 61 to Hazelwood Street. The 500 unit starts at Phalen Place and goes to Ide Street. Commissioner Trippler said most of the improvements that he has seen are pretty essential in order for this to be a "high quality" development. The more you cut back on the plan the more you are going to have to cut back on the "quality" of the product the city could offer. It could be done but then do you want it to look nice or of higher quality or do you want it to look like inexpensive or of lower quality? At 8:00 p.m. Bruce Anderson took the open space committee members and the park and recreation members out of the city council chambers to have their own meeting and discussion. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks it's critical to make the Savanna usable and based on his past work experience at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, that there are funding mechanisms that are available. He doesn't think the city will need to come up $2 million dollars for clean up. He thinks the city can tap into the Petro Fund and some of the other clean up funds and maybe drop the projected dollar amount by $1 million dollars. Mr. Ahl said the city is aware there are funds out there you can apply for but the city can't get into all of those details at this time. The city does have about $700,000 of the environmental fund in the project budget. Commissioner Desai asked about the Tourist Cabins. He asked if that area would be developed as medium or high density? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -5- Ms. Coleman said from the plan with the 800 units that area was at about 120 to 150 units and in the plan B option that site would carry about the same density. Commissioner Desai asked if the city has received inquiries regarding redeveloping that area? Ms. Coleman said there is a developer in place, they have the property under options, and they have begun meeting with the residents there. She said she has a meeting on Thursday, January 19,2006, with that group to start talking about the master plan and when it could be adopted. Currently there is a moratorium in place, so the city is working with the timeframes with them. The city is not at liberty to discuss the name of the firm yet and she is not sure the developer wants his name released at this time. The phone calls from developers she has received have picked up dramatically since the beginning of the year because the developers that have been attending the meetings regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Area and anticipate the master plan will be adopted real soon. Commissioner Desai said it wasn't clear why the plans changed since the last meeting at the Maplewood Community Center with the commissions and groups. He asked what has changed and why? Ms. Coleman said on Monday, January 9,2006, one of the city councilmember's requested that the city staff consider an option B. They want to know what the minimal level of development is that the city can support doing $11 million worth of public infrastructure improvements and what density do we have to have in order to do that. The city is trying to find a balance. The city council directed city staff to amend the contract with HKGI (the consultants) to do this additional work and bring it back to the city council. Commissioner Desai asked where the magic number of $11 million was derived? Ms. Coleman said that $11 million number was derived from the density that the city councilmember who proposed this option B felt comfortable with. Mr. Ahl said the $11 million number was developed from a meeting between the city councilmember, David Bartol and himself that took many hours. They discussed what could and couldn't be cut. The numbers were basically tweaked and the figure came down to $11 million. Commissioner Desai said it seemed to him this was a unilateral decision by the city council members. All this activity had already occurred with the Gladstone Redevelopment Area with the task force and all the city meetings. It was presented to all the commissions and boards at the Maplewood Community Center and it seems inappropriate that one city councilmember can dictate a change to the whole plan and delay things even longer seems unfair. Commissioner Trippler said it was a 3 to 2 vote by the city council to research this further for the option B plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -6- Ms. Coleman said because of this concern city staff is bringing this back to the commission once again so you can understand what the cost of option B would be and understand the character changes that may result for taking this project to a different level. How does the city know they need 800 units of density? City staff is going to take this through the process and bring it back to all of the groups. This delay has extended the decision on the master plan for another month to two months. Commissioner Desai said even if the consultants come up with a revised recommendation and the planning commission and the other boards and commission say 800 units is the density to go with, this could still go back to the city council and the council could still say 500 units is the maximum density the city is going to have for this project? Ms. Coleman said that's a possibility. What you are going to see, and what the city councilmember's are going to making their decision on, could be based on many different recommendations. There could be a different recommendation from each of the commissions or boards. There will be a spread sheet of what the public improvements costs would be and what is going to have be taken out of the plan to make the 500 units work. You are going to have to make a recommendation to the city council on what you think will work. Ultimately the city council will make a decision on all of the information they have received. Commissioner Grover said he likes the idea of a spread sheet. He thinks the spread sheet is a good comparison of numbers and statistics to compare the information. He agrees the city does not want to do something cheap when they could have had a good plan with some of the amenities that would attract certain developers to this area of the city. He thinks it would be nice to compare this plan to the Legacy Village area to see why certain amenities were included in that master plan and why certain amenities or ideas would not work in this plan compared to the things that were done or not done in the Legacy Village master plan such as parks, statues, trails, etc. Ms. Coleman said the underlying premise for the Legacy Village project was similar to the 800 unit plan. The city knew what the improvements needed to be, what the price was, what the density was, and it was all done in one package with a tax abatement plan. That is what the city is trying to do here. Now the city staff has been directed to take a different turn and analyze things in another way. Commissioner Grover said the Legacy Village plan was before his time on the planning commission. The thought process of why things were included in the Legacy Village plan would be interesting to know for the plan of the overall development. Such as why were public statues included in the plan, what was the rational for certain types of lighting, design elements, architecture used and other decisions that were made? He thinks these ideas and rationales would be important to compare between the Legacy Village plan in the ideas and plans for Gladstone Redevelopment Area. Ms. Coleman said the rational for the overall development for Legacy Village was one that was negotiated. It was done through the AUAR process. The project started at about 18 units per acre and when the city was done with the AUAR and the public process, the project ended up with 12 units per acre. It has a lot of open space components. The parks commission played an active role in the kind of park and trail system they wanted and that was given to the developers (the Hartford Group) as everyone was going through the planning process. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -7- Commissioner Grover said he understood there wasn't the "nickel and dime" issue that the city has dealt with for the Gladstone Redevelopment Area. Ms. Coleman said correct. That's because there wasn't an existing neighborhood involved nor was there any opposition involved. The questioning and rational forthe kind of zoning and density to use came through the city council, the AUAR and the advisory board process for the Legacy Village plan. There wasn't anywhere near the kind of public input with the Legacy Village area compared to what the city is going through with the Gladstone area. It was a single developer, one master developer, it was a lot easier to negotiate amenities, and with a budget that would work with the tax abatement plan. Another thing city staff did not mention is the value of having the higher density number is that gives the city more credence when they go to the Met Council for "livable community grants". The City of Maplewood has applied for two years now and was turned down. The first time the city applied for the grant it was for the Rich McLaughlin plan at 500 units of density which was turned down because the city was told it wasn't dense enough. Ms. Coleman said that's another thing the city has to keep in mind if the city wants to economically be in the ballpark with some of the other communities who be looking for those grants or funding and is another factor to consider. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the overriding concern of the city council member's is the density or the cost. Ms. Coleman said the primary concern is the proposed density. Mr. Ahl said it has to be density because even with the 500 and the 800 unit plans they pay for themselves. There is no city expenditure necessary "per se". Commissioner Desai said regarding the density and the expense, has the city asked the developers what density and dollar amount they think could sell in this area the best? Mr. Ahl said the city has to quantify what they can build with the $11 million so they can tell the developers what they have to work with. The city has a general idea but that has to be put on paper to see the numbers and make the comparisons. If the developers come in and say it isn't feasible to build with those numbers, the city has to go back to square one. Ms. Coleman said there will be certain parcels that are more expensive because businesses have to be relocated, or they have contaminants on them, so those costs will be more expensive as opposed to the areas that are under developed or have little on them. Commissioner Grover asked if there has been any resistance to this redevelopment by any of the property owners in the area? Ms. Coleman said businesses such as Gladstone Windows and Webster Dental are the only businesses that have said they are not interested in moving and do not want to move. Rich's market would love to work with the city on a new project but is not going to take on any new debt. Residents have said they don't know enough about the plan yet to make a decision. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -8- Commissioner Trippler said having thought about the proposal for option B that came in at the last minute, he is concerned if there is an end game here or not with the city council. If the 500 units at $11 million come back from the consultants, and they say it isn't feasible, and then it gets resubmitted as 600 units at $12 million, does it ever end? Ms. Coleman said staff doesn't know the answer to that. City staff will bring more information back to the commissions and boards for further discussion. Commissioner Grover said it would be nice to have the interdependent items listed on a spread sheet, for example, if you take X away then you have to take Y away. Ms. Coleman said city staff will do their very best to work with the consultants on this. The city staff wants to make this as easy and as clear of a decision as possible for all groups involved. Ms. Coleman thanked everyone for their time. The commission took a recess from 8:18 - 8:22 p.m. b. cottagewood Development Concept Plan Review (2666 Highwood Avenue) (8:22-9:03 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Phil Soby, representing Lauren and Company, has submitted to the city a preliminary concept plan for a proposed detached townhouse development. He has prepared a preliminary site and grading plan that shows 16 detached housing units on a private driveway. This development would be on about 3.71 acres of land that is south of Highwood Avenue (2666 Highwood Avenue). A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. This proposal, if approved by the city, would replace an 18-unit townhouse plan (with three six-unit buildings) known as Highwood Farms that the city approved in 2003. The developer has not finalized the design of the buildings, but staff expects that each town house building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Staff recommends the planning commission review the Cottagewood PUD concept plans for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue and provide the applicant and city staff direction and comments about the proposed development. Mr. Ahl said from one side to the other of the site is almost 18 to 20 feet of elevation change from west to east so it drops significantly. He said retaining walls are going to be needed to make this development work. There will be significant issues with how to make this site drain but it is workable. Commissioner Trippler asked what corresponding house number on Dennis Street would match up with unit number 9? Mr. Roberts said he estimated 1004 Dennis Street would match up with unit number 9. He estimates the properties are probably within 10 feet of each other. That would mean the southern half of the property would be untouched. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -9- Commissioner Trippler said he didn't visit the site this time but he did when this proposal came before the planning commission in 2003. He remembered the units on the south end of Dennis Street had jungle gyms and lawn stuff at the rear of the lots. The backyards there weren't that deep to begin with. But from 1004 Dennis Street and north of that have larger backyards. With this proposal he thinks there is ample separation between these eight proposed homes and corresponding homes to the west and he likes this proposal better than the last time he saw it. Commissioner Pearson asked how high the retaining wall would be that would have to be built on the rear of the town home properties? Mr. Ahl said he estimates the retaining wall to be 8 feet tall. The top of the retaining wall on the grading plan is at 1,008 feet and walkouts are at 1,000 feet. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there has been any public or neighbor input on either the previous plan or on this plan? Mr. Roberts said the previous plan in 2003 had a lot of public input and there were a couple public hearings at the city. There hasn't been any input with this plan yet because it is only a concept at this point. The developer is only looking for input from the commission to help guide them before they decide to make a full application for revision. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there was a lot of concern regarding setbacks or how close these other developments may be to each other? Mr. Roberts said that was not an overwhelming concern. The big selling point in 2003 was that the developer was going to dedicate a conservation easement atthe southern end of the property and not touch it. Most of the neighbors felt that it would only affect a few backyards and the trade off was worth it because now there was a large area of untouched property which could be enjoyed by many people. This new plan does that in a similar fashion. These buildings were not as close together as the current plan, but were three stories high. Now they are proposed at one story so that is the trade off. Commissioner Grover asked if the plan in 2003 approved as a PUD as well? Mr. Roberts said yes and that PUD approval is still on the books. The conservation easement was a condition. When the final plat is filed, which the developer did not do because the past plan never went forward, the conservation easement would be on the record. Staff suggests that ifthis concept plan goes forward, the PUD would be revised and the city could keep any or all of the conditions that the city thinks are important as part of the revised or new plan. Commissioner Grover said the retaining wall seems tall to him at 8 feet in height. Are there any restrictions with an 8 foot tall retaining wall ordoes the city require any fencing to be on top of the retaining wall to keep children from climbing on top of it or to keep people from getting hurt? Mr. Ahl said any retaining wall over four feet tall requires a fence or some type of barrier on top to restrict access on top of the retaining wall so nobody could fall. Commissioner Trippler said Erin Laberee had three issues or concerns regarding the concept plan. He asked staff to address the three issues. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -10- Mr. Roberts said those are questions for the developer. Staff was trying to get engineering's comments to pass onto the developer to let the developer know there are issues to be worked out. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Phil Soby, Lauren & Company Development, 200 East Chestnut Street, Suite 204, Stillwater, addressed the commission. Mr. Soby had four street scenes and color renderings to show the commission of what this development could look like. As Mr. Roberts said, this is only a concept plan at this stage and he is looking for comments from the commission before they go to the next step. These would be one level detached town home units that would be geared to a senior who is looking for a residential home, but without the yard maintenance. These units would sell for around $250,000 a unit. Commissioner Grover asked what the square footage would be for these units? Mr. Soby said the units will run between 1,000 to 1,200 square feet per unit on the one level. Given the natural grades he is thinking the properties on the east side could be offered the option of a full basement to allow that natural grade to slope because it's an 8 to 9 foot drop which is about right for a full basement walkout. Mr. Soby said the units on the west side would be a slab on grade so no basement would be available there. Commissioner Grover said one of the concerns of the Assistant City Engineer, Erin Laberee, is the amount of visitor parking. Mr. Soby said when the units are placed so the garages and the driveways are next to each other it would create a larger area from the driveway to the next property's driveway. They could re-lay the units on the plan so there are two or three areas on the plan that are similar to the one space that is there which is a double space. The other thought is where the hammerhead is on the south side the hammerhead could be increased somehow to create additional parking. He is thinking they could get two to three more parking spaces in the hammerhead area. Commissioner Yarwood questioned the small cul-de-sac on the plans verses the hammerhead the developer is talking about. Mr. Soby said the concepts you are looking at were developed prior. They meet with Ken Roberts with the original set of renderings and they determined the cul-de-sac was too small so they switched it to the hammerhead version instead. Commissioner Yarwood said it seems visitor parking is always a concern. There is only one outlet and you can't park on the street. If you have parking spaces all the way at one end of the development how likely are visitors who are visiting someone going to park so far and walk? Especially with Minnesota winters. The question is how can you space out additional visitor parking spaces for the development so the parking is spread out evenly. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -11- Mr. So by said the concept of repositioning the units so the garages are next to each other will allow for more visitor parking spaces. He doesn't know for sure until he lays things out again how many visitor parking spaces he can fit in there. He thinks he may get two to four more addition visitor parking spaces on the site somewhere. He kind of likes that idea better than the idea to put additional parking spaces in the area of the hammerhead. Commissioner Grover said this is a private drive and he assumed it does not need to accommodate city plows. He asked if hammerheads have a minimum size? Mr. Ahl said typically the city frowns on those types of hammerheads even on private drives. When you start seeing 16 units such as this the question gets raised, will children be living here and would a school bus try to access this street and try to turn around? Would the homes require the kids to walk to the end of the street to Highwood Avenue to catch a bus? You don't want a school bus or a garbage truck backing up in a hammerhead. You have to consider fire trucks and emergency vehicles too. This hammerhead design is not necessarily acceptable. The original plan from 2003 had 18 units with a hammerhead but the units were laid out different. This hammerhead design is right on the edge of the city to say the hammerhead will not work. The proposed driveway would be 21 feet wide so it is at the absolute minimum. He said this is pretty narrow and you couldn't have enough room for cars to park on one side of the road. Commissioner Trippler wondered if the applicant had a chance to look at the engineer's concerns dated January 5,2006. Number 1. states the proposed retaining wall is very close to the adjacent properties. It does not seem feasible to construct the wall without disturbing the adjacent properties. 2. There does not seem to be adequate room to construct a swale between the retaining wall and the proposed structures. The proposed swale is too close to the retaining wall, it will not be a gradual swale, but more like a ditch and will result in erosion problems. 3. No additional runoff from roofs or backyards shall be directed onto the easterly property. He asked what the applicant's response is to these concerns? Mr. So by said yes he had read the engineer's concerns. Commissioner Trippler asked what the applicant's response was to the concerns relating to the retaining wall? Mr. Soby said they feel the retaining wall is feasible. He did not have a chance to speak with the engineer, Erin Laberee to see why she felt that way about the retaining wall but they feel there should not be any concerns. Commissioner Trippler said he hasn't built an 8 foot tall retaining wall but he has built a smaller retaining wall on his property. He believes the point the Assistant City Engineer, Erin Laberee is trying to make is, if you build a retaining wall you are going to have to build it into the hill so it doesn't collapse and the retaining wall is right on the property line. The question is how do you build a retaining wall into the hill without disrupting the adjacent property. Do you have to ask the property owners along the whole western side for permission to build the retaining wall on a portion of their property? Mr. Soby said that's an option to invite the property owners that abut the property line to share a portion of the property with each other along the western property edge. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -12- Commissioner Trippler asked for a response to Erin's concerns regarding the swale between the retaining wall and the proposed structures. Mr. Soby said they are exploring the options for runoff for the watershed. He isn't sure what the answer is. This is something they would have to explore and they would make it work mechanically and make it look good as well. Commissioner Trippler said her last concern is there should be no additional runoff from roofs or backyards and the runoff shall be directed onto the easterly property. He hopes the applicant addresses all of these issues before bringing this proposal back to the planning commission if it becomes more than a concept plan. Commissioner Pearson said this retaining wall will have to be engineered, but with the narrow area and the drop in the drainage there, how much erosion would it take in that swale before it starts to seriously affect the retaining wall? Mr. Ahl said water and retaining walls don't mix very well. Once you start having erosion and you move the base that is the support for the retaining wall, the wall withstands not the strength ofthe wall but it can only withstand the condition of the soil underneath. The more you erode the soil the faster your retaining wall is going to give in. The soil is critical and it will have to be stabilized. The applicant will have to have an engineered retaining wall as well as an engineered swale. This retaining wall is going to be a very expensive project. Commissioner Pearson said he is very nervous about having an 8 foot tall retaining wall behind these existing properties. It doesn't take much on the part of residents to interrupt the swale. He said he had an experience with his adjoining neighbor has a retaining wall with a 35 degree list towards his property which will certainly go over the swale and he has been seriously flooded once and wouldn't want it to happen again. He could see an 8 or 10 foot tall retaining wall going over with erosion right up against the homes. Commissioner Yarwood asked if retaining walls of this size are typically vertically reinforced or can they be reinforced horizontally as well? Mr. Ahl said until you do a soils analysis you can't know for sure. The closer the city gets to do some value judgments you will have a better idea if the wall will require gerters and beams vertically to support the wall into the slope. He wouldn't expect that but he thinks once the city knows what the soils are, and know the issues, the city would probably work with the developer to adjust the final design plans to see if they could adjust the homes and reduce the height of the retaining wall from 8 feet tall to 4 feet tall. A smaller retaining wall means less potential for collapse. Commissioner Grover asked if the units on the westerly side were slab on grade. Mr. Soby said yes. He said there are probably a lot of different ways to design this site. Raising the elevation of the homes and splitting the difference of the retaining wall height and bringing some of the retaining wall to the easterly side to elevate that side may work. He said whatever it takes they are willing to do the right thing. Commissioner Pearson said this is a difficult piece of property to develop. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -13- Commissioner Trippler said he likes the concept plan but is concerned about the lack of visitor parking and thinks this needs to be addressed. If the applicant changes the concept plan to a proposal and brings it back to the planning commission he would hope the visitor parking is significantly increased. Commissioner Yarwood asked why the applicant chose to have 16 individual units compared to 8- two unit buildings or 4-four unit buildings? Mr. Soby said the market responses best to one level detached townhomes and he has heard many people are looking for that type of housing. So from a market standpoint this type of product is higher in demand compared to multi-unit buildings. Commissioner Pearson asked what kind of a bond is required between the applicant and the city in case the retaining wall causes problems for the surrounding homeowners' yards? Mr. Ahl said as part of the grading permit the city requires a grading permit and escrow is withheld as part of a maintenance bond. The city engineering department will be checking the site to ensure things are done properly as well. Commissioner Trippler asked if this development would be part of an association? Mr. Ahl said correct. Commissioner Trippler asked how involved the city gets with association rules and documents? Mr. Roberts said he personally reviews the association document and rules for these types of developments and staff also may ask the city attorney to review them as well. Commissioner Trippler said many times townhome associations have strict rules that you can't do any landscaping or digging etc. Having the association rules may help with the possibility that somebody may dig around the retaining wall and cause problems with the soils which in turn would cause problems for the retaining wall foundation. c. 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report (9:03 - 9:30 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said the city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the upcoming year. Commissioner Trippler said there was a large difference between the number of variances that were granted in 2005 compared to previous years. Mr. Roberts verbally reviewed what the variances were for the year 2005 which explained to the planning commission why there was such an increase compared to previous years. Commissioner Trippler requested that staff categorize or give a summary of the variances that were granted in future annual reports so the planning commission can see if something needs to be reviewed in the ordinances or not. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -14- Chairperson Fischer suggested adding under 2006 Activities, number 2., that a staff person from that department or area such as fire or public safety speaks to the commission regarding their certain area of expertise. Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't think having quarterly in-services listed on the list of activities is appropriate since there haven't been quarterly in-services done for as many years as he has been on the planning commission. It seems like it's a standard item that is copied every year from annual report to annual report. He would suggest if there are no proposals in which to meet about maybe this would be a good time to have a meeting, in-service or a discussion about a specific subject. The commission could have a discussion or in-service during the time they would normally meet but not have it cablecast. It may be the time to talk about the comprehensive plan, what is expected to be changed in the plan and when it is due by the Met Council because this is a major project for the planning commission to accomplish. Commissioner Grover said he agreed with Commissioner Trippler. However, he said it may be a logistical problem for staff to fill in a gap on such short notice with a speaker or information on a topic on short notice for in-service training. Maybe staff could send a list of topics for in-service ideas and the planning commissioners could let staff know by ranking the topics the commission is interested in learning or hearing more about. He personally would like to know more about the topic of septic systems and/or wells. Commissioner Pearson said he would like more information on soil borings, perk tests, and septic and drainfield systems. Mr. Roberts said he agreed with Commissioner Trippler's comment about the comprehensive plan. Revisions to the comprehensive plan are due to be complete in 2008 so that is something that is very important to discuss. He said we could either survey the commission or you could let staff know what they would like to hear more about. Discussing wetlands and buffers may be another topic of discussion because of the changes with the watershed district. Commissioner Grover moved to accept the planning commission's 2005 Annual Report with the recommended revisions for staff. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on February 13, 2006. d. Planning Commission Elections (9:30 - 9:34 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said the planning commission's rules of procedure say that the commission will elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second meeting of each year. The current chairperson is Lorraine Fischer and the current vice-chairperson is Tushar Desai. Staff recommends the planning commission elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve through January 2007. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -15- Commissioner Grover nominated Lorraine Fischer to remain as the chairperson and nominated Tushar Desai to remain as Vice-chairperson of the planning commission. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Fischer Both commiSSioners accepted their nominations to continue their duties on the planning commission. The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness Commissioner Grover moved to dismiss the discussion regarding the noise ordinance review. He feels the noise ordinance is suitable the way it is written. He had a discussion with Eric Ahlness before he resigned from the planning commission. He understood Eric's concerns but he feels the noise ordinance is sufficient. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks as the noise ordinance is written it can be confusing and with a little more work it could be made clearer. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood Nay - Trippler The motion to dismiss passed. Commissioner Trippler voted nay for the reasons he stated above. Staff agreed that the noise ordinance could be written more clear. Commissioner Trippler said he would pass his recommendations regarding changes he thinks should be made to the noise ordinance to staff and this item could be discussed at a later date. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Tushar was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 9,2006, city council meeting but there were no planning commission items to discuss. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -16- b. Mr. Ahlness was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting; however he was not present at the previous meeting and has since resigned. Commissioner Desai will take his place representing the planning commission. Items to discuss include the Special Construction Agreement to build a house at 1784 Edgehill Road. c. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the February 13, 2006, city council meeting. The only item to discuss so far is the 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts distributed a letter of resignation from Eric Ahlness prior to the start of the meeting. Mr. Roberts stated the terms for Commissioners Grover, Pearson and Yarwood have expired. Monday, February 6,2006, at 5:00 p.m. the city council will be conducting interviews for members on the planning commission for members with expired terms. They will also interview applicants for the planning commission opening left by Eric Ahlness. If you have a problem making it by 5:00 p.m. because of your work schedule, you are encouraged to contact Melinda Coleman. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner CUP Revision, Parking Reduction Authorization and Design Approval Menards 2280 Maplewood Drive January 31, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Robert Geske, of Menards, Inc. is proposing to build a 16,1 OS-square-foot garden center addition on the south side of the Menards store. Refer to the applicant's narrative statement on pages 9 and 10 and the maps and plans on pages 11-16. They are proposing an exterior of glass panels, emerald green accent panels and a wrought iron fence for the garden center. The proposed plans also show changes to the existing parking lot and changes to the exterior of the building. Specifically, Menards would eliminate 17 parking spaces and reconfigure the parking lot so that all of the spaces would be at 90-degrees to the drive aisles. Refer to the site plan. In addition, they are proposing to update the front of the store. This would include changing the existing mansard and signage over the main entrance and adding four fieldstone and timber columns to support the new canopy. Finally. Menards wants to remove the green stripe from the north elevation and change the signage on the building. Requests Mr. Geske is requesting city approval of: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to enlarge the building and amend the site plan. Refer to the project narrative on pages 9 and 10. The city code requires council approval of a CUP revision for an owner to expand or revise a store or site for which a CUP exists. 2. A parking-reduction authorization for 50 spaces. The code requires 451 spaces for the store. Menards is proposing to have 401 parking stalls. Refer to the narrative on page 9. 3. The site and building design plans. (See the maps and plans on pages 11-16 and the enclosed project plans.) BACKGROUND October 25, 1999: The city council approved a CUP revision for a building expansion, site plan changes and the project architectural, site and landscape plans. Refer to the council minutes in the attachment on pages 19 - 23. November 27,2000: The council reviewed the CUP and moved to review it again in one year. 1 April 9, 2001: The council approved revised plans for the exterior of the new addition and required additional landscaping on the Highway 36 side of the building. This approval was subject to five conditions of approval. (Refer to the council minutes on pages 24 and 25.) November 26, 2001: December 9, 2002: January 7, 2004: The council reviewed this CUP and moved to review it again in one year. The council reviewed this CUP and agreed to review it again in one year. The council reviewed this CUP and agreed to review it again in one year. January 30, 2004: The city approved plans for expansion of the exterior storage area and relocation of the fire gate on the east side (rear) of the building. DISCUSSION CUP Revision The proposed site revision with the addition of the garden center will meet the requirements for a CUP and should improve the store and the overall site. It should not have any impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. Parking The applicant is requesting that the city approve a reduction of 51 (from 451 to 400) in the number of parking spaces for the store. They want to reconfigure the parking lot in front of the store to make the traffic flow smoother, but this redesign would result in the loss of parking spaces. Menards has gotten by, essentially, with the main parking area in front of the building since 1988. The proposed garden center addition would need 80 spaces according to the code (if the city treated it as regular retail space). Menards, however, is now using the location of the proposed garden center for retail sales and outdoor storage as approved earlier by the city. As such, it should not generate additional parking needs for the store. Site DrainagelShoreland Requirements The site is within the shoreland boundary of Keller Lake. Presently the site has 95 percent impervious-surface coverage. The shoreland code requires a maximum coverage of 40 percent. This project will not change the amount of impervious surface on the site as the addition for the garden center would be constructed over a part of the existing paved storage area. Building Design Changes and Concerns As part of this project, Menards is proposing to update the front of the store. This would include changing the existing mansard and signage over the main entrance and adding four fieldstone and timber columns to support the new canopy. In addition, Menards wants to remove the green stripe from the north elevation and change the signage on the building. Staff is concemed about the proposed appearance of the north building elevation. The city council required Menards to have the green stripe on the north elevation when they approved the store project plans in 2001. Removing the stripe could make the north elevation look plain and unattractive. It is important that Menards include some type of additional design elements on the north wall. This could indude keeping the green stripe on the building or adding fieldstone and timber columns as they propose for the front entrance. 2 Fire Marshal's Concerns Menards must keep the perimeter of the building accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant should arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. In addition, Menards needs to have a monitored fire protection system and shall provide a floor plan of their store and a fire department lock box at the main entrance. City Engineer's Comment Menards should provide a gate and clear access to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as part of this request. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on pages 26 - 28. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to add a 16,1 05-square-foot garden center to the existing store. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped January 17. 2006 May 5, 1QQQ. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east- west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B shall remain. (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots shall be 14 feet tall. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and material. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2 % feet of the 17 %-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard and carden center shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 3 5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security shall be tumed off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year if Menards has not vet started the construction of the llarden center if the Ilrollosed r-etail silaGe addition has nat bOll\;lA. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southem and eastem property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. 10. ~ The proposed building addition and site work must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. B. Approve a parking-reduction authorization for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to have 51 spaces fewer than the code requires. (The city code requires 451 parking spaces and Menards is proposing 400 parking spaces.) Approval is because: 1. The required number of spaces is excessive. Menards has gotten by, essentially, with the main parking area in front of the building since 1988. Menards customers do not typically use other available parking areas on the site. 2. The proposed garden center addition would need 80 spaces according to the code. However, Menards is currently using this same area for retail sales and outdoor storage as approved earlier by the city. C. Approve the plans date-stamped January 17, 2006, for the 16, 105-square-foot garden center addition to Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. b. Revise the building elevations to add more design elements to the north elevation. This could include keeping the green stripe on the building or adding fieldstone and timber columns as proposed for the front entrance. c. Revise the site plans for staff approval to provide enough handicap-accessible parking spaces to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. 4 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building addition: a. Menards shall provide a gate and clear access to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as part of this request. b. Paint any new rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) c. The city waives the trash-dumpster screening requirement unless the dumpsters would be visible to the public. If Menards wants to keep their dumpsters outside, then they shall provide an enclosure for them using the same materials and color as the building. d. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal including: (1) Keeping the perimeter of the building accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant should arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. (2) Installing a monitored fire protection system. (3) Providing a floor plan of the store and a fire department lock box at the main entrance. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall submit any requests for signs to staff for sign permits. 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the 50 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of Menards for their opinion of this request. I received one reply. This neighbor commented about the somewhat difficult traffic flow at the intersection of County Road B and the frontage road. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 13.48 acres Existing land use: Menards Store with outdoor sales and parking lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Highway 36 South: Single dwellings and Citgo Motor Fuel Station West: Highway 61 East: Countryside VW/SAAB PAST ACTIONS March 28, 1988: The city council approved Menards' CUP and granted a parking reduction authorization. January 23, February 13, March 27 and April 6, 1989: The council changed the CUP conditions. The changes were to clarify the screening fence and storage rack height requirements. March 26, 1990: The council reviewed the CUP. November 14, 1994, and September 11, 1995: The council amended the CUP conditions. April 8, 1996: The council amended the CUP conditions because of a request for a seasonal, outdoor greenhouse and plant sale operation. May 20, 1996: The council again reviewed the CUP and directed Menards, Citgo, staff and the neighbors to meet and discuss several issues raised by one of the neighbors. These issues were about the screening fence, engine noises, fumes, parking and cross traffic between Citgo and Menards. August 12, 1997: The council reviewed the CUP again. The previous concems and problems have been resolved. The council moved to review the CUP again only if a problem develops. 6 PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-512(4) requires a CUP for the exterior storage of goods or materials. Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for any building or exterior use within 350 feet of a residential district. Section 44-17(a) requires parking for Menards at the ratios of one space for each 200 square feet of retail or office space and one parking space for each 1000 square feet of warehouse space. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 26 and 27.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete CUP and CDRB applications for this request on January 17, 2006. Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99 requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving a complete application for a land use proposal. Therefore, the city is required to act on these requests by March 16, 2006. 7 p:sec9\menards 1999 to 2006 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Project Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Property Line I Zoning Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Partial Site Plan 6. Partial Site Plan (Garden Center) 7. Proposed Building Elevations 8. January 25,2006, memo from David Fisher 9. January 24,2006, memo from Lt. Shortreed 10. October 25, 1999, City Council minutes 11. April 9, 2001, City Council minutes 12. CUP-Revision Resolution 13. Project Plans date-stamped January 17, 2006 (separate attachment) 8 Attachment 1 NARRATIVE: Menards Garden Center Addition Maplewood, MN Menard, Inc. (Menard) currently owns and operates a "=166,629 square foot Menards Home Improvement Retail store on a "=13.48 acre tract of land located at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Guest satisfaction is our top priority at Menards, and we are constantly trying to improve our guests' experiences at each Menard Home Improvement Retail store. Due to the requests of our Maplewood area guests, Menard proposes to add a "=16,105 square foot Garden Center that would extend out from the southwest wall of the existing store building. The success of and the desire of our guests to have such Garden Centers has lead Menard to incorporate them into all new store construction and existing store additions. The new Garden Center would be both aesthetic and functional. A new entry/exit way would be created, and guests would have the opportunity to make purchases at registers located in the Garden Center Area. The Garden Center will typically contain live plants, rock, soils, landscape blocks, and other similar items. Because of its ideal location, guests will also be able to bring their vehicles into the rear yard to more easily load larger quantities of those items that will be sold in the Garden Center area. In addition to the new Garden Center, Menard would also like to take the opportunity to update the building fa<;ade and update the sign panels so that they are consistent with Menard's latest design. Specifically, Menard will update the main store entrance with the latest design entryway similar to new store construction (e.g., Menards - West St. Paul). The entryway will consist of offset fieldstone and timber pillars supporting an emerald green peaked canopy that will have an updated internally lit "Menards" sign attached to it. The exit door south of the main store entrance will have a similar look with fieldstone and timber pillars and a peaked canopy. The new fa<;ade will match the look of the proposed Garden Center creating a uniform result. Menard would also update the north elevation sign panel and freestanding pylon sign panels to match the design of the new "Menards" sign on the fa<;ade. The new Garden Center will necessitate the reconfiguration of the parking layout west of the store entrance. Currently, there are 418 60- and 90-degree parking stalls. The reconfiguration would result in 40 I 90-degree parking stalls. It is Menard's understanding that it already has requested and was granted a reduction in the required parking stall count. Menard requests an additional reduction to meet the new 40 I parking stall number. Menard management feels that 40 I parking stalls would be appropriate and is not concerned with the slight reduction. I. The new Garden Center and store update will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The new Garden Center and store update will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The new Garden Center and store update will not depreciate property values. 9 4. The new Garden Center and store update will not involve any activity, process, materials, equipments 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 new Garden Center and store update will generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The new Garden Center and store update will be served by the existing, adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The new Garden Center and store update will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The new Garden Center and store update will continue to maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the existing development design. 9. The new Garden Center and store update should cause minimal (if any) adverse environmental effects. Menard meets all of the criteria for approval and respectfully requests the following in order for the proposed Garden Center addition and store update to be completed: I. Conditional Use Revision approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Community Design Review Board approval. 3. Approval for the reduction in required parking stalls to 40 I parking stalls. 4. Any other approvals necessary to allow for the proposed addition and update. 10 Attachment 2 I I tJ,1l"li /,; {,ii ii/I ~j/ i / .I.i"- j,~ 1.1 1(( C:;"I ," r-;'j, /// /(jj /, III r-/, ,//;~/;;/ \ f'~!;~!Jjj~:f1/>/ !j;';(/ /// I ///1 J Iii ~" ' /,//I,'~/,';;t/,/{ - ~ ./.'~'~'/IJ~:,I~ ~"I/"'''''I /~>- ,-'/ Jj ~. 11.1 I ...-<.--;-'-.....y...- //,j 1(1 /,-r..' /.. III ~;-:::?.--- /. \-1\ ~'::2"':'~ /Ji \\\\ -~~~~~~~,____~~K:'iz ~ J'~)~\~~ ......=::~ '<: I'/~ .....~:..:::::::.:~__ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ..:::> __. ' ='"30:...-: - _ ~ ~ ___~ ~ I I 36 --... - _ __~" ~ ~.... x: i/ / :.--~ ___ _ , I " I~I ~, /~ ~<:.;.---_.... ~ I I , - ~th/ll "-. J.7",..-//~"" (I I --- ~. 'I ...., /",.......___...- [} I I '-.1 J ~ ~ I .--.:-::..-.;.---....--- I I I "<, '"r;," /-C1/ H-",,, I '/. f ..-';---.-o~- .--- I " .. I 1-'.' -- J::~....- II r""' ~ I ~1I;'''/ = p-m I ,:-- ~': 1//',/11 I'~ ~ /Iif, f II I it f- ~//ii/ r I -I: I f-_ "j III (( II ~/ /,~; >~<.:\ - f" - ~ , ~DTIIlItJ: ~ 'If;).!! " ~ : I! tLlWlJ:: 0;' /,{M> / }'-- 'I '-- I H'" - \ t-=---------:-i I,E f // I .-:~/ !I , II,L JI~)~I -' " - r- 4; ,;/ Jj~ YJ,~/,/,r - - / .........., -=! it: L ,,/ ~,/ r " I ,. ~ """ , / / N\ .~ i~' -, - / ./ ~=.,\~, ..ryj vi ~ ~_ /,/ ~...~~..-: ,I -I /' ./ <..I"": ,....~...: )-....: _ 1./>/ r- f /,_I-~>/. t; OJ r: _ 4",' ~ ,~~' ~~ . I/.I !-- ~_//. JJ '1--1\- y","i -"=:1-"- 4': ~ E =~~L-j--f=i,i= /1/.--- I \ ~~_c: , ,_ - _f- , ' " ill-, -~~<'_)r- - ~ \ f"",- - : " " " -,. -' QY , ~'JII J-..J. 1PC<~~ i.l ~ -,' ,I , I !I. -~ ~I \ -p;; '1':- ~ , , , /:::- I, , , ',,' ~__"..J 1_ /....~..:--.---II ,...;.-;_.-- I ~_~____:.---'--- 1'- -- ~ ) -- - ) f I 11 ~ N LOCATION MAP Attachment 3 /~/$ " ~ GERVJlJS- /!i..VF j /4.-- -- ------ ------------------ ---- -- --- / ~ .~- -~-? ,_:::;::~~ _."-- __.-----~ ,o..-~~,",""- ~ - -~~.--~ -~-------~--------- o o []q d CJ IJ o 06 SJ €J ,( ------- De;) C:J ~ " " ,I " , 0 " ~ " I;;l ~ " " :D ~ ~ 1 0 ~@J, ~ , ., I.-'-~--\ (--~ :' '\ ) , \', I' \ \ \ J \ Ir..., "- /L.-::-_............. ~ /-" '. \ / /'" i \ / I I /I -----......-/ .... ~~....~ D :s: jl i/ .; ;' ,. , ' / r I lJ " , , , , " I \~_ , , r " " " d f 00 f") ,<!9 ~ . 12 1f N PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP Attachment 4 ....,,--..- .....---- -- [YARPSIlIEri-] .WAl.LjF'ENCE (j) WROUGHT IRON FENCE SECTION SCALE' 1/4" .. 1'-0. q,....('''' . \ .,~ )\ -' .... \ \, \ "" \ \\ \ _P_SIOl.l.S o OJ.-. I>'!J~~ JlIlPLEWOOD, ltIN ~ _R!l!l'-""" -.- -~- ,,,,0$ IIQ. ". , i , , I , __ _~U___ -- 1----- n=t--- ~ INC JlAPLEWOOD, J/N ......-_ nt PROPOSED SITE 1'I.A1I \ , . . . . ' , ,~- rf'~~d\==':::=:_-__n -,=-..;~,:_--------~~ - ---- ..-..-- 1--- 1 11,.-r=rl 13 11 N PROPOSED SITE PLAN Attachment 5 .~ I G::;;J8[;:jUj~' MAPLE WOOD. 1 ~ \ 11: ,~ \ \ '" \ SEEPLAN052..:".. \ "- f PINE & crDAR eOAAp,sJ~~",*lIEIl "'-:r \ ,1'-3 , , , , , , , ' , ' \ .\:r , , \ 'Jo.;-'(" \ "'%-,,\ \ tr~\ <;....\ \ -, \l.NIQE:lltU \ lir-r , ' , , ,.. \ ::ffiJEEEB:E'I: " ,,, 2(1' '"' ,.'~ 0> , I ,in -v GARDEN CENTER OVERHANG 16,105 SQ. FT. ""'TEDO"'OS1'OO< \ ~\ (r=~-_\---- ~ : I TREATED BOAROR"CK (27'-S.x'Q6'_10") GREEN 14 11 N I PARTIAL SITE PLAN 401 PARKING STALLS H H H H GLASS WINDOWS WROUGHT IRON FENCE SEE DETAIL 1 H . .. \ \ , " , , I i I r .~ :: I I ' ~ ___L..l~__L ------, LIVEPt.ANTS I ______-.J ~\ OVE LOW II Ll .Ib , '1:< ROO< fl\ \ \ \ 20\ \ lB' -\ I~ 32'-8" Attachment 6 o -~r---1 ! i I I I I I .b -' m ROc!( 120 -0." . \ 14 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ J\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > \\ \ 65"0 20' CHAIN \ \ '-3" r LINK GATE \ \ \\\;~'-3. \ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --f1RE-+ffllRA V--.J \____~~t.;A.....IN(; HIOCK~ - - -=t------- \-.- - - - - - - \ \ \ . \ . I CAI::fL~ IPnl V_PIP!=" I Ar.RI_PIPI=" \\ ~ ------------- rr ::.--\---" i.--- \-~~----~-~--- n n ;1 ~ I I WLS saLS ~ . - ~ a . . ~=~mLS . !. .. SOILS ~ . ~ LATnCE - LANDSCAPING IILOOCS 6' ....,!!oN~NC~_ LANDSciJiii""NGBtOCi(S - " LANDSCAPINC Bl..OCKS .., I i.a I" . N rBL.dCKs- ""'D.N'D ... "' '" saLS ~8~b MAPLEWO - O"l '7 I ~ln ~"<t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GARDEN CENTER OVERHANG 16,105 SQ. FT. 55 3 36 3 11 N PARTIAL SITE PLAN (GARDEN CENTER) 15 _ PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 16 I I Attachment 8 Memo To: Ken Roberts, Planner From: David Fisher, Building Official /" ?-.' Re: Menards New Garden Center Addition - Proposed Revision of the CUP & CORB Date: January 25, 2006 Provide complete building code analysis to verify the existing structure can be increased by 16,000 square feet and stay in compliance with the construction type of the existing building and the building setbacks per 2000 International Building Code for allowable area and exterior wall protection. - The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. All exiting must go to a public way. Provide adequate Fire Department access to the buildings. - The addition to building is required to be fire sprinklered. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. 17 Attachment 9 Maplewood Police Departement Memo To: Ken Roberts From: Lt. Michael P. Shortreed 'I17f'.J cc: Deputy Chief John Banick Date: January 24, 2006 Re: Menard's Garden Center Addition After reviewin9 the attached proposal on the Menard's Garden Center Addition, I have the following comments and suggestions: 1) Appropriate outdoor lighting should be provided during all times that the Garden Center will be in operation. 2) Outdoor storage of Garden Center and landscaping merchandise should be done within the secure yard area to the south in order to prevent or at least minimize the number of thefts that may occur, especially after business hours. 3) Access to the Garden Center from the store interior provides a new opportunity for theft by shoplifting to occur since most Garden Centers are typically staffed by a minimal number of employees. As a result, security cameras installed both on the interior and exterior of the Garden Center may help to reduce the number of shopliftin9 incidents that could occur. Additional loss prevention staff to monitor the security cameras and the extended area would also be appropriate. 4) The reduced number of parking spaces should not create much of a problem durin9 most of the year. However, there will most likely be occasions during the year (i.e. Day after Thanksgiving sale and Memorial Day garden center sale) where parking will be at a premium. As a result, parking lot monitors should be made available in order to prevent accidents from occurring in the parking lot. 5) Appropriate signs should be provided in order to guide the traffic fiow in and out of the parking lot. If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions. please contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651)249-2605 or via email atmichael.shortreed@ci.maplewood.mn.us. 18 Attachment 10 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, October 25, 1999 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 99-24 A. CALL TO ORDER: A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Rossbach. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. ROLL CALL: George Rossbach, Mayor Sherry Allenspach, Councilmember Dale H. Carlson, Councilmember Kevin Kittridge, Councilmember Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present H. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 7:00 P.M. Menard's Conditional Use Permit Review (2280 Maplewood Drive) a. Mayor Rossbach convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. Manager McGuire introduced the staff report. c. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing, calling for proponents of opponents. The following person(s) were heard: Gary Colby, Menard's Deb Forbes, 1071 County Road B Peter Botick, 1115 County Road B George Velento, 1081 County Road B Gary Colby, 2nd appearance e. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Carlson moved/introduced the followina Resolution aoorovina a conditional use oermit revision for a 33.769-sQuare-foot addition at 2280 Maolewood Drive and moved its adootion: 99-10-100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Menard's, Inc, is proposing changes to a conditional use permit to build a 33,769- square-foot addition on the north side of the building at 2280 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: 10-25-99 19 SUB TO ESMTS; PART OF FOl TRACTS SEl Y OF HWYS 36 & 61; EX S 100 FT PART OF SW 1/4 N OF CO RD B & PART OF SE 1/4 W OF CLIFTON ADD S OF l 107 FT N OF S l OF BlK 15 OF SD ADD EXTENDED & N OF HEINEMANS BEllEVIEW & IN CLIFTON ADD, EX E 240 FT; BlKS 15 & 16 & EX E 255 FT BlK 10 & ALSO W 120 FT OF E 255 FT OF N 30 FT OF BlK 10 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 21, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On July 12, 1999, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 3. On October 25, 1999, the city council held another public hearing regarding this proposal because several neighbors were missed in the mailing of notifications for the July 12, 1999 public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to all of the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 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, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10-25-99 20 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped May 5, 1999. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening-fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east-west behind 1071,1081 and part of 1101 County Road B shall remain. The applicant shall repair or repair latch hardware and reenforce all gate bracing to square the gates to hang straight. (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots shall be 14 feet tall. This means that all existing 10-foot-tall screening fence shall be replaced with new 14-foot-tall sections. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and material. (4) All screening fences shall be continually maintained and repaired as needed. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road 8, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2 % feet of the 17 %-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menard's shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security shall be tumed off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year if the proposed retail-space addition has not begun. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southem and eastem property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menard's shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menard's for the employees. 10. The proposed building addition and site work must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for 10-25-99 21 one year. 11. This permit terminates the approval for the temporary, seasonal greenhouse. 12. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on October 25, 1999. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the plans date-stamped Mav 5. 1999. and the parkino-lot curbino addendum date-stamped Mav 14.1999. for the 33.769-sauare-foot addition to Menard's. 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subiect to the followino conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. b. Revise the building elevations for staff approval to extend the front (westerly) elevation of the proposed addition two feet to the west of the existing wall. The applicant shall use brick-imprinted, precast concrete panels, as proposed, on all sides of the proposed addition. The color shall be complementary to the brick color of the existing building. The applicant shall also revise the window mullion spacing to align with the precast panel joints. c. Revise the site and landscape plans for staff approval as follows: (1) Provide enough handicap-accessible parking spaces to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. (2) Increase the tree sizes to six-feet-tall for the spruce trees and 2 % inches in caliper for the deciduous trees. (3) Delete the curb cut labeled as "existing access" leading into the proposed 149-car parking lot. Parking stripes shall be added in the area of this curb cut. d. Submit a site-lighting plan for staff approval for the new parking lot. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Close the existing curb cut north of the building with continuous concrete curbing, remove the asphalt and landscape according to the approved plan. The proposed access driveway and curb cut shall meet all requirements of the city engineer. 10-25-99 22 b. Menard's shall provide a gate and clear access to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as part of this request. c. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter all around the new parking lot west of the outside-storage yard. The applicant shall also provide the curbed medians as shown on the addendum and repave this entire area. d. Paint new rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) e. The trash-dumpster screening requirement is waived unless the dumpsters would be visible to the public. In which case, an enclosure shall be provided using the same materials and color as the building. f. An in ground lawn-irrigation system shall not be required for the landscaped area in the southwest comer of the site. The applicant shall install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the landscaped area north of the building. g. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. Signs are not part of this approval. Staff will review sign permit requests. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all 10-25-99 23 Attachment 11 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, April 9, 2001 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 01-08 A. CALL TO ORDER: A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Sherry Allenspach, Councilmember Kenneth V. Collins, Council member Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Julie A. Wasil uk, Council member Present Present Present Present Present K. NEW BUSINESS 2. Menards Building Exterior Revision Approval (2280 Maplewood Drive) a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. b. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the report. c. Boardmember Matt Ledvina presented the Community Design Review Board report. d. The following persons addressed the council: Gary Colby, Menard's, 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin Will Rossbach, City of Maplewood Planning Commissioner Kathleen Juenemann, 721 Mt. Vernon Avenue East, Maplewood Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 19. 2001. for the buildina desian and landscapina chanaes for the Menards store addition at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subiect to the properlY owner doina the followina: 1. Painting all flashing and building fascias hunter green. 2. Painting or staining a horizontal accent stripe on the west, north and east sides of the addition. This stripe shall be hunter green to match the fascia and flashing. The width of this stripe shall be at least three feet high. This stripe shall be placed under the "Menard's. sign on the north side of the building. 3. Installing all landscaping on the site by the time of the occupancy of the addition or the applicant shall provide escrow as required previously by the city council. 4-09-01 24 4. Installing the two-tiered retaining wall planters with a brown-tone color as a contrast to the building color and a rock-face front that totals a height of five feet. 5. Compliance with the October 25, 1999, city council conditions except as stated above. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes - Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Koppen, Wasiluk Nays - Councilmember Allenspach 4-09-01 25 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Robert Geske, of Menards, Inc. is proposing changes to a site with an existing conditional use permit to build a 16,1 05-square-foot garden center addition on the south side of the building at 2280 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: SUB TO ESMTS; PART OF FOL TRACTS SEL Y OF HWYS 36 & 61; EX S 100 FT PART OF SW 1/4 N OF CO RD B & PART OF SE 1/4 W OF CLIFTON ADD S OF L 107 FT N OF S L OF BLK 15 OF SD ADD EXTENDED & N OF HEINEMANS BELLEVIEW & IN CLIFTON ADD, EX E 240 FT; BLKS 15 & 16 & EX E 255 FT BLK 10 & ALSO W 120 FT OF E 255 FT OF N 30 FT OF BLK 10 (PIN 09-29-22-43-0042) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On February 6, 2006, 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 persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit revision. 2. On February _' 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit revision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit revision, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 26 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped January 17. 2006 May 5, 1999. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east- west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B shall remain. (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots shall be 14 feet tall. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and material. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2 % feet of the 17 %-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard and carden center shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security shall be tumed off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year if Menards has not vet started the construction of the Qarden center if the er-eeesed r-etail sease additien has net llealJn. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southem and eastem property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. .1Q. ~ The proposed building addition and site work must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 27 11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2006. 28 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Kevin Christiansen, Planning Intern Nonconforming Use Ordinance Amendment January 24, 2006 INTRODUCTION On May 29, 2004, Governor Tim Pawlenty approved amendments to the state's nonconforming statute. The amendment authorizes further restriction toward repairing and replacing nonconforming uses. The amended statute takes precedence over the city's current nonconforming ordinance. To be consistent with the standards in the state statute, staff is proposing an amendment to the city's nonconforming ordinance. DISCUSSION The City's zoning code, Article I, Section 44-12 (c) states that a "nonconforming use that is wholly or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, flood or other phenomenon or legally condemned may be reconstructed and used for the same nonconforming use provided that building reconstruction shall be commenced within one year from the date the building was destroyed or condemned and shall be carried on without interruption." However, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subdivision 1 (e) states that any nonconforming use may continue after destruction unless more than 50% of the market value was destroyed and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days from the date of the destruction. Changing the city's nonconforming use ordinance to disallow a nonconforming use if 50% of the market value has been lost and to mandate owners of nonconforming uses to apply for a building permit within 180 days will be consistent with state statute. RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed ordinance amendment attached. This code amendment changes the nonconforming ordinance (section 42-12) to make it consistent with Minnesota Statute, Section 462.357, subdivision 1(e). Attachments: 1. Maplewood's current Nonconforming Ordinance 2. Minnesota Statutes 2005, section 462.357, subdivision 1(e) 2. Ordinance Amending the Nonconforming Uses Section JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 624 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 /first/pubdocs/mcc/3/l1217_full Attachment 1 ~ 44-11 MAPLEWOOD CODE (3) Whenever an OL district is established, any subsequent application to change the district with which the OL district is combined shall not be construed to be an application to eliminate the OL district for the area covered by the application, unless such intent is expressly stated in the application. (4) Establishment of and any subsequent modification ofthe boundaries of any OL district shall be by ordinance amending the zoning map of the city. Such amendment shall comply with the reqnirements of article VII of this chapter. (c) District regulations. In any OL district parcel criteria, property development and use regulations may be established in accordance with the objectives identified in the district's individual purpose and intent. Such regulations shall be structured to implement the purpose and intent of the individual district and shall be applied uniformly to all properties within the district. (Code 1982, ~~ 36-14-36-16) Sec. 44-12. Nonconforming buildings or uses. (a) Any lawful use of a building or land existing at the effective date of any section of this chapter may be continued although such use does not conform to such section of this chapter. (b) The substitution of one nonconforming use for another nonconforming use may be permitted by the city council by conditional use permit, as provided in article V of this chapter, provided that such nonconforming use is determined by the city council to be of the same or more restrictive nature as the original nonconforming use. Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or land has been changed to a use of a more restrictive classification or to a conforming use, such use shall not thereafter be changed to a use of a less restricted classification. (c) A nonconforming building wholly or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, flood or other phenomenon or legally condemned may be reconstructed and used for the same nonconforming use, provided that building reconstruction shall be commenced within one year from the date the building was destroyed or condemned and shall be carried on without interruption. (d) If a nonconforming use of a building or land is voluntarily abandoned and ceases for a continuous period of one year or more, subsequent use of such building or land shall be in conformity with this chapter. (e) No existing building or premises devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which such building or premises is located shall be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless: (1) Required by law or government order; or (2) There would not be a significant effect, as determined by the city through a conditional use permit, on the development of the parcel as zoned. CD44:22 2 Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357 Minnesota Statutes 2005. Table of Chapters I.abJe.QC\,QJl1entsfRr..ChaRtex462 462.357 Official controls: zoning ordinance. Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in sections l03F.201 to l03F.221, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in section~l~~~~~, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. To accomplish these purposes, official controls may include provision for purchase of development rights by the governing bOdy in the form of conservation easements under chapter 84C in areas where the governing body considers preservation desirable and the transfer of development rights from those areas to areas the governing body considers more appropriate for development. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section .?_!.~~'_~2, subdivision 14, relocated residential buildings, or manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.~.)~ that comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The regulations may divide the surface, above surface, and subsurface areas of the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape, and area. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property were situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area. Subd. la. Certain zoning ordinances. A municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce a zoning ordinance that has the effect of altering the existing density, lot-size http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/462/357.html Page] of6 Attachment 2 3 1/] 7/2006 Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357 Page 2 of 6 requirements, or manufactured home setback requirements in any manufactured home park constructed before January 1, 1995, if the manufactured home park, when constructed, complied with the then existing density, lot-size and setback requirements. Subd. lb. Conditional uses. A manufactured home park, as defined in section 327.14, subdivision 3, is a conditional use in a zoning district that allows the construction or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or more families. Subd. Ie. Amortization prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing for the elimination or termination of a use by amortization which use was lawful at the time of its inception. This subdivision does not apply to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. Subd. Id. Nuisance. Subdivision lc does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance providing for the prevention or abatement of nuisances, as defined in section .?_.2J:._~__QJ_, or eliminating a use determined to be a public nuisance, as defined in section 617.81, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (9), without payment of compensation. {- Subd. 1e. Nonconformities. (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. (b) Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a municipality shall regulate the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. 4 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/ 462/357 .html 1/17/2006 Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357 Subd. If. Substandard structures. Notwithstanding subdivision Ie, Minnesota Rules, parts 6105.0351 to 61.Q.,?"~Q_?_?_Q, may allow for the continuation and improvement of substandard structures, as defined in Minnesota Rules, part ~_J_g__?__:._.9354, subpart 30, in the Lower Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Subd. 19. Feedlot zoning controls. (a) A municipality proposing to adopt a new feedlot zoning control or to amend an existing feedlot zoning control must notify the Pollution Control Agency and commissioner of agriculture at the beginning of the process, no later than the date notice is given of the first hearing proposing to adopt or amend a zoning control purporting to address feedlots. (b) Prior to final approval of a feedlot zoning control, the governing bOdy of a municipality may submit a copy of the proposed zoning control to the Pollution Control Agency and to the commissioner of agriculture and request review, comment, and recommendations on the environmental and agricultural effects from specific provisions in the ordinance. (c) The agencies' response to the municipality may include: (1) any recommendations for improvements in the ordinance; and (2) the legal, social, economic, or scientific justification for each recommendation under clause (1). (d) At the request of the municipality's governing body, the municipality must prepare a report on the economic effects from specific provisions in the ordinance. Economic analysis must state whether the ordinance will affect the local economy and describe the kinds of businesses affected and the projected impact the proposal will have on those businesses. To assist the municipality, the commissioner of agriculture, in cooperation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development, must develop a template for measuring local economic effects and make it available to the municipality. The report must be submitted to the commissioners of employment and economic development and agriculture along with the proposed ordinance. (e) A local ordinance that contains a setback for new feedlots from existing residences must also provide for a new residence setback from existing feedlots located in areas zoned agricultural at the same distances and conditions specified in the setback for new feedlots, unless the new residence is built to replace an existing residence. A municipality may grant a variance from this requirement under section iQ~~l~~, subdivision 6. Subd. 2. General requirements. (a) At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/ 462/357 .html Page 3 of 6 5 1/] 7/2006 Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357 Page 4 of6 (b) Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body. (el The land use plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the land use plan. Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance. An amendment not initiated by the planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency, if there is one, for study and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency. Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this subdivision apply to the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial of a property located in a city of the first class, except a city of the first class in which a different process is provided through the operation of the city's home rule charter. In a city to which this subdivision applies, amendments to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one year 6 http://www.revisor.1eg.state.mn.us/stats/ 462/357 .html 1/17/2006 Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357 preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city. The governing body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of Dot less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, 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. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section ~l~~~g~, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/462/3 5 7.html Page 5 of 6 7 1/] 7/2006 Minnesota Statutes 2005, 462.357 use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Subd. 6a. Normal residential surroundings for handicapped. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245A.02, subdivision 11. Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility or a housing with services establishment registered under chapter 144D serving six or fewer persons, a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons, and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts .~_~_Ql_~J)3:l.~, to 3~_9_?_:_..Q.,4..1_~_ to serve 14 or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning, except that a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. Subd. 8. Permitted multifamily use. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 7 or in any town, municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities from single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. HIST: 1965 c 670 s 7; 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 379 s 4; 1973 c 539 s 1; 1973 c 559 s 1,2; 1975 c 60 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 14,15; Ex1979 c 2 s 42,43; 1981 c 356 s 248; 1982 c 490 s 2; 1982 c 507 s 22; 1984 c 617 s 6-8; 1985 c 62 s 3; 1985 c 194 s 23; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 333 s 22; 1989 c 82 s 2; 1990 c 391 art 8 s 47; 1990 c 568 art 2 s 66,67; 1994 c 473 s 3; 1995 c 224 s 95; 1997 c 113 s 20; 1997 c 200 art 4 s 5; 1997 c 202 art 4 s 11; 1997 c 216 s 138; 1999 c 96 s 3,4; 1999 c 211 s 1; 2001 c 174 s 1; 2001 c 207 s 13,14; 2002 c 366 s 6; 2004 c 258 s 2; lSp2005 c 1 art 1 s 92; art 2 s 146 Copyright 2005 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/462/3 5 7.html Page 6 of 6 8 1/] 7/2006 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS OR USES SECTION The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment revises Section 42-12 (c) (Nonconforming buildings or uses) (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken): .^. neneenferfRing building wholly sr I'lartially elestr-eyeel BY fire, eXl'llesion, f100el or other I3henemenen Elr lallally eandefRned fRay Be reeenstrl,leteel anell,lsaa fer tha safRe nansonfeFR1inll use, I3ra'iiaeEl that Builelin!j resonstrustian shall ee eafRrneneea .....ithin ane year frem the date the Builelin!j was elestreyeel er sandemned and shall ee earrieEl an withel,lt interrl:JJ3tisA. A nonconformina buildina. structure or use destroyed by fire or other peril may be continued. includina throuah repair. replacement. restoration. maintenance. or improvement. but not expansion. unless more than 50% of its market value is destroved and provided that a buildina permit has been applied for within 180 days from the date the buildina. structure or use was damaaed. In this case. the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a buildina permit in order to mitiaate any newly created impact on an adiacent property. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The City Council approved this ordinance on ,2006. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 9 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission Resignation January 19, 2006 INTRODUCTION Eric Ahlness has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached his e-mail message with his resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution of appreciation on page three for Eric Ahlness. kr/p:planning commission/pcresig5.mem Attachments: 1. Eric Ahlness E-mail notice of Resignation 2. Eric Ahlness Resolution of Appreciation Planning Commission Resignation Page 1 of3 Attachment 1 Ken Roberts From: Ahlness, Eric D LTC NGMN [Eric.Ahlness@us.army.mil] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:57 AM To: Richard Fursman Cc: Melinda Coleman; Ken Roberts Subject: Planning Commission Resignation Please fOlWard the attached letter to Mayor Longrie Dear Mayor Longrie I am submitting my resignation from the Planning Commission effective January 15, 2006. I am in the process of moving and will no longer live in Maplewood. I believe firmly that current residence in the community is essential to serving on the commission and do not want to take an opportunity from a current resident to serve on the Planning Commission. I have learned a great deal from serving on the planning commission and appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the growth and development of Maplewood. I believe Maplewood is an excellent community that is blest with very fine staff. I am especially appreciative of the support of the City Manager, Richard Fursman, Asst City Manager, Melinda Coleman, and planner Ken Roberts. Mr Roberts is especially proficient, always providing an exceptional staff brief and first rate advice to the commission. Shann Finwall and the periodic interns continue improve the community and do a great job. Thank you again for the opportunity to serve the City of Mapiewood. I appreciate the experience and value the friendships and collegial relationships developed in my service. Sincerely , Planning Commission Resignation Page 3 00 Eric D. Ahlness 1/13/2006 2 Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS. Eric Ahlness has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since September 27,2004. and has servedfaithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and goodjudgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation. for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens. that Eric Ahlness is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service. and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on Diana Longrie. Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Attest: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Noise-Control Ordinance Discussion January 26, 2006 INTRODUCTION Prior to his resignation from the planning commission, Eric Ahlness requested that the city's noise-control ordinance be placed on a planning commission meeting agenda for discussion. Staff did so on January 3, 2006, but the commission tabled this discussion because Eric was absent. Commissioner Trippler has asked that this matter be scheduled again for a discussion about whether the noise-control ordinance should be amended. Mr. Trippler has proposed some revisions to the ordinance and emailed them to staff. Refer to the attachment NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 18-111 of the city code, the noise-control ordinance, addresses noise issues in two ways. Refer to the attached ordinance. In summary, it states: Paragraph (a) . No person shall make disturbing noises that annoy others. . City sponsored activities (for example, the Fourth of July fireworks) or activities where the city has issued a permit are exempt. . Noise is prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday - Saturday and all day Sunday. Paragraph (b) . The city manager may waive the requirement of noise limitations where a noisy activity would not cause a nuisance and where this activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use. . The manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. . A waiver to make noise doser than 350 feet to residential uses must be approved by the city council. Staff must notify these residential neighbors of the city council meeting. CODE APPLICATION In short, Paragraph (a) provides the hours of noise limitation. Paragraph (b) says that if a noisy activity is to take place, especially within 350 feet of a residential use, the city must review this as a request for a special pennit to conduct this noisy activity. With the example of the recent Sleep Health Center review, staff felt that this use would not be a noise-generating use and, therefore, we did not feel that there should be any special noise-regulating conditions. We did, however, see the need for such a condition with the Maple Leaf Business Center, an office/industrial use which was proposed next to neighboring homes. Enforcement The police department enforces noise complaints. In instances where the violator has a conditional use pennit (CUP) regulating the businesses activities, the planning staff would get involved by contacting the business and, if need be, scheduling a reevaluation of the CUP by the city council. Such was the recent case with the St. Paul Pioneer Press' noise disturbances at the Maplewood Business Center along the north side of Highway 36. STAFF'S INTERPRETATION The code does not limit the hours of operation of a business no matter where they are located in Maplewood. It does, though, limit the hours that they can make noise to the hours noted in Paragraph (a) above. In Mr. Ahlness' attached email, he states that "A waiver within 350 feet of a residential use must be approved by the city council.. Staffs reading of the code is that this is true if a business is proposing to make noise within the restricted nighttime hours or on Sunday. A business does not have to obtain a waiver to operate quietly during these hours or on Sunday no matter where they are located. CONCLUSION Staff does not feel that content of the ordinance is lacking or is a problem. We have not had a problem with its application or its enforcement Granted, the wording could be improved upon and the language written to be dearer, as is the case with much of the city code. Staff feels that changes to the noise-control are not especially warranted, but if the planning commission sees areas for improvement, staff would be happy to make changes as directed. 2 RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction as to any changes the planning commission would like to see with the noise-control ordinance. p:com_dvpt\ordlnoise ord 1 '06 #2 Attachments: 1. Email from Dale Trippler dated January 19, 2006 2. Email from Eric Ahlness November 23, 2005 3. Noise Control Ordinance 3 Attachment 1 From: dtripp@usfamily.net Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:45 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Noise Ordinance Tom, We talked briefly about changing the noise ordinance at the last two planning commission meetings, but never really did anything about ~ because Eric Ahlness, who raised the issue, didn1 attend our meetings. Anyway, I looked at the ordinance and I think ~ could stand to be re- written. It is a little confusing the way ~ is currently phrased. Here is what I propose: Sec. 18-111. Prohibition; exception; appeal. (a) No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health. peace. safety or welfare of any person or precludes such person's enjoyment of property or affects such person's property values. Any violation ofthis general prohibition between the hours of 7:00 p. m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday is a per se violation ofthis division. (b) If the event or activity is sponsored by the city or is authorized and has a permit for such activity issued by the city. the prohibition in part (a) above does not apply (c) The city manager may waive the requirement in subsection (a) of this section where the event or activity would not cause a nuisance, where the proposed activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use or the event or activity is limited in duration to less than 7 days. The city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. A waiver within 350 feet of a residential use must be approved by the city council. The property owners within 350 feet of the proposed activity shall be notified of the waiver request at least ten days before the council meeting. A list of the property owners. certified by an abstract company or the county abstract office. shall be submitted with the waiver request. I added the 7 day duration clause to cover things like National Night Out, the Ramsey County Fair, etc. But check w~h Pat, ~ might not be necessary if all of those types of activ~ies are issued a c~y penn~. I think this cleans the ordinance up and makes ~ a lot clearer to understand. Let me know what you think and remember to be nice to me, I might be your new boss...isn1that frightening?! Dale Dale Trippler, Pres/CEO Trippler Corporation 1201 Junction Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109-3433 Email: dtriootl!lusfamilv.net Phone: 651-490-1485 4 Noise Ordinance Page 1 of3 Attachment 2 Ahlness, Eric 0 LTC NGMN From: Ahlness, Eric D LTC NGMN Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:56 AM To: 'Tom Ekstrand' Cc: Ken Roberts; Melinda Coleman Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance Tom: I disagree with your interpretation of the code. The third sentence of (b) states that "A waiver within 350 feet of a residential use must be approved by the city council." This is the culmination of severai steps where increasing oversight and review of the activity is performed by the city. First by review of the city manager, then the mayor and finaliy the city council when the activity threatens a residential area by its very proximity. The base problem is that the ordinance is not weli written. The first paragraph contains a prohibition that could be interpreted very broadly. The second paragraph is essentialiy a restriction. So in essence we have conditional restrictions on a prohibited action. It is very cumbersome. As I further review the probable intent of the ordinance. it seems that the city generaliy wants to control noise throughout the city. It especialiy wants to limit noise close to residential areas. As such, the city regulates noise by granting waivers (an active process) for those businesses or activities that are not likeiy to present a problem to a residential use (like a sleep center). I am concerned in your first point where you contend that you are aware of the ordinance. At the meeting when I specificaliy asked about the ordinance that limits business operations from operating between 7PM-7 AM and on Sundays. You stated you were not aware of such a ordinance. In fact, Dale Trippler looked through his copy of the ordinance to see if he could find reference to the citation. Unfortunately, at that time he did not find the reference so I agreed to table my concern until I could find the ordinance. You seem more intent on continuing to make the point that the sleep center is a quiet and compatible (I'm not arguing the point) rather than address what the ordinance is or what is its intent. I would appreciate a call at my FTS number below so we can resolve our different perceptions of what transpired at the planning commission meeting on Monday. Also, I do want to have the topic included as a discussion topic at the next commission meeting. Please provide a copy of the ordinance in the commissioner packets set to the planning commissioners. Eric ERIC D. AHLNESS LTC, IN, MNARNG Information Operations Coordinator FTS (651) 268-8963 Commander, 1st Sn, 175th RTI M-Day (320) 616-2655 From: Tom Ekstrand [mailto:Tom.Ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:06 AM To: Ahlness, Eric D LTC NGMN Cc: Ken Roberts; Melinda Coleman Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance 5 12/19/2005 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 345 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 /firsl/pubdocs/mccl3/11217 _full Attachment 3 ENVIRONMENT * 18-112 Sec. 18-85. Police records. The police department shall keep a record of all vehicles impounded under this division. and the record shall contain the following: (1) The manufacturer's trade name or make; (2) Vehicle identification and license numbers; (3) The name of the owner of such vehicle and of all persons claiming the vehicle; (4) Such other descriptive matter as may identify such vehicle; (5) The nature and circumstances of the impounding of the vehicle; and (6) The violation. if any. on account of which such vehicle was impounded. (Code 1982. * 19-47) Sees. 18-86-18-110. Reserved. DIVISION 3. NOISE CONTROL Sec. 18-111. Prohibition generally; exception. (a) No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes such person's enjoyment of property or affects such person's property values. If the event or activity is sponsored by the city or is authorized and has a permit for such activity issued by the city. this prohibition does not apply. This general prohibition is not limited by the specific restriction of subsection (b) of this section. Any violation of this general prohibition between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday is a per se violation of this division. (b) The city manager may waive the requirement in subsection (a) of this section where the activity would not cause a nuisance and where the proposed activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use. The city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. A waiver within 350 feet of a residential use must be approved by the city council. The property owners within 350 feet of the proposed activity shall be notified of the waiver request at least ten days before the council meeting. A list of the property owners, certified by an abstract company or the county abstract office. shall be submitted with the waiver request. (Code 1982, * 19-48) Sec. 18-112. Construction activities. All construction activities, including the use of any kind of electric, diesel Of gas-powered machine or other power equipment, shall be subject to this division. A copy of this division shall CD18:17 6