Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANN~NG COMMISSION Tuesdav, September ,2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County ROlld BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. August 1, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 K and W Roll-offs (1055 Gervais Avenue) Conditional Use Perm~ (Outdoor Storage) Conditional Use Perm~ (Commercial Building w~hin 350 feet of residential district) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations August 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler August 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai September 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness September 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment DRAItT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOolD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, \'J1APLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUG~ST 1, 2005 ! I. CALL TO ORDER ! Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to ord4r at 7:02 p.m. ! II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Preserlt preserlt prese~ Prese t Absen Prese t Prese~t Prese~t until 8:27 p.m. , Ken Roberts, Planner . Lisa Kroll, Recording S~cretary Erin Laberee, Staff Engfneer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present: Commissioner Pearson moved to approve thel agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes + Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Pearson, ! Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minuteslfor July 18, 2005. I Commissioners had corrections or changes to ~he minutes on pages 10, 16,22,28, and 29 of the July 18, 2005, minutes. ' , Chairperson Fischer had changes to the min~tes on pages 28 and 29. Page 28, in the 11th paragraph, it should read Chairperson Fische~ said she comes from an area platted in the time where the average property size was is one apre. The other change is on page 29, in the 15th paragraph, it should read Chairperson Fischer: No less than R-2 zoning but would like to keep the options open. Commissioner Trippler had changes to the niJinutes on page 16, number 4. b. it should read Remove outlot A and make this area Be part! of the public right-of-way. On page 22, the first paragraph, the last sentence, delete the word~ and is not Prcl130r. On the bottom of page 28 at the end of the first sentence it should read wduld be about. Q Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -2- Commissioner Dierich had corrections on p~ge 22, the second paragraph, it should read: Commissioner Dierich said on page 4, under ~. Discussion it states "Plaintiffs motion to enjoin the City's rezoning process" has been denied. IShe would submit that is illegal to !rYJQ stop the city to stop from qoinq about tAeif it's business~. n rezoning or not rezoning. This judge is correct in not allowing this motion to go forward but t at doesn't mean the planning commission can't look at the rezoning. She would agree with Mr Roberts that the planning commission need! to look at the rezoning and allow it to move onto lhe city council. Then let legal counsel fit fjaht it out in the courts if indeed that is where it ends up. On page 10, the fifth paragraph, fifth line it should read The city needs to take a more activ~ role in making sure that when the city asks for a develops a developer's agreement that there IS seR'lethiR!j that eaR be monitorinq done in the long term and the aqreement has some teethl.mJ!. She asked if the private drives would be plowed by a private contractor or by the city. Commissioner Dierich had corrections to page ~2, ninth paragraph, it should read Commissioner Dierich said unless Mogren Landscaping, LLP: states the reason they don't want this done tRis jtISt isn't Hat enough of a reason for the plannin~ commission to understand the opposition to the rezoning eF and why they don't want this Walgreen's proposal built here. Commissioner Dierich had corrections to p~ge 29, in the fifth paragraph, it should read Commissioner Dierich said if the zoning chalnges to R-1 (R) zoning, people would probably subdivide the lots and develo ment would occ . r ha hazardl . She prefers the R-1 zoning but the R-1 zoninq tAat is the highest density she wou d be happy with. Lastly, on page 29, in the tenth paragraph, it should read Chairperson Fisch~r individually asked theif--hiqhest zoning each commissioner would prefereflG&. . Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Rlanning commission minutes for July 18, 2005, as amended. . Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes + Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Pearson, Trippler I Abstertions - Desai, Yarwood V, PUBLIC HEARING a, New Best Buy Store (1801 County Roa~ D) Mr. Roberts said please remove the first itenh listed as Parking Lot Setback Variance on the agenda sheet and the third item listed as ~rking Stall Width Variance because staff has determined those were not necessary. They ere listed on the public hearing notice and staff was trying to have the agenda sheet consiste. t. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tim Palmquist, represelnting Best Buy, is proposing to construct a new 45,243 square foot store at 1845 County Roa~ D (Town Center shopping center). The proposal includes the demolition of the existing Frank'~ Nursery store within the center and relocation of Best Buy's current store into the new building! Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -3- Mr. Roberts reported the Town Center shopping center consists of nine businesses including Best Buy, the former Frank's Nursery. Pannekoeken estaurant, and various smaller retail stores. The existing 43,203-square-foot Frank's Nursery s ore has been vacant for over a year. Best Buy proposes to demolish this portion of the shop ing center and construct a 45,243-square-foot freestanding building on the west end of the hopping center to relocate their existing store. There are no specific plans for the existing Be Buy portion of the shopping center at this time, but it could be leased to another retail use or s~bdivided for smaller retail uses. Mr. Roberts said city code requires setbacks fdr this building to be 30 feet to both right-of-ways (County Road D and 1-694) with no specified Isetbacks to the west side property line toward Slumberland. The new building will maintain] 30-foot setback to 1-694, a 25-foot setback to County Road D, and a 1 O-foot setback to the v./est side property line. A 5-foot building setback variance is required to construct the building vJithin 25 feet of the County Road D right-of-way. Staff finds there is no true hardship for the setb~ck variance and recommends denial for the five foot setback variance. Mr. Roberts said initially city staff determined t~at a parking lot setback and parking space width variance would be required for this developm nt. However, upon further review it has been determined these variances are not require for the following reason: within the business commercial zoning district city code requires a ~arking lot to maintain a 15-foot-setback to a right- of-way and parking spaces for a retail use to m intain a 1 O-foot width and an 18-foot length. The existing parking lot has a 15-foot setback to the County Road D right-of-way and a 6-foot, 6-inch setback to the 1-694 right-of-way. The existing Iparking spaces are 9 feet wide and 18 feet long. The city code allows the expansion of a noncc1nforming parking lot such as this as long as the parking lot does not exceed the existing setb$cks or dimensions. With the expansion of the parking lot, Best Buy proposes to maintain the lexisting setbacks and dimensions and therefore can be accomplished without the need for a v~riance. Commissioner Trippler asked who suggested t~ere was a way to get around the ordinance for the 10 foot wide parking stalls, the applicant or staff? Mr. Roberts said his understanding is that it was the request of the applicant. Mr. Roberts couldn't say who initiated the request because ~hat was between the applicant and Ms. Finwall. , , , Commissioner Trippler said he knows the appli ant requested nine foot parking stalls but it seems obvious to him if there was parking stall width r quest the city staff must have felt a need for the variance. The ordinance states that parking stalls must be 10 feet wide. To clarify things, did the applicant ask for the nine foot wide parking sta I or did staff say if you use the other ordinances you can probably get around this requiremenL i Mr. Roberts said he would assume after staff ~tarted researching it and reviewing the case of what already existed staff made a determinati9n that it was no longer necessary. ! Commissioner Trippler wants it stated for the riord he doesn't think staffs position should be to find ways to get around ordinances for applica ts. He asked if there would be one outlet at the intersection of Kennard Street and South lawn rive? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 Ms. Erin Laberee, Maplewood Staff Engineer, ~ddressed the commission. She said she believed there was another outlet east of the site. The qity proposes there is adequate access in and out of this site. ! -4.1 I I Mr. Roberts said its staffs preference to limit ~he number of driveways in and out of the site to minimize conflicts and potential accident locati~ns. It's better in staffs opinion, to have two main areas where you know traffic is going to enter $nd exit, especially with the new stop light, rather than having a number of driveways where youl have a lot more potential for conflict with cars. i Commissioner Trippler said he has a problem with the design of the parking lot and the drive path in the front of the store where people are gOin~' to enter and exit the store and cars are going to be queuing up in the parking lot while they wait for the stop light to turn green to exit the lot. Iffor example 10% of the cars want to exit the par ing lot at the same time, where are the 50 cars going to go? . Mr. Roberts said there are three lanes shown on the plan, one entrance lane and a two exiting lanes, plus a sidewalk along the front of the buillding. Mr. Roberts displayed on the screen where the pedestrian sidewalk would be and how the bars would enter and exit the parking lot. There is another entrance and exit from this parking lo~ at the far end of the parking lot. Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't see hqw the traffic is going to flow properly through the site. In his opinion parking spaces nine feet wi~e are a disaster. Personally he avoids shopping places that only have nine foot wide parking sp~ces because he doesn't want his car doors to get dings in them from people opening and c10singltheir car doors. He would rather see less parking stalls and have the parking stalls ten feet widel as opposed to the proposed nine foot stalls Best Buy is requesting. If you remember the past aRplication for Home Depot when they wanted to put a storage area in their parking lot and lose some of their parking spaces, Home Depot said it wasn't going to be a problem. He thinks whenl the parking ordinance was developed during the 70's and 80's it was for stores that were smaller like 10,000 to 20,000 square feet and at that time maybe that was a good parking stall size and p13rking ratio. But when buildings are larger than an acre in size the city needs to look at that par~ing ratio again because he doesn't think you are going to get that many people packed into tha. store and parking lot. He doesn't think there are that many more people that visit the store anq he thinks the merchandise in the store takes up more room and that is why they require a lat. er store not because there are that many more visitors and they need that many more parkin spots. So for that reason he would recommend wider parking stalls and grant the variance for. ess parking places. He thinks the problem is the way this building and parking lot is designed. Hie doesn't like that the building is sitting out in the parking lot all by itself and thinks the propose~ plan is hideous. This store is going to be built in an area of Maplewood that is currently under ponstruction and a lot of money is being spent to improve this part of the city. The city is trying tp make this area really attractive and this building is just a square box and doesn't have much cuirb appeal. The applicant either needs to come up with a more attractive design or reorientate the building so it looks like it relates to the strip mall better. He knows the building design is review$d by CDRB but he wanted his comments to go on the record. Commissioner Dierich agreed with Commissio~er Tripplerthat this pedestrian area is very unsafe. She knows from experience at the old Wood~ury Best Buy location you would take your life in your own hands walking from the parking lot tq the entrance of the store. She thinks the parking count variance relates very much to the width!of parking stalls. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 Commissioner Dierich said she went to the Sit}. and measured the existing parking stalls. She drives a small car that is 4 feet 5 inches wide ith a four foot wide door which equals almost 9 feet wide when she opens the door all the way. The rest of the time she drives a Toyota Tundra truck which is 6 feet wide with a four foot wide door which equals 10 feet wide when opening the door so you would already be over by 1 foot. Not too many people drive small cars especially with families, they drive large and wide vehicles like Cadillac Escalades, Chevy Suburban's, and Mini Vans with doors that open and not always with .he doors that slide open. For these reasons she has a problem with nine feet wide parking stallsj She would urge the applicant to think about this plan and urge the planning commissioners to think about this as well. She isn't sure the staff adequately explained to her how the parking width is grandfathered-in just because it's an existing issue. This is a new site and a new building lIind she thinks the city should apply the parking ordinances as it stands now. This is a ne~ site and a new building and should not be grandfathered-in in her eyes. She doesn't k~ow how it's good planning to allow an existing situation to continue as an existing problem. SHe wants this made clear and part of the record for the city council because she doesn't see th~t either one of these things were adequately addressed. She would like the applicant to explain why the building is going to be located where it's proposed instead of next door to the Frank's Nursery location because it looks like it fits fine with the alignment of the driveway. Best Buy ~ould bump the building back a little bit and take care of that elevation or setback from the street without much of a problem. She wondered if Best Buy thought of an L-shaped building rathet than a big box which would be far more attractive in her opinion. . -5- Commissioner Yarwood asked if staff had calct. lated how many parking spaces Best Buy would be short if the parking stall width was increase to ten feet wide? I i Mr. Roberts said he would estimate a loss o~ 20 to 30 parking spaces from the 522 parking spaces in the development. Chairperson Fischer said with 31 fewer parkind spaces then the code requires she asked if that was with or without the five foot loss for the b~ilding setback? Mr. Roberts said he thought that would be With~ut changing the setback. If the building size was reduced that would be a loss of 26 parking spaces. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to ad~ress the commission. Mr. Tim Palmquist, Project Development M~nager, Best Buy, 7601 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the commission. He said they are excited about this project, Best Buy has been doing a lot of building and remodelin1 in the Twin Cities and recently relocated the Woodbury store to Oakdale. They are trying to bring the quality of the projects to local areas like Maplewood and would like to get the buildings . loser to the Best Buy prototype. The original Best Buy Maplewood store was built around 30,000 ~quare feet in size and then 9,000 square feet was added onto the building. The issue with the current Best Buy building is they love the location but are having a hard time operating in that buildin~ due to the parking situation. Most of the parking is down at the existing Frank's Nursery locationiand not in front of their store like they would like it to be to allow the rest of the site to function b~tter. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -6- Mr. Palmquist said once they move out of th~ current Best Buy building they are looking at subleasing the current Best Buy building. Bes~ Buy may use this building for another business venture, but that hasn't been determined yeti They are spending a large sum of money to accomplish the proposed building. They are bnly adding 7,000 additional square feet to the overall size but are spending over $2 million doll~rs. So they see this as a very important piece of their business to make it successful. They ha~e an option in their lease for the Pannekoeken Restaurant parking space if Best Buy runs into a problem with a lack of parking Best Buy can increase the size of the parking ratio. Befo~e tonight's meeting Paul Anderson with WCL Associates was at the existing Best Buy site an~ measured the parking stalls. The stalls that are on the existing site from Pannekoeken to the ekisting Best Buy location are 9 feet wide and he believes that is where the grandfathering-in o~ the parking stall size comes into play. If the parking stalls are currently at 9 feet wide does itlmake sense to have the other side of the parking lot at 10 feet wide? He guessed that was a question for the planning commission to determine. As far as the setback goes, they may have a sol~tion. On the north side of the proposed building is an appendage that holds the trash compattor and the truck docks if they take the trash compactor and flip it to the north side of the t~uck docks, that trash compactor can be on the outside of the building, that way they would ha~e shortened the length of the building by 12 feet and they could shift the whole building to the nbrth and avoid the whole setback issue entirely. He is not sure if the trash compactor equipmen~ is allowed in the setback and maybe staff would have to comment on that. But it's an option as ~ar as Best Buy is concerned. I I Commissioner Yarwood asked if Best Buy ha~ any calculations as to the size of parking they require for a building this size? Mr. Palmquist said for a building of this size Be$ Buy likes to have 5 cars per 1 ,000 square feet of space. If they were on a stand alone site, mea~. ing a building without cross access to any other parking, they require 6 cars per 1,000 square f et. He realizes the current Best Buy site is at 4.7 cars per 1 ,000 square feet of space. They reali e they have a relatively high parking need higher than smaller retailers. Increasing the parking st II size and reducing the parking count is going to be a hardship for Best Buy and they would h$ve difficulty with the customers and/or with the neighboring businesses if the parking were to ?verflow. , Commissioner Trippler asked if the 522 parkinb spaces were for the whole parking lot? Mr. Palmquist said correct. Commissioner Trippler asked why Best Buy $ouldn't locate their building next to the current Frank's Nursery location as opposed to where lit is shown next to the Slumberland parking lot? Mr. Palmquist said if they located their building next to Frank's Nursery they would end up with the same parking configuration problem that th~y currently have. Customers wouldn't be parked in front of the building but would be spread cjJut along the side which isn't convenient to the entrance to the store. ' Mr. Roberts displayed on the screen what Mr. I!'almquist meant by his parking configuration and where the customers would be parked. . Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 08-01-05 Commissioner Trippler asked if they thoU9h~ about putting more doors on the building so customers would not have to walk so far? ' Mr. Palmquist said if Best Buy added more d~ors on the building besides the front door they would have higher heating costs, would have tcj add more staff to stand guard at the doors and it would be a higher security issue for the store. . Commissioner Trippler asked if Best Buy has t' ny other building designs in the Twin Cities that were designed by an architect with more imag nation other than the plan that was submitted to the city? In Commissioner Trippler's eyes this. uilding is just a box. Mr. Palmquist said they do a lot of projects a,1 over the country and are required to do many things. The Maplewood ordinances don't reqpire Best Buy to do anything special other than using certain building materials. Best Buy is plready spending over $2 million dollars on this project and this is the Best Buy prototype and actually they upgraded this building from the "standard" prototype. They can get really crllative when they "need to" but Best Buy didn't understand they were required to do that in M$plewood. , ! Commissioner Trippler said he thinks they need to get creative. He asked for an estimate of how many customers they anticipate on a per houri basis for a store of this size? Mr. Palmquist said he has never been askeq that question before and he doesn't know the answer. Commissioner Trippler said the reason he as~ed that question is he is trying to estimate how many cars would be entering the site on an hourly basis. He did a rough calculation and came up with 10 to 12 customers per hour and he has Ishopped at the current location and knows they have more than 10 to 12 customers per hour, e~pecially during the holidays they have more than 10 customers in 10 minutes. He doesn't think ~his parking design or traffic flow will work in this location and he thinks the building should be redesigned, relocated, the parking spaces should be widened and the traffic flow be reconfigurecj. He asked if the Best Buy building could be positioned next to Frank's Nursery and work f~r Best Buy? Mr. Palmquist said in order for the building to fi~and still have the entrance drive they would have to acquire Pannekoeken now rather than whenl their lease expires, which would be an additional expense to the project. . Commissioner Grover said he is also concer~ed about the driveway entrance and exit and a possible alternative as opposed to driving p~st the building is there could be some traffic mediating devices and you could direct traffic to curve to the right and eliminate the first row of parking on the right hand side of the parking lo~ so the traffic spills out to the Pannekoeken area. You add more space for the traffic flow anticipating traffic jams either entering or exiting the building. You would eliminate drivers speedipg past the building entering or exiting the area which would cause possible pedestrian mish~ps. He agrees with the commissioners and he would be in favor of having larger parking stallsland less parking spaces and allow for easier entry and exiting from the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -8- , Mr. Palmquist said they worked with staff reganding the driveway entrance and at various times they tried to angle the drive. The direction t~ey received by staff was to keep the driveway alignment straight and this is the result from th~ conversation. , I Commissioner Grover asked what the reasoni1g was for keeping the drive straight into the site? Mr. Roberts said engineering wants the drive sttaight because of the traffic signal. He is having a difficult time trying to imagine curving the site arid directing the traffic down one lane because you would lose so many parking spaces and wast~ land. Commissioner Grover said at the existing Be~t Buy location the drive in front of the store is usually full of cars parked waiting to pick up heir purchases. He thinks this is a dangerous situation and can imagine the same problems with the future store as well. He can see five or more cars stacked up waiting for the stop lightlto change. Commissioner Desai said on site plan 4 he see~ near the entrance an area that is cross hatched and he asked if that is designated as a pedestHan area? , Mr. Palmquist said that cross hatched area is ~esignated as handicapped parking. I Commissioner Desai asked if that area is in fr~nt of the entrance to the building? Mr. Palmquist said yes. Commissioner Desai said there would be a nq loading zone there then. Mr. Palmquist said there isn't a loading zone lanywhere in front of the existing building or the proposed building. Best Buy has staff to help Ibring merchandise out to the customer's cars. Commissioner Desai said he has seen cars pU~led up at the entrance and employees will walk the merchandise to the people waiting in front 0 their car but not out to their parked cars in the parking lot. If it's not a loading zone Best Buy, is violating the intent of the whole process here. Mr. Palmquist said the solution may be to cre~te a loading stall at the north end of the sidewalk area. , Commissioner Desai said he estimates ca$ stacked in front of the entrance to pick up merchandise. Then drivers will get frustratedl and drive around the parked cars and drive out towards the Pannekoeken area of the parkingllot. Mr. Palmquist said traffic engineers talk abou~ traffic as moving kind of like water, it follows the path of least resistance. If there is congestion ~here is another way out, and people will drive the fastest way out of the area. . Commissioner Desai said that defeats the pur~ose of what the traffic engineers designed here. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -9- Mr. Palmquist said he isn't sure it defeats th~ purpose. The traffic engineers realize there is another way out of the area. If this were the ohly entrance and exit on the entire site engineers would think that would be inadequate, but ther~ is another means of escape from the parking lot at the other end of the site. Mr. Roberts said he and Erin Laberee were loo~ing at the parking lot plan and staff thinks it might be possible to have a right in and right o~t entrance somewhere near the front of the Pannekoeken Restaurant to help with some of he options. They want to make sure its okay with the city engineer before that gets put on the rec rd. Staff would clarify this before this goes to the CDRB meeting on Tuesday, August 9, 2005. . Commissioner Trippler asked if the parking Idt elevation would stay as it is? He is concerned someone's car would scrape on the asphalt ~r bottom out because of the change in asphalt elevation. Mr. Paul Anderson, AlA, WCL Associates, 14~3 Utica Avenue South, Suite 162, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. Mr. Anderson saiq the parking lot elevation would stay close to what it is. There is an area on the far side by Slumberland that has a dip in the asphalt for drainage that would be abandoned and leveled off. . Commissioner Dierich asked how large the existing Frank's Nursery space is? Mr. Roberts said the existing Frank's NurserY site is 43,203 square feet which includes the outdoor storage. . Commissioner Dierich said it appeared to her t~at the existing parking spaces at Frank's Nursery were 10 feet wide. Commissioner Trippler said he measured the Rarking spaces and they measured 10 feet wide in front of Frank's Nursery. The parking stalls along County Road D on the median were 9 feet wide. Commissioner Dierich said she counted the e~'sting parking spaces on the west side of Frank's Nursery which came to 192 stalls and those st lis are 10 feet wide. Then there are another 120 parking stalls along County Road D. She fails 0 see why Best Buy can't make this an L-shaped building or push the building back. They wouldlonly lose 4 parking stalls if they made the parking stalls 10 feet wide. She doesn't see why Best Buy can't make this building look like it belongs with the rest of the strip mall, accomplish the s~tback, have the 10 foot wide parking spaces and have the entrance to the store in the center ofltwo large parking areas. Mr. Palmquist said Best Buy would never hav+ an L-shaped building. Commissioner Dierich said that's good inform*ion to have. In her opinion Best Buy is asking to build a building that is probably too large for the space, because Best Buy can't meet the setback and they can't meet the parking lot parameter~ the city has. Mr. Palmquist said he mentioned earlier how IBest Buy could meet the setback by moving the trash compactor on the other side of the truckl docks. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -10. Commissioner Dierich said staff hasn't said if that's acceptable in the city or if you can put equipment in a setback area. . Mr. Roberts said he hasn't responded to that i~sue yet. Commissioner Dierich said if Best Buy isn't will ng to change that's fine, but she is having a hard time granting a variance for a building that is ot meeting the design needs of the city, doesn't meet the traffic needs of the city, doesn't meet he parking lot needs of the city, and Best Buy is a great neighbor and she doesn't understand wh they can't be more flexible with this because the planning commission is trying to be flexible a out this proposal. Maplewood doesn't have a police force large enough to deal with people b nging vehicle doors into other vehicle doors, orto deal with pedestrians being hit on the way to 0 from the Best Buy store, and there needs to be flexibility and creativity on both ends. I Mr. Palmquist said Best Buy has gone around dnd around with the plans and they have ended up with a plan that is a prototype for Best Buy ~nd thought they had a plan the city would be agreeable with. Best Buy didn't hear about th~ lack of support from the city staff for a building setback until last Thursday. i Commissioner Dierich said she thinks this Planf.Uits the needs of Best Buy and not the needs of the city in this location. She believes Best Buy should go back and take another look at the plan and bring it back to be reviewed. Maplewood ants Best Buy to stay here but it needs to meet the needs of the city as well and not just the n eds of the prototype of Best Buy. Commissioner Grover said on the agenda to~ight there are two issues to review. A building setback variance, which staff has recommend~d the commission deny. The applicant proposes to shift the building to the north and move the I trash compactor separate from the building. He asked what the city code says about having m~chanical equipment in the setback? , Mr. Roberts said he would have to check furtMer into that to see if that meets the intent of the code. Commissioner Grover said regarding the parki~g count variance, he asked if currently there is a variance that allows nine foot wide parking sP4ces? Mr. Roberts said he didn't think so but he woul~ have to do some research into that but he isn't sure how Best Buy was allowed to have nine fpot wide parking spaces. , Chairperson Fischer said the city didn't alWaYS~haVe a ten foot wide parking space requirement. At the time the Maplewood Mall was built the p rking spaces were nine feet wide. It all depends on the time the development came in. There re instances of nine foot wide parking stalls that were grandfathered in. ! Commissioner Trippler said he spoke with Ms.IFinwall today and she said it was her recollection that the current building had been revised se~eral years ago and at the time of reconstruction Best Buy had asked if they could go from ten root wide parking stalls to nine foot wide parking stalls. Planning Commission -11 Minutes of 08-01-05 i Mr. Roberts said Best Buy added on to the builbing about 6 or more years ago and that may be when that came into play. But that is somethir9 staff would clarify before this goes to the city council. I , , Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the aydience wanted to speak regarding this proposal? , Nobody came forward. I Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the city cod~ requires commercial property to have a certain width for parking stalls? : I I Mr. Roberts said the city code requires high ~rnover commercial uses to have ten foot wide parking spaces, office buildings can have 9% oot wide parking stalls, and employee parking is allowed to have 9 foot wide parking stalls if th re are signs posted that say employee parking only. Best Buy would be considered a high tu over commercial use. Commissioner Dierich said there are two iss es here. One question is what constitutes the grandfathering in of the parking stall width? T e code says 10 feet wide and Best Buy has said they need 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square et of retail space so this new parking lot doesn't even meet what they said they need. She wo Id say the planning commission would deny both requests for the building setback variance an~ the parking count variance and have Best Buy work a little harder on a better plan and bring itlback to the planning commission to review again that works for both Best Buy and the City of M~plewood. The planning commission gave plenty of feedback to Best Buy to come back with so!nething better. , Commissioner Dierich moved to Deny Best Bt's request for a 5-foot building setback variance which would allow Best Buy to construct their ew store at 1845 County Road D with a 25-foot setback to the County Road D right-of-way. T e city bases this denial on the following reasons: a. There is no hardship to warrant the varian1e. b. The reduction of five feet from the length of the building would reduce the overall size of the building minimally, any reduce the need for the variance. c, The new Best Buy building will be adjaCen~o buildings with increased setbacks from the road including Slum berland and the existing To n Center shopping center which maintains an 80- foot and a 108-foot setback to County Road D, respectively. Commissioner Grover seconded. IAyes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, . Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. Commissioner Pearson asked if this could beltabled so the planning commission could wait to hear from the CDRB at their next meeting Tu~sday, August 9, 2005? ! Mr. Roberts said the city would run into the 6~ day rule. Best Buy has gotten a lot of direction from the planning commission and can bring c~anges to the CDRB meeting and let this proposal continue onto the CDRB on August 9, and ontq the city council as scheduled for August 22,2005. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -12-: Commissioner Dierich moved to a€\eflt Denv he parking count reduction variance resolution (Attachment 14 in the staff report). . ., (changes to the motion are underlined and ~eletions are stricken.) a. The redevelopment of the Best Buy building Iwill improve the existing parking ratio from 4.48 to 4.72 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet M retail space, it still does not meet the spirit and intent of the code as the a licant has faile to show hardshi other than financial. b. There is no formal a reement for the cannot assume that is oin c. ~:~::I o~t~~Os~~~~~~r~~~I~:;~~~:~nll with the s~irit and intont of the orsinance , This variance is approved with tRe follO'.\'inll s~nditions: · ~=;=;.:::Et=.~~~:=~~:":;~~'~ o DecemBer 31, 2009. Commissioner Trippler seconded. , ~yes - Desai. Dierich, Fischer, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood INay - Grover The motion passed. , , Planning commissioners decided they would tie more comfortable having 10 foot wide parking spaces verses the additional parking spaces. i ! ! Commissioner Grover said he really wanted tof' abstain from voting because he felt the planning commission didn't have enough information bout past parking lot variances that may have happened 6 years ago and he still has conce ns about the entry to the site regarding the drive aisle and traffic flow and the area for pedestri ns to walk. He is confident that because of the input given to the applicant tonight changes will be made. This item goes to the city council on August 2? 2005. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -1 VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX, COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS i a. Mr, Pearson was the planning commis1ion representative at the July 25, 2005, city council meeting. i The only planning commission item to discu~s was the Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat (Hoyt Avenue, east of McKnight Road) and pass$ ayes all by the city council with the addition of 2 , trees per lot as opposed to the 1 tree per Iqt. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commisFion representative at the August 8, 2005, city council meeting, Items to discuss include the Woodlands of aplewood (McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue) for the Land Use Plan Change, Zo ing Map Change, Street Right-of-Way Vacation, CUP and Preliminary Plat. Utility Easemen Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition), and the Walgreens Pharmacy Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility NW com r of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue for CUP and setback variance for a parking ramp, and ~aplewood Toyota Expansion north of LaMettry's Collision (2923 Highway 61) for a CUP for t~e outdoor motor vehicle storage and Variance to store motor vehicles within 350 feet of resi~ential district. c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commissi~n representative at the August 22, 2005, city council meeting, So far the only item to discuss is the new IBest Buy, 1801 County Road D, for the building setback variance and parking count varianbe. Chairperson Fischer said she noticed that ihe Historical Commission is listed on the routing form that is sent to inform certain groups o~ people of proposals in the city. She asked if the proposals were ever sent to the Historical'I Commission? At the last meeting the Historical Commission came to the public hearing and said they were never informed about this proposal until the night before the meeting. i George Rossbach came to the meeting to speak on behalf of the Historical Commission reg~rding the historical 1 00 year old homes that would be destroyed for the proposal of townho~es but was troubled they were not notified in advance. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-01-05 -14~ Mr. Roberts said staff has to make a jUdgm~nt call regarding which people or groups mayor may not be interested in the proposal. He d d not notify the Historical Commission regarding that proposal and he was not aware there ere homes of any historical value in that area. , Commissioner Trippler asked if staff or sorrleone at the city make an excel data base of the historical homes in Maplewood to refer to vJhen an application comes in? Mr. Roberts said the planning staff is very ~usy already and just doesn't have the time to do that. Nor has he seen or does he know 'jvhere the historical information is that George Rossbach kept referring to at that meeting. ! , , Commissioner Trippler said if someone qould get the historical document that George Rossbach referred to Commissioner Trippl~r would be willing to make a list in excel for the . ' a~ ' Mr. Roberts said he isn't sure where this historical book or list is in the city hall building. If there are extra copies of this document theylcould give it to the planning department and then the information would be in the hands of thr people that could refer to it for proposals. Commissioner Grover asked staff if the Ra~sey County property records were accurate or not regarding when a building was built? I Mr. Roberts said he believes that informati~>n is shown on the Ramsey County record site. Staff would have to think of that as an additional layer of information for staff to check if it's pertinent information for that group or orgarization. Commissioner Trippler said just because I a home is 100 years old doesn't mean it has historical value other than it's a home that i~ 100 years old. , Commissioner Desai said he saw a comm~nt in the Manager's Report regarding the railroad abandonment being off track and he ask~d if County Road D would have to come to a complete stop until this is resolved? ' Mr. Roberts said he understood the peoPr in Washington D.C. need to continue to move forward on this. His understanding is tha County Road D can't go through to Hazelwood Street but the city has been moving ahea with the project with the assumption that things would get worked out. Apparently a wrench has been thrown into the project. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Follow Up Mr. Roberts asked what the planning commisfioners thought of the annual city tour and if they had any ideas for next years tour to contact him. I Commissioner Pearson said staff did a great jdb on the city tour. He enjoyed stopping at the Fire Station much better than at the Nature Cente~. i Planning Commission -15J Minutes of 08-01-05 Chairperson Fischer said she enjoyed stoPPind and looking around at the sites verses driving by the site slowly. I I Commissioner Dierich said it was the right amo~nt of time and the right amount of places to visit. She made a plea to see the south end of Mapl~wood before any building starts even if it has to be for a separate planning commission tour. Commissioner Desai said he would like to see ~'tes where the end result was something positive based on decisions made by the planning com ission and where the end result was something negative based on decisions made by the plan ing commission. We can all learn from the good and the bad decisions that were made in the ci . Many times the planning commission doesn't go back and see what was done or how projecjts look when the site is finished. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: DATE: i MEMO~NDUM i Richard Fursman, City Manar,er Ken Roberts, Planner Conditional Use Permits and Design Review K and W RolI-Offs i Kristopher and Wesley Schefping 1055 Gervais Avenue August 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Kristopher and Wesley Scherping are requestin9~ty approvals to make improvements to the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue for their busine ,K and W Roll-offs. Specifically, they are proposing to add a gravel outdoor storage yard, b ild a 40-foot by 49-foot storage building and a new driveway on the property. They want to make hese changes to the property so that they can relocate their roll-off (dumpster) business to the pn!>perty. Please see the applicants' statement on page 13 and the maps and plans on pages 14 thro~gh 18. They also are proposing to surround the rear part cl>f the property, around the storage yard, with an eight-foot-tall chain-link fence. The applicants are ~roposing to install screening slats in the fence to provide screening of the outdoor storage area. Requests To relocate their business to this location, the applicants are asking the city to approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for exterior!storage within the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning district. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to have a n~ commercial building within 350 feet of an existing residential district. 3. The design plans for the site, including the Inew building and the screening fence. DISCUSSION Background On May 8, 2000, the city council approved a cond~ional use permit (CUP) and the project design plans for a business called Fresh Paint. These ap~rovals were for the business to build a new office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. (See the map on page 26 and the city council minutes starting on page 27.) The l>wner of Fresh Paint, however, decided to not go forward with the proposed development and even1lually sold the property. Conditional Use Permits As I noted above, the applicants' are requesting c~. approval of conditional use permits for this property so they can move their business to this 10 tion. Their business provides roll-off containers (dumpsters) to homeowners and contra ors for property clean-up and remodeling projects. To have their business based in this loca' n, they are proposing to have an outdoor storage yard and a storage building on the prope~. As Kristopher explained to me, they deliver empty rpll-off containers to job sites and they pick them up and properly dispose of the collected waste after they are filled up. K and W would then bring the empty container back to their storage yard after! they have dumped it and then would have it ready for its use. As such, they would only be storirg empty roll-off containers and their trucks on the property as they sit in between use on job sitesi (Please refer to the applicants' statement on page 13 for more information about their request.) Outdoor Storage and Screening The applicants are requesting a CUP for exterior stprage on the lot for their roll-off container business. According to their statement, this indude~ 14 roll-off containers, 2 overseas containers (for storage) two trucks and four trailers. They are rot proposing to store any garbage or debris on the site. Possible Nuisances - The city always is concemed when a property owner wants to establish an outdoor storage yard - especially when it would bel near an existing residential district. As such, the city will want to ensure that this facility, if approved by the city council, will not cause any problems or nuisances for the neighbors. In this case, since one of the operators lives on thel site, staff does not have any major concems with their proposal. Having the proposed screeninglfence, the small number of employees and trucks and the limited hours of operation should en$ure that this proposal can be compatible with the nearby residential area. Screening - As with all outdoor storage yards, scre~ning is a major concem with this proposal. The applicants propose to install an eight-foot-tall chain+link fence with screening slats around the rear portion of the property to screen the outdoor storag~ yard. Staff finds this acceptable as long as the slats create at least an 80 percent opaque screen Qf the property and are compatible to the exterior material and color of the proposed storage building, There is a fairly substantial tree growth between thi~ site and the residential properties to the north that provide significant screening of this property. I recently stood in the side yards of the two homes directly north of the site and found that I cot.lld barely see the existing house at 1055 Gervais Avenue because of all the existing trees. T~e existing trees and the proposed screening fence should provide enough screening of the proppsed outdoor storage. Storage Area Paving - The applicants' are proposirltg to install a crushed limestone material for the surface of the proposed storage yard. They are co~cemed that a paved storage yard would be damaged by the roll-off containers and by their trucks. Staff agrees with the applicants' and we do not see a need for a paved storage yard at this time. The city does have the opportunity to review the storage yard and its surface through the conditipnal use permit review process. If a problem arises in the future with the storage yard or with its $urface, the city can require changes to the site or to the business operation to address those conc$ms. 2 CUP for Proposed Storage Building The city requires a conditional use permit for all ne~ commercial buildings in the M-1 zoning district if they would be within 350 feet of a residential distIlct. In this case, the city has planned and zoned the properties adjacent to the site to the north for single family dwellings. The city should assure through the CUP review and approval process that ~he proposed commercial building and associated site activities would not be harmful to th, nearby residents. As I discussed above, staff is confident that with the proposed screening and ~nditions of approval, that this proposal can be compatible with the nearby residential properties. Design Approval Building - The applicants' are proposing to constru~t a 40-foot by 49-foot (1,960 square feet) storage shed on the west side of the storage yard$hiS building would be for storing the business trucks and other business-related materials. As pro sed, the exterior of the building would have horizontal vinyl siding (tan mocha color) with an a nt band and a hunter green standing seam metal roof. The east elevation includes three bay ~oors. Utilities - There is water and sanitary sewer in Ger'{ais Avenue that serve this property. The applicants' are not proposing to install any utilities i/1 the proposed storage shed. They are proposing to construct a storm water pond (with an I overflow pipe) on the northwest comer of their property. Chuck Vermeersch of the Maplewood Engineer department reviewed the proposed project plans. His comments are in the memo on p*ge 22. Parking Lot - The city's parking lot ordinance requi~s that all parking lots and associated driveways have a bituminous surface. The ordinan~ further states that parking lots with 12 or more parking spaces must have continuous concr~e curb and gutter. Parking lots with less than 12 spaces are exempt from this requirement, unles~ required by the city engineer for drainage control. The community design review board (CD~B) can waive both of these requirements if the city engineer has determined that sheet drainage would improve stormwater quality. The project plans show the proposed parking lot al1d storage with a gravel surface. The applicants are proposing this material, rather than a paved paj'king lot, because of the wear and tear that the trucks and roll-off containers would have on the pavement Parking Spaces - The city's off-street parking ordin~nce does not have a parking standard for a facility such as this. The applicants will have parking on their existing driveway for the existing house and will have enough space in the proposed storage building for the trucks for their business. Landscaping - The applicants' noted that there are seven trees on the property that they will be saving with the proposed project. In addition, they .re proposing to plant two arborvitae near the proposed gate and six, eight-foot-tall Black Hills spruce. The site and landscape plan on page 18 shows grass areas inside of the screening fence a~ound the perimeter of the proposed storage yard. Staff also is recommending the applicants adp native plantings within the rainwater garden to address erosion control and storm water quality issues. The applicants are not proposing to install an underground sprinkler system with this project. The CDRB can waive the requirement for an undergro~nd sprinkler system on a case-by-case basis, if 3 the applicants agree to sign an agreement with the City of Maplewood stating that they will hand- water all landscaping and replace any required lan~scape material that dies. Staff is recommending that the city require these standardsl as conditions of approval. Ughting - The applicants' are not planning to add any outdoor lighting with this proposal. If the owners want to install outdoor lighting in the future, ~ey would have to submit to city staff for approval a lighting plan. This would be to ensure th*,t any freestanding lights would not exceed 25 feet in height, induding the base of the light, and th,t the light illumination at all property lines would not exceed .4 foot candles. Public Safety - Lieutenant Rabbet! reviewed the curjrent proposal and states that there are no significant public safety concems. He suggested lirj1iting the hours of operation to ensure no noise complaints from the adjacent residential properties.' Staff believes that noise from the business could cause a negative impact for the neighboring residential properties. Therefore, staff recommend$ a condition of approval for both CUPs that there be no noise-making business activity conduct$d on the site, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the property, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., M~nday through Saturday, or all day Sunday, per city code. Building Code - Dave Fisher, Building Official, state~ that the proposed building will have to meet all the requirements of the 2000 IBC, including the fire rating standards for the walls, and the fence will require a building permit with structural enginee~ng. (Please see his memo on page 23.) Fire Safety - Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, stated th,t the owners must provide a 2Q-foot-wide access into their property and a year-round driving $urface on the site. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution starting on page 33. This rlilsolution approves a conditional use permit for the outdoor storage of roll-off containers, traileli and associated materials on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. The city bases approvall on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the project planll as approved by the city. This shall include providing a driveway to the gate of the storage yard, subject to the requirements of the fire marshal. 2. The approved exterior storage is limited to ..pll-off containers, trailers and vehicles associated with a roll-off delivery business. !AII vehides must be licensed and operable. 3. The owner or applicant installing and maint4ining a screening fence that is 100 percent opaque around the perimeter of the outdoo~ storage area. The owner shall maintain and repair the fence so that it remains in good cendition and 100 percent opaque. 4 4. There shall be no noise-making business a~vity conducted in the property, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by city code. 5. The proposed construction and the outdoor!storage on the property must be substantially started within one year of council approval dlr the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one ye/ir. 6. The city council shall review this permit in ohe year. 7. The city council may require more parking ~paces should the need arise. 8. The property owner shall keep the site clean of debris and shall cut or remove any noxious weeds. . 9. The owners and operators shall only use Mltplewood Drive and Gervais Avenue for access to the site. There shall be no truck traffic from this business on Cypress Street. B. Approve the resolution starting on page 35. T~is resolution approves a conditional use permit for the construction of a 40 by 49-foot storage ~uilding within the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning that would be within 350 feet of a residential zoning district (at 1055 Gervais Avenue). This approval shall be subject to the following <lOnditions: 1. The approved exterior storage is limited to toll-off containers, trailers and vehicles associated with a roll-off delivery business. All vehicles must be licensed and operable. 2. The owner or applicant installing and maint/iining a screening fence that is 100 percent opaque around the perimeter of the outdoor storage area. The owner shall maintain and repair the fence so that it remains in good dondition and 100 percent opaque. 3. There shall be no noise-making business aCtivity conducted in the property, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, betweeh 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by city code. . 4. The proposed construction and the outdoor storage on the property must be substantially started within one year of council approval br the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. C. Approve the plans dated August 15, 2005, for K and W Roll offs outdoor storage facility and for a 1,96O-square-foot storage building at 1055 Gervais Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The property owner or applicant shall: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city Ms not issued a building permit for this project. 5 2.Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final coristruction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, ejrosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the followi~g conditions and shall also meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck !Vermeersch's memo dated August 26, 2005: (1) The erosion control plan shall be !:Onsistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for the site. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins ~r ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer, The pond{s) shall have the required storm water capacity. (d) Show details about the prop~sed fence including the materials, gate, height and color. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b) Include an inventory of all e1<isting large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will rer(1ove, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and II0cation of the replacement trees.. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pi~e. (d) Be consistent with the appl'\llved grading and landscape plans and shall show no tree removal beyornd the approved grading and tree limits. (4) The design of the ponding are!! and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engine~r. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site util,ty, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all neW construction and have the storage building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The addition of trees for screening along the north side of the site. 6 (3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding area to break the appearance of the deep hole and to! promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and ~hall be shown on the project landscape plans. (4) The manicured or mowed areas fT1llm the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed ateas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants! The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHwr.n) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall ha~e the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (5) In addition to the above, the contNjctor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged pla~ting beds and the area within the ponding area). (6) Adding at least six more evergree'11 trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the north property line of the ~ite. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall, and the contractor shall plant these! trees in staggered rows to provide screening for the houses to the north. (7) Shall be approved by the city engioeer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. d. Present to staff for approval colored bUilding elevations or building material samples of the wall panels, standing seam roof, triin, doors, wainscot, and fence slats. These elevations should clearly show the colQrs and materials of the proposed storage shed. e. A revised site plan showing the drivew$y with a width of at least 20 feet that is paved between the street and the storage lot.: Any gate along this driveway also must open to a 20-foot width. f. The requirement for underground irrigation is waived if the applicants sign an agreement with the City of Maplewood Istating that the owners will hand-water all landscaping, and any required landscape material that dies will be replaced. If there is to be any additional outdoor lighting, a photometric plan showing that any freestanding lights would not exceed 2~ feet in height, including the base, and the light illumination from any outdoor light would not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. g. h. If trash is to be stored outside of the house or the storage building, plans for a trash- dumpster enclosure is required. The $closure must have gates that are 100 percent opaque, and the materials and colors df the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the metal building. i. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 7 3. Complete the following before occupying th~ new building or the site: a. Replace property irons that are removec! because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and tree planting and the rainwater garden(s) (if required). d. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for lalllawn and landscape areas of the site unless the applicants: (1)provide an altemate watering method acceptable to staff to keep the trees and plantings watered. (2)Sign an agreement with the City of lI/1aplewood stating that they will hand-water all landscaping and trees and replace any required landscape material that dies. e. The eight-foot-tall chain link fence must; (1) Have a top rail and have dark green! slats around the entire storage yard. (2) Receive a building permit from the qty before installation. f. Install an eight-foot-high screening fenc\;l and additional trees along the north property line of the site where the vegetation dOEjs not adequately screen the new storage shed from the existing dwellings to the north.IThese additional materials are to ensure there is at least an eight-foot-tall, 100 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the feJ1ce or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. g. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure ifl there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosure must match the bUilding ,n color and materials and shall have a closeable gate that is 100 percent opaque. h. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drlilinage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fen<i:ing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from th$ site. (4) Install all required exterior improv~ments including the parking and storage lot, installation of landscaping, installa.ion of fence slats, installation of the ponding area, etc., before occupying the b~ilding. i. If the owners want to install any site-se$Urity lighting, they must do so as allowed by the city code. Any light sources, including tI!1e lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed or shielded so not to cause any nuisance to vehicle drivers or to adjacent property owners. j. The owners shall keep the buildings (inCluding the existing house and garage) painted or stained and in good repair. 8 4. If any required work is not done, the city l1!1ay allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is no. essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner oricontractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 9 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the 42 property owners within 500 feet df this property for their comments about this proposal. I received five responses as follows: For 1. Kris and Wes have both shown me the desire to have an organized and efficient storage area for their containers. I see no reason toiobject to this proposal. (Connell-1041 Gervais Avenue) Against 1. We are against issuing a permit to establish an outdoor storage area at 1055 Gervais Avenue. I believe this type of business sho~ld be in an industrial park, not in a residential area of nearly new, very nice homes. (Reill\nd - 2447 Cypress Street) 2. See the e-mail message from Pat S. of 2440 Cypress Street on page 24. 3. See the e-mail message from Virgil and LeVina Karl of 1008 Sextant Avenue on page 26. Comments 1. Please see the e-mail from Thomas Giebel (owner of the building at 1081 Highway 36) on page 25. 10 REFERENCE INIFORMA TION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 38,550 square feet (.88 acre$) Single dwelling and detache~ garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East West: Single Family Homes Businesses across Gervais Avenue Vacant property planned an~ zoned M-1 A single dwelling planned an~ zoned M-1 PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) M-1 (light manufacturing) 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 pr exterior use within 350 feet of a residential district. 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 33 and 34.) 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 i~ such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; mat it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proPO$ed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed dejlelopment 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 dejlelopment 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. 11 APPLICATION DATE The city received a complete CU P application for tHis request on August 15, 2005. 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, cityiaction is required on this request by October 14,2005. P: See 9/ K and W Roll oils - 2005 Attachments: 1. Applicant's statement dated AU9Usl15, 2005 2. Location Map 3. Address Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Site Survey/Plan 6. Site and Landscape Plan 7. Proposed Floor Plan 8. Building Elevations (East and West) 9. Building Elevations (North and South) 10. Memo from Chuck Vermeersch dated Augusl26, 20Q5 11. Memo from David Fisher dated July 18, 2005 12. E-mail message dated Augusl4, 2005 from Pat S. 13. E-mail message dated July 20, 2005 from Thomas Giebel 14. E-mail message dated Augusl30, 2005 from the Karls 15. Fresh Paint Sne Plan (from 2000) 16. May 8, 2000 City Council minutes 17. Resolution for a Condnional Use Permn for Exterior Storage 18. Resolution for a Condnional Use Permn for a Comm~rcial Building 19. Project Plans (Separate Handout) 12 Attachment 1 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 K&W ROLL-OFFS Aug usl 15. 2005 RE: Conditional Use Permit 1055 Gervais Avenue E, Maplewood, MN 55109 ,m:: ! S 2005 RECEIVED To Whom It May Concem: We are requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for our business. We own K & W RolI- Offs. We deal with immediate disposal of construdtion and demolition debris. We recently purchased our home at 1055 Gervais ~o conduct our business. This property is currently zoned, Light Manufacturing. We have been renting and living, in Maplewood for the past 6 % years. We plan to screen this property with 8-foot forest green in color, 'Supreme Privacy' chain link fencing and a 20-foot gate on the South side. We plan to store our equipment empty, which includes 14 roll-off containers, 2 overseas containers, 4 trailers, and 2 trucks. By storing our equipment here we know exactly what is not rented. We have been renting at various locations'to store our equipment and there have been times when we have misplaced equipment becaus~ we are not sure if it is rented or not. To get this permit for outside storage, our company will flow more smoothly and efficiently. The proposed storage shed is an EPS pre-engineered Solid Core building, which is 40' x 49' with a 23-foot 6-inch ridge height. This storage shed will not have electric, water, or sewer and only an earth floor. It will have mocha tan vinyl siding with a hunter green tin roof. We will install 1 )I," river rock 3-feet out along the perimeter of the shed excluding the East side. Currently there are seven trees on the property, we will be planting (6) 8' B&B 'Black Hills' Spruce trees, which will be planted 20-feet apart center on center along the Northwest and Southwest corners of the property, along with (2) Arborvitae, "!Rushmore" to help screen in the Southeast comer of the property. We have indicated this and more on the Landscape Plan. We understand that the city has a noise ordinanceJrom 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. These hours conform to our business hours. We ask that you approve our request for a Conditi<bnal Use Permit and are open to any questions or suggestions you may have. Respectfully, Kristopher Scherping Wesley Scherping L/ C' LJ~ 5 - I)~ 0~ ~ APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 13 Attachment 2 I', i I I ! ! i ,; : Iii ~il1>>f \ Ln Ic8:R 11~~~~1lJli~~i II .:~~" \ rL--1ll~l4 II 'H '1\ i'j .........../. I...... .~.0'.... i/ , ' ' lit, I I!---r-, I Ii ..' .. . I .'/ II1I II, ,--.-jl' .A~/ i' I<:t:/ ___...,,..' , c-H--i--,j. \1. 1 il:~ - - " :;~~r:: ..../ ~j~ ~I=-l--~j---,J III~ II~~ I A .,- -, j' ---__~i , HI I---i J"V I , ...K"\ ,'._ ----,,----,' /, ~ , ....L...-..----< I i ~~ f --~.~:i -\" ~ -~~) I r---{....... -.--......:...J' \ I / Ir-~_ I '~- 1- -. H . --1 I I '/ l"l,i ',~:r~.~,..\ HII 1 I .. I)......co~~ fU~lB{\'~I1"1 10 ~ " ....... I ! I / ,,"" /. ' ...,' -, -~\ II. I _...-- ~ ~ / CfT~-~! ~~IJ~CZ. ---LJ ,/ II :' 1 ,I Jai illlill 1 ~l- I '!llllr~1 ' ~ ~\ I ~J~~I~' ~' " ~nTl,-.111 I " -" 11'1 I fll'- \ u It~7,rm'Q~-- rSfJoon Lake .' - .? l ---1.-.,) J (-l '. .;;f"",4 'f}// ~ F1:~ L--. I , I 1/ -' _ _ __ f ",-::,..--1 J "~__ .:..... -rrlll .......,/1,.:...,,- li:r--" 111"I-",,1( I . I I ,-- II II.} I' ~i 1;== !II 1(/ LI---.,/' i ii- 'I " r--"'~ I 1< I); i \ I (I I 'I ~-..;, I I --=- .."". , III i,,. i'~ .~)-~~'" t( 1'.1" Ir)'I' i 17.;1 i Ir\\:.__" ,1!11 r.'I'//'H' !~.~,:. .,..... '. I I I '-i . ) .I-Hi ! i ,r! \\\ III i Iu,\ 'I' .<,'i , t I iTI' i, ",,: bVARA- _~) '-~, ~I. I '::I: I I ,I po ',-111'- I ~. -- _1'-1', I ~1;.PB~Sj' EtR' '""'! I I III " 1 1:1 I, \ h._Lilli! ~J" ",d", no,- -h I" r. ' ~"-I-___Qa-~ r'J l r- ?"f// 1'( Ill,! .~___/<"""/~',, ",:_,-/,"':,;i'c,::,; J ! { ! I ,I I /~ __~.' C'.''',', .~",,,m:~{,-' 1 ..___.c.....""'. ."".... ,'" ''''-''''''"''',,,. f ~ I I' ,l.-'-~~~- ....../ >.-...-' ,r ",o' J 0)..,)1' <"'/---/ SSi If I ; ISl!i// ,f.~f//I/,i 1':"00,' . f!"'/jl, " """ ,(III.lII\l '111/)/"- /. ( Il/, If / l' i t.' '.' .. il/ il! I ~ .I}/I//l'; ,.. II' , (.,,' ,i II f' li "/1 I l / t / ,/ /./j f / ,.., /..' /. / {/ :""'\ ,/jl/ /1/ // (i ............... ..... 1/ / II .' I i ___ /...../ / 'I 1111' , I ~ ___ /1 ........-' .' ,i', " / I I' \', I i I' //;:-.:.- l \\\';----Tn ;---1 - ". " x;.,t"'. ,," "'f ~ II - \ ,\ I _ ~ ,'C:'...-. ".. I /........ "", I " . ~ /') \\I( , \ \ .";" I I I' :::--.-,.......--- l /1 ..........'~- [I -- '>"J... ',.- I.. /1 (.~ -....! I _ ~ ....- ___.- _ _ ,.- -t.J~AJV __ ~...... __ /.f_ _ ~~' .... __.:: ' -i- _ _~__ ____U1=!>-'~.e:__ it- - ----------- - - - --- :,.---:; ~ -- - - - - - -- - -~_:::~-..- -.If ~ -=:~~---~~-- ~-=---=--~-~~ ~ ~ -; ~ ~ ~ -= ~ ~ ,,-.... I r I ./.--........- -- -......) '\1 I/f I ~~ --- ,.- __..J- I I I" 1- "\ l \ ~......... ---...............-.--., 'I ."---~ / \ /' / ), I... ... ..-' ...../" 1 ." . :\ - ./ I..... ') ___ ~ ;:..-.--- ~ I I' \ -- ~. /' "::::':;;. ....~~/ ./~ r I II f II 1;,1 ___ .-;...... -~~ I [1 111 )JIll /~;:~. I !----' nil! 1,/ .................."~ I I I , J 1/ ....; /. .'~ I I lUlL I~I/Y./'" I~ n, ,~ ,! /-:./ j I I ,I ,~ ' ' -j 'h- ~ ---IL. 1/,':' I 1:(TTi rrm co J I'l!' - , " I I =U~:AltE::--0- )l/I,' ~ I I I I' Ii: ,tt[iTllTT'F l,II,I:'--'1 I I I I I , HII' II , I ,;2l_ /-">J,I/;;-1,==~-i~cRekkll;_lli II: .~": Ii' ~ ~11 I I t IJ. Ili!!.1 I' i ,- -' 1/ j~ .L---i] I r I : i! I\.... 1 ;, . I;!! I! I r'J1' i 1- 1\ '. , '. \ \ , \ ~ --.\ ,\,~'~ i I I 'UI!RV:ATS-"AVE T I 1r N LOCATION MAP 14 ;ill!1E'J! ~--",---<-,-~;--::: ~ 7:WII ; 'I \~W;:\ ~ q/tt.. . I '____~~,,~'-~ -I I '.0 . = = :Qi~~~;:;::j~;\i i~ i I 1_ - ~~. .tar22 i \ -\' .!'\~~;--'~\~I I\&lf II 1'- - - - - - ~,-, \\~_ ~~I~\.\~'t \i I. A II II p.d" 2~, 1\ 11'- ~ l5!I:~\ I,. ". '.. I I ~ II li.'2i" ".'.'. I II ~ i .. r \ ..L--+--~' ","T'" 1-1 'cl_, ," ..J___,.L---rC.-.---.\-~.-.. ,...-/ !l'1 ~ .lI:l11 ~ 2~ I II! ~.if ~i.\ ~'.\\~'\,~ \ ';\~;'.3 I :::: il~: ~,.,' 4 'I ~ : III t.- 8 ~1il\ ~;F L: __/;~~ I ~ ttl ~ I"'~ t; II U '-__--L..-J.. S--Ci ~ . I ~ I >-11.m.. m I Wi i ~ = -=- y~~!~~~ - ~/If' i 1iFT IfJl ~- 2~~11-V ~Lm'. "~I~ui~4. ....1 :....... I: : I Ii. i.,;" 2.~: I iF.,.,." ~r F;'~i\ \ ....j .,. 'I I fe...... I ..i I II 114 ~ · . i 1""......1: :r-~ I _~~I:: ~...... ~ _ I III 'm ~ I II ~ , t--__ t--- 2-:, 'I: SEXTA1'lT AVE- ~.45;-- /<:~,.~~~jt--j; /I'd .I~\~} ./.,' ~:1IP//;'lJI-'-----------t----J 10 '\, 1032 ~ ,_"./ ,'. -'_. I /)<,. J -'. . Spoon Lake. /--~~~!~'/>'/ I 24~ I: I I 241' I: I i i I ~ I i '- ~ ~ ~ '" ----~ Attachment 3 2515 ~'-n 't' <; '," r,:-' ~._~"':;"--'t ."" ',' ,,,.,;,' '''~':,il'1:.1~~~ 2497 """ G " -.J 2483 ACORN MINI-STORAGE ~ ~ 2441 / 11,,,i~,,~\~JC\1 l ,/ i "./ / fii;;:/ Oi" !~l~J I, .... ~Ji \ ".:' 121/ I !~, II, /' $/:/ ,i , t'/j-,., J i / 1/ ) 1041 SITE 1055 .~ IJIiI ~ ~ - - --------~~ffiA~---------- ----------~- ---------1 / / /i! I l,/ '/ ,I / ! I /, ./ / ,,' / , I I " II I' I' I , I ./ / .I / " -- / /./ .~ " -- -' .-- -- -" -- -- ". !. ..- \ J, \ \ I., \ \, ..- - , " \ " \ \ \ I J I / .- '"-. ". ADDRESS MAP 11 N 15 Attachment 4 - : ' ...,." I' I: ~ 2483 i:: p"\ :i I: : i ", I 'I' : f 11~li, II I I,~:I I' Cf.l I I , 'UJ I i i 1i2 I I '" I'~ I l i I~ 'I " II 1,[1. I ' I' ' I::C::I po I: :j II 1'-- I 'I J: ,'1166 I I I j ,I I i--_____ _ I: : - SEXT~N! ~-V~ ~ ~ -: ~;< -. ---JI II I I \ // If I I f'Ii'" ',' .\ '," II I -..._.. ~1 \ ." ./' ,1/ -"--"".L._. 1026 \, '0', /"j ____ \ . /' / 1/', "'- , ," . .' // /' ;/ t """,/> / ,- '> , , 31 "'~'''- / ..... /'~ !Ii 1,/ /,..../ {( I /".-" L, --: ;/ 'if III II I I: ~ ~3 ~' 978 ~ I~ ~ 2457 I , ,I ~ ~ :~;':~CORN MINI-SiORAGE , ! , 12471 R1 '. 1m '~-"""-'-' ", lon Lake , , ~---- i ----~ i 1032 =,.., ~J:!f1 2411 - - - - - - - - GERVAiS AVE - - - - .' - - - - - - - - -"' -- .- " " -- ,..- / ~q:. ~- .., ~-l ,,--- ." ....". " . / 16 \r N PROPERTY LINE IZONING MAP Attachment 5 GRAPm9 SCALE . .J. 5 ",-' . - - (DlJ;ar) . 1__- ag ~ ~~ ~ ......::7 ~ ...., ~ x..~ x.. . . x_, " . .~ . r'" , . ""'" .... x._ i ! ! . . ! i ~ -.. ..._---~---_._--.~-- x.., x~ -- -.. x .., ~-1S-65" I , 8 ;. f{Ut"",GERV,.aS AVE-- . . s.Ln~w _ PltOf'OSEDItCQ(.- I!!Q.Oo-- )(U4,.714.'TOH', '-.a i ..,... . , x-.. x- SWtH I.IHE (S'.lH( SEl/+ <<' nil! NWl/4 Of'SEe. ll, T;:'~ ill 22 17 11 N SITE SURVEY/PLAN o o nnn Roll-Off CoDl8incrs o g c.. PROPOSED SCRENNING FENCE C1ass5 Crusbad Limestone ~ ~e con=te IJtiveway ~ Pond c. GraM PROPOSED SCREENING FENCE Sc..o..\e; _ n_ 5/'/ 18 =;;lO~ .. , I Trll'S Copy Only KfY: Ii; 6Ja.c.~ H..II~ Sprt>c..~ B; flrborviro..e.., NAlJshmori' C : E)\!' ~ ti 1)'1\ . ;':e e.::, LoJ..-.J ~Tiersl TNCk TNCk Prop=<! Shed \ 1;" RivcrRock installed 3-ft. on North, West, and South sides GraM 06 Home 1055 Gervais Ave ~ t B - :-:- GATE Propoaed Conaete . Driveway o ~ ~0 j e Landscape Plan SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN Hl Attachment 6 IV o o-/5-0!;; ~ { { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ... ~ I ~ I ~ i l- I " IS '" 0 S 9 A.. ~ T- N - =- ~ - ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Attachment 7 I II I.. iii .d UI I. ; IIi B' g-Is-o~ PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 19 \f N Attachment 8 CD ~Ievattat (?'-/5'-o> CD ~Ievatlat PROPOSED ELEVATIONS .__"IIW"'~""QRS ............,........WlIIft:I'I:..... aaa_&era....CIrD\o.tllll'___, ......---... ..-....... --.. ..-- .........,.....1 ...r.-W'-l ....1W....1 G.A.1I 8' ..-.. ....-. --- 20 .Attachment 9 $ EI.et. 16 I ..oil sei.!!v. O'..()II $fL.v.16'..()" $ei.!!v. OI..()1I CD e~ CDe~ PROPOSED ELEV A TIONS:'=::"''':.., -aa._L<<A....lJrI:IL......." 21 CZ;"-/5-05 .........................,... ..CIIIIIIIo.IIi.........IIr............. ...... ......"'~........ ""c:...r.............1Ii .......~ ...-.........---- .c.......r-M .....",........... .....~.IiIIIIID..,..&.I~ w........." ..,...........0- .~~,..Ao.....~ 1.IIIIiI~,~..... ......,.....,.......... .,............a..........r.. Attachment 10 Enaineerina Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: DATE: K and W Roll offs Chuck Vermeersch, MaplEtwood Engineering Department August 26, 2005 K and W Roll offs is requesting city approvals to install an aggregate surfaced outdoor storage area and storage building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. The applicants recently submitted a revised site plan with proposed gradirlg and drainage calculations to the city for review. Specific comments and conditions: 1) The storage building shall include commencial rain gutters with the discharge piped to the pond in the northwest comer of the property. 2) The proposed outlet for the pond shows arIl 8" pipe cemented into the end of the outlet pipe to restrict flow. Any debris that enters,the pipe will tend to plug it up. The outlet shall be a 27" concrete structure with a 12" outlEllt, an 8" vertical orifice inlet, and an overflow grate. With the overflow grate set at 883.75 the ponds 10o-year high water level will be 883.9, and the peak outflow will be limited to predevelopment conditions. 3) HDPE pipe may be substituted for the PVC pipe shown on the plan. 4) The top elevation of the berm around the pond shall be at least 884.5 (one half foot additional storage above that shown). The pond shall have a defined emergency overflow on the north side of the pond at an elevation of 884. This emergency overflow shall be reinforced with enkamat, or other equal permanent turf reinforcement 5) Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall complete a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintenance of the pond. The maintenance agreement will be filed as a covenant on the property. A draft of the agreement is included with this review. 22 Attachment 11 Memo From: David Fisher, Building Official July 18, 2005 To: Ken Roberts, Planner Re: 40 X 49 Storage Building at 1055 Gervais Ave Verify the building setbacks comply with the 2000 IBe Table 602 for exterior wall protection. A complete building code analysis will be required when I1>lans are submitted for permit. All new storage buildings over 2000 square feet are required to be fire sprinklered and NFPA 13. This building is 1960 sq, ft, The new building must be built to meet Minnesota State Building Code and 2000 IBC. Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for accessibility. All fences over 6 feet in require a building permit. Provide accessible lever handle door hardware on a 3.0 ft. service door. Provide a 5 by 5 landing with frost footings. Provide building plans, site plan and engineering for structure with the permit application. 23 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 12 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: PSukhtipya@aol.com Thursday, August 04,20055:06 PM Ken Roberts Subject: 1055 Gervais Mr. Roberts I oppose the project under these three reasons: 1. Noise. It is my biggest concern. My wife and I work late niglht and sleep during the morning hours. Currently, I have been waking up from time to time from loading and un loading liIS early as 6 am through 8 am. I very much afraid that this business is going to add greater noise to the neighborhood. 2. Obstruction of traffic. Sometime there are semi's parking and unloading which made it difficu~ to get through. Gervais Street is not very wide. It does not take much to blockithe road. 3. The condition of the pavement. Driving to this street now is llike going on a roller coaster ride. The street is full of bumps and pot holes. I noticed the city came to patch it from time to time, but it has gotten worse as time go. With all the heavy equipment rolling on to this road, I can1 see how it can get any better. I afraid that It will only get worse. I hope my opinion count. Thanks, Pat. 8/5/2005 24 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 13 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: TMgiebel@aol.com Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:25 PM Ken Roberts Cc: MarieGiebel@aol.com Subject: CUP Request for K&W Rolloffs Attachments: ArielView.jpg; Building Layout A.jpg; Building Layout B.jpg; Site Option A.jpg; Site Option B.jpg; StJohnSouth Rendering Main.jpg; StJohnSouth Rendering Upper View.jpg Dear Ken neth, I am in receipt of your notice dated July 15, 2005 outlining the K&W Rolloffs request for a Conditional Use Permit for the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue in Maplewood. I am the owne~ otthe property directly across Gervais Avenue at 1081 East Highway 36, otherwise known as the Thomas Tool or Phoenix Engineering building. Earlier this year my team of architects and designers submitted II site plan and proposal to the City of Maplewood for renovation of the 1081 East Highway 36 site toward a professiOr1al office building. You may recall the plan, It is briefly outlined in the attached .jpg files. I was advised then by my teal1'1 that upgrading the building as such was 'pioneering' for the area since there still exists some residential and mixed use such as Smileys Bar and Grill, Cardinal Realty and the Highway Hotel just around the corner. 'Pioneering' is a nice way of saying that I would be taking a financial risk by upgrading the building before having a tenant or buyer for the completed project. From my perspective, adding a truck and waste container storag" facility in the area does not constitute an upgraded use of the site. This is why K&W must submit an application for a CUP, Further, I am surprised that a pole barn even meets the building codes tor the area. The City of Maplewood has a vested interest in seeing that the Property development in the area trend toward 'highest and best use.' Once a trend has been started, the surrounding properties tend to follow the trend, tor better or worse. I believe that approval of this specific CUP would result in a much lower u~e than the site should be put to, thus negatively influencing surrounding and adjacent properties and the prospects for their upgrade. Personally, I will advise you that until I know what level of commnment the City of Maplewood Office of Community Development has toward land use in this neighborhood, I will not be planning to invest heavily in the 1081 East Highway 36 site. Today I had a showing at the building by Welsh Companies. They were representing a group whose needs included a parking ratio of 8 cars per 1000 square feet of building space. I can only offer them 4.3 cars per 1000 square feet. My personal opinion is that the site at 1055 Gervais Avenue would better be used as overflow parking tor a high traffic facility rather than a truck and waste container storage area. I look toward to hearing from you regarding the scheduled planning commission or city council meeting dates when this matter can be addressed more fully. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. Si ncerely, Thomas M. Giebel, President TMG Properties, LLC 612-210-4321 7/21/2005 25 Attachment 14 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: Subject: Ikar1@mmm.com Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:18 AM Ken Roberts RESPONSE TO: NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY: KAND ROLL OFFS -1055 GERVAIS AVENUE,MAPLEVVOOD Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-249-2319 Attn: Kenneth Roberts, Planner Dear Kenneth, Thank you for the letter and attachments regarding Kristopher Scherping & Wesley Scherping, representing K and Roll-Offs. requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit on the property; 1055 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, MN. We strongly OPPOSE this request, Their letter dated August 15, 2005 stated Gervais Avenue to conduct their business. Conditional Use Permit for their business that they recently purchased their home on 1055 It seems like they should have gotten the BEFORE they purchased their home and property. The homes built in our area (1008 Sextant Avenue) are valued between $295,000 and $550,000, The project Kristopher & Wesley SCQerping are requesting at the back of the property on 1005 Gervais Avenue faces the back of our property as well as several other properties. We do not want to look out our wi:ndows and see roll-off containers, overseas containers, trailers, trucks and a large shed. And, we DO NOT APPROVE of the use of this property for all of the traffic, debris and noise it would entail. We also OPPOSE the use of the existing Drainage Utility Easement as part of the 50 foot set back that is required, In their original request, they talked about the removal of the 3 White Oak trees. Nothing was said in this request about these trees being removed. We STRONGLY OPPOSE any Oak trees being removed." they have taken many years to reach the stature they have now. The (6) 8' B&B 'Black Hills' Spruce trees they plan on planting w ill take many years to be of any use in shielding the view of the structure they plan on building. They mention the noise ordinance... there is excessive noise already in this area due to the commercial buildings already on Gervais Street. The trucks start up about 5:00 A.M. and this is a problem in a residential area that is so close to these companies. Another commercial business in this area certainly will not be a help to the noise problems. Therefore, please put us on record that we STRONGLY OPPOSE this in its entirety and DO NOT approve their request for the Conditional Use Permit that they desire. Thank you, Virgil E. Karl and LeVina M. Karl 1008 Sextant Avenue St, Paul, MN 651-766-8884 lkarl@rnmrn,com Tel: (651) 733-0650 26 :\i!lo,Ql .'e.:~J&.~~._ . . E."\STi.Ilt.~~~ :J ~.~'. -.c...o'_. NEl-l ClfF'C'C WILO\HG. t ; ~ ,~ 1:1 .._,..~ - I " - ,7---, I UIST:ti4JI 1'-"l'1~~ I .~ . I . L.____ ',~ E:t-rsr: "<l GEl""'l5 AYa-lUE :J:c,O' J ~6. i -;, ~ ~ N "0 ,\\ fll ~ ! ~ ~ . ~ SITE PLAN . .~' !;~n ! -i~o~ ~ .u;. '~g;. ~d!:~ 5~~~~ 5<~~! '~8-~" .. :hh 3 27 ci r -... e J . 8. 0 H 0 if " j Q :: ... ::: a '6 ~ c ~ -g ~ Ol. e. is.... a -z::;; ~::;: ~ u....... c = a.. Ol ,il ~ Ol "'9" ~ u..... '0 5(1)~ ~W(j) Ol Cl:: '" ~LL.~ n Attachment 15 11 N Attachment 16 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Mond~y, May 8, 2000 Council Chambers, l\iIunicipal Building Meeting No. 00-09 A. CALL TO ORDER: A regular meeting of the City Council ofMaplewood, 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, Councilmember Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present 4. 7:30 P.M. (8:48 P.M.) Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Fresh Paint Warehouse (1055 Gervais Avenue) a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. Acting City Manager Haider introduced the staff report. c. Community Development Director Col~ presented the specifics ofthe report. d. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planrting Commission report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Mike Trenon, 2474 Adele Street Sherill Benjamin, 2473 Adele Street Mike Westermeier, 2458 Adele Street Thomas Hart, Winthrop and Weinstine, Attotiley Representing the Project Tom Schaffhausen, Sanas Capital InvestmentS f Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. A. Conditional Use Pennit Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following Resolution. approving a conditional use pennit for Thomas Schaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the propertY at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This reauest needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to 28 1 a residential district. The city bases the aooroval on the !indines required by code and is subiect to the followinlj!: conditions: RESOLUTION 00 - 05 - 056 CONDmONAL USE PE"lIMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tom Schafihausen, of San as Capital Investments, applied for a conditional use permit to build an office/warehouse facility in an M-l (light manufacturing) district closer than 350 feet to a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to Bedell Road (Gervais Avenue), the East 150 feet of the South 290 4/10 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use pentnit is as follows: 1. On April 17, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on May 8, 2000. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of 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. 29 2 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the garage! from the site. The existing house shall be painted or sided to match the new building. 2. The proposed construction must be substantia).ly started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, 'equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. 6. Except in the event ofa bona fide emergency, ,the applicant's commercial traffic and vehicles shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 fron~age road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall use all reasonable efforts to insure that cQmmercial vehicles under its control do not use Cypress Street for access to or from this site. 7. The normal hours of operation shall be from 1 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, although the foregoing shall not prohibit employees or representatives of the applicant, owner, or its tenants from being on the site outside the foregoing hours. Such activities and site visits shall be conducted in a manner to avoid unnecessary noise and shall not cause a nuisance to the nearby residential properties. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. 10. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. The owner shall ndtify city staff on any change of tenant notify and/or request an amendment to the Conditional Use'Permit if changed to commercial use. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on May 8,2000. Seconded by Councilmember AIlenspach Ayes- Councilmembers Allenspach, Collins and Koppen Nays - Councilmember Wasiluk Abstain - Mayor Cardinal 3 30 B. Design Approval Councilmember Koppen moved to apJlrove the plans date-!famped January 20. 2000. for the Fresh Paint facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue, based on the findings required by pode. The property owner or applicant shall: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit for the new officelwarehouse, complete the following: a. Have the community design review board (CDRB) approve a screening plan for the area on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. b. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements. The grading and storm water plans shall direct all impervious SUIfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that the developer connects to the existing city system to the west of the site. c. Submit a building-color scheme of neutral colors to city staff for approval. d. Get a demolition permit from the city and remove the existing garage and house. If the city council allows the house to stay on the site, then get a demolition permit for the garage. e. Submit a lighting plan as required by the cope showing the light spread and fixture design for site lights. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the residents. 3. Complete the following before occupying the I).ew office/warehouse building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Res~ore and seed or sod any and all disturbed ground such as the areas of driveway or blacktop removal. Remove all old driveway entrances and restore with sod. c. Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces; as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires. Install a handicap-parking sign fo~ each handicap-parking space. d. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible tTom adjacent residential properties. Such equipment visible on non-residential sides must be paiI1ted to match the building color. (code requirement) e. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure if there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosure must match the building in color and materials and shall have a closeable gate that is 100 percent opaque. 4 31 f Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all lawn areas on the front and on the sides of the new office/warehouse building and on all sides df the existing house. g. Provide site-security lighting as required by the city code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed or shi",lded so not to cause any nuisance to vehicle drivers or to adjacent property owners. There shall b", no lighting on the back of the building unless required by the building code. h. Post the west side of the new driveway and the west side of the parking area for "no parking." i. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter, around all parking areas and the driveway. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may ,allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city detennines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished l~scaping shall be completed by June I 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. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. Th~ director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilrnember Allenspach Ayes - Councilrnembers Allenspach, Collins and Koppen Nays - Councilmember Wasiluk Abstain - Mayor Cardinal 5 32 Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PEIRMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kristopher Scherping, representing K and W Roll-offs, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to have an outdoor storage area. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: The South 290.4 feet of the East 150.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN'09-29-22-24-0038) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 6, 2005, the planning commi$sion 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 h$aring a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considerep reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On , 2005, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, ptocess, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, haz<1rdous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, draimlge, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal ve~icular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe acceS$ on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate Plllblic facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage struclures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 33 8. The use would maximize the preservatioh of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse eilVironmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the project plans as approved by the city. This shall include providing a driveway to the gate of the ~orage yard, subject to the requirements of the fire marshal. 2. The approved exterior storage is limited,to roll-off containers, trailers and vehicles associated with a roll-off delivery business. All vehicles must be licensed and operable. 3. The owner or applicant installing and m~intaining a screening fence that is 100 percent opaque around the perimeter of the outdoor storage area. The owner shall maintain and repair the fence so that it remains in gOOd condition and 100 percent opaque. 4. There shall be no noise-making business activity conducted in the property, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, betWeen 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required'by city code. 5. The proposed construction and the outdpor storage on the property 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. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 7. The city council may require more parkirtlg spaces should the need arise. 8. The property owner shall keep the site dlean of debris and shall cut or remove any noxious weeds. 9. The owners and operators shall only use Maplewood Drive and Gervais Avenue for access to the site. There shall be no trUlJ;k traffic from this business on Cypress Street. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolutibn on 2005. 34 Attachment 18 CONDITIONAL USE PSRMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kristopher Scherping, representing K and W Roll-offs, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a commercial building within 350 feet of a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal description of the property' is: The South 290.4 feet of the East 150.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PINi09-29-22-24-0038) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use PElrmit is as follows: 1. On September 6, 2005, the planning commis$ion held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent no~ices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also consider~d reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On , 2005, the city council discus~ed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive !plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or Iillanned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property val\les. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drain~e, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vel!1icular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe acces$ on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate Pllblic 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 preservatiol'l of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development desiign. 35 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The approved exterior storage is limited ~o roll-off containers, trailers and vehicles associated with a roll-off delivery business. All vehicles must be licensed and operable. 2. The owner or applicant installing and maintaining a screening fence that is 100 percent opaque around the perimeter of the outcloor storage area. The owner shall maintain and repair the fence so that it remains in good condition and 100 percent opaque. 3. There shall be no noise-making business activity conducted in the property, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, betWeen 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required 'by city code. 4. The proposed construction and the outdoor storage on the property 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. 5. The city council shall review this permit irl one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2005. 36