Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 1, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 18, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 New Best Buy Store (1801 County Road D) Parking Lot Setback Variance Building Setback Variance Parking Stall Width Variance Parking Count Variance 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations July 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson August 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler August 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 1 O. Staff Presentations Annual Tour Follow up 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWodlD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Oierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Ken Roberts, Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Fischer requested an update on the Gladstone meetings. Because the Gladstone representative Commissioner Trippler was unable to attend the meeting the presentation would be given by Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, during staff presentations. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 5, 2005. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 5, 2005. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. THE WOODLANDS OF MAPLEWOOD (MCMENEMY STREET, NORTH OF KINGSTON AVENUE) (7:06 - 8:28 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to approve plans for a 28 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows 28 townhouses (in 14 detached town homes and seven twinhomes) in a development called The Woodlands. It would be on an 8.2-acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. Forthis proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the town homes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $300,000. Staff recommends approval of the six requests of the developer. Commissioner Trippler asked how many townhome units were proposed with the previous plan compared to this new plan? Mr. Roberts said this plan has two fewer units than the previous plan did. Commissioner Trippler said when he reviews a proposal two things he looks for in the plan are sidewalks and raingardens. He asked if the city has a policy to encourage developers to incorporate sidewalks and rain gardens into the plan? Mr. Roberts said the city has been working with the developer and they plan on installing a trail along the north edge of the project between unit 1 over to unit 11 connecting over to unit 28. There is no new sidewalk proposed along McMenemy Street. The city tries to persuade the developer to construct sidewalks whenever reasonable or possible. Commissioner Trippler thinks sidewalks are critical and most of these proposed streets are very narrow. The minimum width for a public street is 24 feet wide and the private streets are listed as 26 feet wide. Because of the narrowness of the private street there wouldn't be room for cars to be parked along the street. Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, addressed the commission. The rain gardens are something the city encourages developers to accomplish. This site is unique from the standpoint of rain gardens. The developer is restricting the runoff to nearly the entire site to the two storm water ponds and that overflows into a third smaller pond. The city is trying to infiltrate a 12 inch rainfall event with this. Rain gardens are to infiltrate a 1 inch rainfall. This standard is to control a 12 inch rainfall entirely on the site. This system meets the NERP standards and is comparable to 100 rain gardens on the site. The city typically doesn't require sidewalks for these types of streets along with the traffic volume of 100 to 200 vehicle trips per day. McMenemy Street is the type of street the city would recommend sidewalks for. When the roadway is redone the city may be installing sidewalks rather than having the developer install sidewalks. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -3- Mr. Brian Bourassa, the applicant, MFRA Engineering, Plymouth, addressed the commission. Mr. Bourassa handed out a new illustration of the changes they did today that were requested from engineering. They eliminated one of the hammer head turn arounds in the southeast corner of the site and added a private drive turn around that meets the requirements that the engineering staff suggested. They are still investigating the potential for another turn around on the northern end of the private street between units 11 and 12. They met with the engineering staff last week and have been able to address many of the comments from engineering and the Metro Watershed District. Commissioner Trippler appreciated the developer going the extra mile to propose moving and replanting the larger trees. He asked what the developer's responsibility is to replace any trees that are planted/replanted on the site if they should die. Mr. Bourassa asked staff if that would be part of the developer's agreement? Mr. Roberts said yes. Mr. Bourassa said they would take care of the concerns regarding the trees. They have hired a professional arborist and depending on the tree species the trees will be transplanted to a non-graded part of the site or balled and burlapped depending on the time of the year and the diameter of the tree. They would enter into an agreement with the city to have a guarantee period for the trees. Commissioner Trippler asked what the height of the retaining walls would be. Mr. Michael Villari, Project Engineer, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412 County Road D East, Little Canada, addressed the commission. Mr. Villari said the retaining walls will be discussed at the CDRB meeting but said they try to keep the retaining wall under four feet in height as much as possible. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant had any concerns regarding the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Villari said they had no concerns. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. Mr. George Rossbach, representing the Historical Commission and residing at 1406 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He knows the Historical Commission doesn't have the power to confirm or deny this proposal but feel it's their duty to speak out regarding the five 100 year old homes on McMenemy Street. The Historical commission have photographed, cataloged, researched, and registered these homes with Maplewood. They would like some identification on the site such as a bronze plaque or something to show a 100 year old home once stood there. Commissioner Trippler asked which 100 year old homes would be affected by this proposal? Mr. Rossbach said 1741, 1750, 1765, 1766, 1768 McMenemy Street. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -4- Commissioner Trippler asked if the HistoriCal Commission recommended that these homes not be displaced with this proposal? Mr. Rossbach said the Historical Commission wasn't notified that this was happening until they found out about it today. The Historical Commission felt they should at least be present to make a statement regarding the displacement of these 100 year old homes. Commissioner Trippler asked if the Historical Commission has cataloged the homes with the history of each home as well as other homes throughout the city. There are five homes in this neighborhood that are going to be affected by this proposal. Commissioner Trippler asked if 1750 or 1766 McMenemy Street had any unique historical value? Mr. Rossbach said nothing other than being 100 years old and cataloged as such in the city. Mr. Rossbach said over the sixteen years he sat on the city council he was famous for a few statements and one of those statements he was known for was "a PUD is a license to steal". He wondered what the need for was for a PUD in this proposal? Mr. Roberts said in his opinion the developer is not stealing with this development. The primary reason for a PUD is for the mix of private and public streets and a mix of setbacks off the private and public streets. In the city code there is not a good definition for detached town homes as far as lot size. If the city had to treat these as single family homes these would have to be 10,000 square feet individual lots. By having a PUD the city can allow for smaller lots with a common area for a townhouse effect. Mr. Rossbach said it ends up with the same effect, it allows the developer to do things the rest of us can't do. Mr. Roberts said yes if the developers ask. Chairperson Fischer said in the past staff has commented for a side by side home if you want common open space for environmental purposes you can't get 10,000 square foot lots and get the environmental features you want. A PUD is the only way the city has done that in the past. Mr. Rossbach said he comes from the generation where a single family home has a 1 acre sized lot. Commissioner Dierich asked if the Historical Commission registered these 100 year old homes with the national historical registry or just locally. Mr. Rossbach said these homes are cataloged and documented only in Maplewood. Commissioner Dierich asked if there had been any discussion regarding moving these homes to another location to save the homes and the historical nature of the homes? Mr. Rossbach said no, they are like everybody else in the city, the Historical Commission has no money and no power and all they can do is make a recommendation to the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -5- Mr. Kai Huot-Link, 1741 McMenemy Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He lives directly across the street from this proposed development in one of the 100 year old homes. He moved to this home 6 years ago and what attracted him to this neighborhood was the character of the 100 year old homes on 1 acre lots. The home at 1740 McMenemy Street was built in 1900 and during the time the other homes were cataloged that home had not passed the 100 year mark but is now 105 years old. It's pretty disturbing to him that this developer wants to change the character of the neighborhood by removing the 100 year old homes and building $300,000 town homes. This is a historical neighborhood and has a sense of place because it has been there a long time. People still think of this house as the Thomalla house. Putting townhomes in this neighborhood only fragments this neighborhood and would change the character. Land is expensive and it's very hard to buy a 1 acre lot these days. Partly because people are willing to pay a lot of money just for the piece of land not for the existing house. The property at 1740 McMenemy sold for $440,000 while the house was only valued at $10,000. He bought his 1 acre property 6 years ago for $113,000. These could be fixer upper starter homes for a younger family. There are no yards in this townhome proposal. This kind of development won't attract people with children. He has four children and they enjoy their yard. His neighbor has four children to the north and the neighbors to the south have two children. There are beautiful gardens in some of these yards and what type of opportunity is there for people to have gardens and space to call their own. The whole discussion regarding density of housing at 3.41 units per acre is confusing. The property at 1766 McMenemy Street has one house that is 100 years old and the developer wants to put 6 units on it which is almost twice the stated average. He doesn't understand that kind of math. He asked the commission to look at the homes on Kingston Avenue and on McMenemy Street, the size and spacing ofthe homes. Then there's this proposal that crams in 28 units in such a small space. It doesn't fit into this neighborhood. He has strong feelings about this project and hopes the planning commission can appreciate that and consider recommending fewer units for this proposal. He asked what the legacy of this development is? Commissioner Grover asked if the developments north of this proposed site have similar densities? Mr. Roberts said there are two different developments in this same area of Maplewood both with similar densities. One is called The Gardens, which is north of this site with 20 units on a private drive and The Overview for 24 units (12 twinhomes) on a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Dierich said staff said that 3.41 units per acre is a low density for R-2 zoning and she asked what the density would be if it had been R-1 zoning? Mr. Roberts said the city has some single family developments at 3.2 units per acre. Commissioner Dierich said the developer could have broken this area up into single family lots for 3.2 units per acre without coming before the planning commission? Mr. Roberts said it would have required a comprehensive plan change. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -6- Ms. Margaret Jodeit, 1714 Edgemont Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She and her husband moved here six years ago. She was here before regarding this proposal when it came before the planning commission and overall she is pleased with the changes the developer has made. She wanted to make sure the emergency access trail would not be named Edgemont Place so there would be no confusion that this is not a normal street for driving on. Mr. Roberts said the city wasn't going to name the trail so there shouldn't be any confusion. Ms. Jodeit said Kingston Court, Kingston Lane and Kingston Avenue are very similar and she is worried this could cause confusion for emergency vehicles trying to locate properties and she wondered if there would be any other street names they could use. Mr. Roberts said staff reviewed that concern with the public safety department and on page 13, item f. the city recommended different street names other than Kingston. Mr. Tom Azzone, 1723 Edgemont Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He spoke a long time at the previous meeting regarding this proposal so he would try to keep this discussion short. He wanted to make sure this is a ten foot wide blacktop trail. He wanted to make sure the land on either side of the trail is being vacated to the neighbors. He wanted to make sure the possible street going through there has been eliminated. He thanked the developer for their common sense they exercised on this plan. Mr. Ahl said the city acknowledges the trail is ten feet wide, the street is being vacated, and that precludes any future public street to be constructed through that corridor. Mr. Larry Jaehnert, 1771 DeSoto Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said this is also his second time to address the planning commission regarding this proposal. He asked if the commission members had a copy of the minutes from the previous time this item was heard? The planning commission responded no. Mr. Jaehnert said he would then briefly discuss what he said the last time. He asked if the developer had their wood lot alteration permit or is that done after the approval is made? Mr. Roberts said a wood lot alteration permit is not required if they have other development applications like this in. The developer would only need a wood lot alteration if he wasn't applying to the city of any other approvals. Mr. Jaehnert said the city code talks about the natural characteristics of neighborhoods and there is quite a bit of code that is written for dealing with those natural characteristics. He read the Maplewood City Code, Section 12-247, which states the purpose of this article is to protect significant natural features which preserve the natural character of neighborhoods. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -7- Mr. Jaehnert said Section 12-249, states a significant natural feature means a significant water body, a large tree, a wood lot, a significant slope or a site of historical or archeological significance that has been recorded with the state. He said there have been changes made to the original plan but the developer still did not address the woodlot which is on the eastern side of the property between 1771 and 1765 McMenemy Street. He hates to see trees removed and the city code bypassed. There has been other development in the area where quite a few trees have been removed as well. Even though there is a tree plan to preserve and move as many trees as possible but what size of tree can be transplanted and still survive. Mr. Roberts said city code states the city can't preclude the development of a property by saying they have to preserve a certain number of trees. The way the city code is written the developer needs to preserve at least 10 trees per acre when the development is done. If they can't do that the developer needs to replace the trees as a 2 to 1 ratio or try to transplant or move them around on the site. That is what the developer proposes to do. They plan to save and or transplant up to 200 trees on the 8.2 acre site which is well above the minimum 82 trees the city would require by city code. The city has not seen the plan for that and that is required before the city can sign off on the final plans. Mr. Jaehnert said he has an enormous oak tree on his property near the development and he would be very appreciative if the developer could do everything they could to save this tree. He doesn't know what the code states to develop or dig on a drip line but the base of the tree is about 9 feet around and he would like this tree be saved at all costs. Mr. Ahl said when the developer prepares and submits their grading plan to the city to review one of the requirements is the developer needs to stake and erect the construction fence outside the drip line so they cannot go underneath the drip line and cut roots. He believes the tree Mr. Jaehnert is referring to is in the northwest corner of the parcel and believes that is a protected area and the developer is nodding his head yes that area is protected. Mr. Ahl will direct his staff to erect the construction fence so there is no grading done in that area. Mr. Jaehnert asked how this development fits in with the long term planning for Maplewood and how it fits in relation to similar developments that are taking place now? The Met Council determined that Maplewood is built up enough to their satisfaction. He wonders what the long term vision for Maplewood is. He is concerned about the amount of density in the area and the public safety because there is no space for people to walk. There are no sidewalks in the area and the more development that occurs in this area causes more public safety concerns. There is no park in the area except for the park on Edgerton Street. He wondered if there would be any other parks built in the area. The area is becoming so dense there is no place for people to go. Mr. Roberts said he is not convinced the Metropolitan Council thinks Maplewood is built out. The Metropolitan Council has been pushing the city to add more units and more density because the city is within the Highway 494 and Highway 694 ring. With the last comprehensive plan update the Met council thought the city had too much commercial and industrial land and they liked areas like Legacy Village so there would be more units within the primary infrastructure of the city. The Metropolitan Council likes developments like this proposal rather than people moving out to areas like Forest Lake. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -8- Mr. Roberts said regarding more parks in the area that question would have to be answered by the Maplewood Parks & Recreation Director, Bruce Anderson. The public safety people that reviewed this plan stated they liked the idea of having trails within the development and also provided comments regarding changing the name of the street. Walking around the area as a whole could be a challenge. Possibly when DeSoto Street is reconstructed sidewalks could be incorporated which could alleviate some of the public safety concerns. Mr. Ahl said sidewalks are something the city struggles with all the time. When the city holds hearings regarding the reconstruction of roads and the subject of sidewalks comes up the city runs into issues with homeowners not wanting sidewalks built on their property. The city takes a firm stand regarding sidewalks. McMenemy Street is a roadway that was turned back from Ramsey County to the City of Maplewood. McMenemy Street doesn't have sidewalks. DeSoto Street and McMenemy Street are funded through gas tax money that the city receives. The legislature proposed a .10 cent gas tax increase which Maplewood would have received significant dollars from that would have paid for features like this, unfortunately that gas tax increase did not occur. The city is struggling with how to reconstruct roads. Funding is always a problem and adding sidewalks is the number one request that people would like added in their neighborhoods. Except for the residents that would have to have sidewalks in their front yards. Commissioner Ahlness said Maplewood is a first tier suburb. One of the biggest challenges is for redevelopment in the city. As a planning commissioner he tries to find out how the city can best see the development that would enhance the city in the long term. The city cannot restrict the developer's economic benefit of the land. The city looks at the best way to enhance the community but not harm the neighborhood. If it would harm the neighborhood the city has to find some specific reasons to disapprove the proposal. Using the reason you don't want this development to move forward because of the loss of trees or you don't want this development in your backyard simply isn't a strong enough reason to deny the proposal. If the city recommended denial of the proposal for those reasons the city attorney would come back to the planning commission and tell them those reasons are not strong enough to deny this proposal. In this case when the developer has a plan to remove and replant as many trees as possible he looks at that as a positive thing and based on the proposal he is in favor of this plan. Commissioner Trippler said as a planning commissioner he looks to see if a development fits into the overall character of the neighborhood. Even though this proposal has a little more density than the area to the south or to the west, it fits into what is being built to the north of this development. Even though the developer says he is going to save as many trees as possible, many times trees still die during construction. He would assume trees die in many construction projects, and sometimes it can't be helped. He appreciates the fact that the developer has listened to the concerns and comments of the neighbors and that the developer is going to relocate as many large trees as possible, which can be very expensive. He would like to see the 100 year old homes stay in the neighborhood too and can appreciate the concerns ofthe neighbors. Unfortunately unless you can write a check outto the developer to buy him out this proposal is going to move forward. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -9- Commissioner Oierich lives in south Maplewood and later tonight the commission will be discussing density and possible development of the southern end of Maplewood. Because she is going to be dealing with a similar situation in her neighborhood she can appreciate the comments and concerns of the neighbors and it's hard to accept and deal with. South Maplewood is going to go through some major development changes in the very near future. There are truly significant natural features in southern Maplewood as opposed to this neighborhood where it's a mixture of trees and older homes. Regarding Maplewood being built to capacity, it's not that the city is already built to capacity; it's that the city has built enough affordable housing for what is required by the Metropolitan Council. The developer took the comments from the planning commissioners and neighbors. The developer has come up with a nice plan that will add to the tax base for Maplewood, it will look very nice in the neighborhood and still add more residents in Ramsey County rather than having them move out to the outer suburbs, which should make the Metropolitan Council happy. The density is not that bad compared to what the developer could have proposed to build on this property. She's disturbed that the historical commission didn't list these 100 year old homes with the national registry or with the state. Her daughter does that for a living and she knows it takes a long time to go through the whole process but it's too late to file now. She would encourage the Historical Commission to initiate the action to record 100 year old homes. The city is trying to get as much open space as possible and having these townhomes allows for community open space in this development. Mr. Jaehnert asked if the trail system within this proposed development is private or can the trail system be opened up so anyone can access the trail system? Mr. Roberts said the trail system from Kingston Street north into the development up to the center cul-de-sac would be public because it would still be on the public right of way and connect to the public street. The trail on the north side of the development, near the church would be private because that would be in the common area of the town homes. Although the city can't encourage people to trespass, he doesn't believe anybody will be there guarding the trails. As far as the trail system, developing a trail network for the neighborhood as a whole would have to be looked at by the city. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Ahl said the Kingston Court public right of way access point and McMenemy Street have a small segment on the south side called outlot A. That is a reserved strip not allowed by the city code. The city would like outlot A dedicated as right of way. Mr. Ahl said he thought that was put in to restrict the property owner because he wouldn't agree to part of that to restrict his access to a public road and the city doesn't allow that in the code. Outlot A will be a dedicated right of way like Kingston Court. Mr. Roberts said that change would be made before this goes to the city council. Mr. Azzone, spoke out of line and away from the podium so his questions was not picked up by the microphone but it was something regarding outlot A and his driveway. Mr. Ahl said the answer to that is no and the city is going to talk to Mr. Azzone and try to convince him to have driveway access onto Kingston Court. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -10- Commissioner Grover asked if any of outlot A would be on Mr. Azzone's property? Mr. Ahl said no. Chairperson Fischer asked if this change was reflected in the conditions or should it be added? Mr. Roberts said he didn't believe this change was reflected in the conditions so it could be added or staff could be responsible for making the change before it goes to the city council. Commissioner Dierich would encourage the city to be very active as a city in looking at the developer's agreement. She is 4 years into her developer's agreement in her neighborhood and they are still having issues not being ab,le to elect a group that leads the development and therefore, things aren't getting done and trees are dying and nothing is being done about it. The city needs take a more active role in making sure that when the city develops a developer's agreement that there is something that can be done in the long term. She asked if the private drives would be plowed by a private contractor or by the city. Mr. Ahl said the public roadway will be plowed by city and the area marked private drive would be plowed as part of the homeowners association. Commissioner Dierich asked who monitors the fencing along the drip line? In the past she has seen orange fencing up around tree drip lines and it doesn't last very long. During the construction of her house construction went through the middle of the drip lines and they were also marked as significant. She asked how often those drip lines are monitored, who monitors them and what fines occur if construction went into the drip line? Mr. Ahl said the Public Works Department is responsible for monitoring that. The Public Works Department had one full time person assigned to monitor those types of things but has since retired from the city. That person has been replaced and a summer engineering intern has been hired to assist in the monitoring of those drip lines. The city recognizes they didn't do a good job in the past. A developer like this has to post bonds and escrows to make sure things occur. Most recently the city did some work that was supposed to be taken care of by a developer and the city billed it back to the property owner and developer. So in the end someone gets the job done. Commissioner Dierich strongly encouraged the neighbors to walk the construction site and call the Public Works department if they notice anything that causes concern. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on page 51 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R- 2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -11- a. It is near a minor arterial street (Larpenteur Avenue) and is on a collector street (McMenemy Street). b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be minimal traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 3. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Approve the resolution on pages 52 and 53 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this property with a mix of single and double dwellings. Approve the resolution on page 54 of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of parts of the Edgemont Street right-of-way, north of Kingston Avenue. The city is vacating this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a public street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the adjacent residents to expand and improve their homes. This vacation is subject to the city retaining the center of the Edgemont Street right-of-way located north of the north right-of-way line of Kingston Avenue for public purposes. Approve the resolution starting on page 55 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlands of Maplewood development on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped June 14, 2005, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -12- 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11, 2005, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodlands of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -13- 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Woodlands of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on June 14, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least seven locations. These shall be as follows: (1) At the intersection of Edgemont Land and Kingston Court (by Lot 8). (2) Near Lot 4 in the middle of the block. (3) At the northeast corner of the site near Lot 1. (4) At the north end of Edgemont Lane near Lot 11. (5) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and Kingston Court (Sophia Avenue). (6) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and the northerly driveway (near Lot 23). (7) Near Lot 28 at the east end of the driveway. The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and regulations. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Laberee dated July 11, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -14- (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary withouttemporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run- off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. c. The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -15- (3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half (2%) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) along the west and south sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the west and south (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 200 trees after the site grading is done. (8) Hold the developer responsible for replacinq anv moved trees that subsequentiallv die within a one vear period. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3) Repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, trails and private driveways. (4) The developer enclosing the ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain- link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within the easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. Planning Commission Minutes of 07 -18-05 -16- (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run- off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. Q. Show Kingston Court as a public street in a 50-foot-wide public right-of-way. Remove outlot A and make this area be part of the public riaht-of-wav. c. label the common areas as outlots. d. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. e. label all the names of all the streets and driveways on all plans and distinguish which are public and which are private. f. Change the street and driveway names as follows: (1) Kingston Court and Kingston lane as Sophia Avenue. (2) The north/south driveway as Edgemont lane. (3) The north private driveway (for Units 23-28) shall have McMenemy Street addresses. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -17- C. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets and private driveways. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005. b. UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION (HERITAGE SQUARE FOURTH ADDITION) (8:28 - 8:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is asking the city to vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement on the site of the future Heritage 4th Addition town house development. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -18- Mr. Roberts said this easement follows the alignment of the previously vacated Lydia Avenue. On April 25, 2005, the Maplewood City Council approved a preliminary plat, parking lot setback variance and the project design plans for the Heritage Square 4th Addition. Commissioner Trippler asked if the easement was located where the trail was supposed to go that would lead to County Road D? Mr. Roberts said because of the easement the trail did not line up so the developer with the plat would be dedicating new easements for utilities and trails that fit the site plan. Mr. Ahl said the city has a development agreement that is in place requiring the dedication of the easement. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jim Kellison, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd., Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the commission. He said this request is pretty straight forward and he didn't have any questions for the commission or of staff. Nobody came forward to speak for the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easement within the site of the Heritage Square 4th Addition town house development that follows the old Lydia Avenue alignment. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The existing easement is not needed for utility or drainage purposes. 3. The approved Heritage Square 4th Addition site plan has a building proposed on top of the easement. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005. c. WALGREENS (WHITE BEAR AND BEAM AVENUES) (8:33 - 9:18 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center, representing Walgreens, are proposing to construct a 14,480-square-foot Walgreens Pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The plan also shows a future three-story office building to be located on the east side of the lot, toward the Maplewood Heights city park. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -19- Mr. Roberts gave background information on this property. On May 28, 2004, the City of Maplewood received complete land use applications from the applicants for a comprehensive land use plan change, zone change, and design review for the proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy and future office building. City staff sent a neighborhood survey notifying all property owners within 500 feet of the property of the proposal. City staff received notice from the underlying property owners that the applicants' lease on the land did not allow the development of a pharmacy and that they were disputing the applicants' request to rezone the property. City staff notified the applicants of this issue and discontinued processing the permit until the applicants were able to obtain the underlying property owners' permission to rezone or a court order which directed the city to proceed. On May 12, 2005, the city received a court order which directed the city to proceed with the rezoning request as proposed by the applicants. Commissioner Trippler asked under the LBC zoning are there any height limitations or the number of stories for an office building? Mr. Roberts said there are no height limitations on any of the commercial districts in Maplewood. Any commercial building site next to residential has to have increased setbacks to provide a larger buffer. If the developer of the office bui!lding can make the parking work it could be a tall office building. Commissioner Trippler said earlier today he spoke with Mr. Roberts regarding the proposed expansion of White Bear Avenue changing to 6 lanes in 2008 and he asked if there would be a need for additional easements because of that expansion. He asked if that would adversely affect the parking that is being proposed for this development? Mr. Roberts said he spoke with Ms. Finwall about that and Ms. Finwall made the developer aware of that. Ms. Finwall was confident that can be worked out but the city has not seen any detailed plans yet. Commissioner Trippler said a resident at 2965 Frederick Parkway wrote into the city that everything in this area was single story. The site plan in the staff report states the Walgreens building would be a one story building but it appears to look like a two-story building, no matter what you call it; it is definitely taller than a single story. Mr. Roberts said it's a tall one story building with a false fac;:ade that gives more of an architectural look. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Matthew Regan, Meer Construction, 11800 - 95th Avenue North, Maple Grove, addressed the commission. He said this project has been a long time coming. When Meer Construction filed for the rezoning Ms. Finwall suggested moving the rezoning to the western 290 feet. This is consistent with the spirit of what they wanted there to have an office building on the east and a retail building on the west, so they think this is a very good plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -20- Mr. Regan said Meer Construction just received the report from Erin Laberee and Shann Finwall regarding the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue and the additional easement needs. The report provided by the Ramsey County Public Works Officer along with a rough sketch from an engineering firm showed the 10 feet that would be required for the easement. He has a copy of what the parking lot would look like with the additional 1 0 feet that would be required. Staff did a very good job reporting on this proposal. Chairperson Fischer opened up the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Gerry Gallagher, representing Mogren Landscaping, LLP, addressed the commission. Mogren Landscaping, LLP, is the owner of the parcel in question. He distributed documents to be referred to for the record during his discussion. This parcel has been contested in the past and Mogren Landscaping, LLP, is the fee owner of the parcel in question and oppose the proposed rezoning for four reasons. First, Mogren Landscaping, LLP, disputes Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP's, right to develop the property as it proposed. Secondly, Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, by itself lacks the legal standing to petition and for that reason the City of Maplewood lacks the jurisdiction to grant it. Thirdly, Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, as lessee has no capacity at law to agree to certain development conditions which would constitute a taking if allowed to go forward. Fourth, the staff report contains some fatal errors. The litigation between Mogren Landscaping, LLP, and Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, concerning the underlying right to do this, is not over. There has been a partial summary judgment in the case running in favor of Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, but currently there is a request for review of this decision and that request is pending and alive. Other issues in that same case await a full trial, it is not over, and the case is pending. Further, even if the trial result is less than favorable to Mogren Landscaping, LLP, an appeal is likely. The city and state ordinance requires that all owners must consent or join in the application. The first document he handed out is a section from the Maplewood City Code. He referred to Sec. 44-1161. Initiation generally refers to property owners, plural have to join in the application. It is true that a lessee with a long ground lease duration such as this one, which is for 99 years and they are into it 33 years is deemed to be an owner. But they are not the only owner, the fee owner is Mogren Landscaping, LLP, and they do not consent to this. The requirement to have all the owners' consent and the city lacks the power to do this. That particular point is discussed in the case 2600 University Inn LLC verses the City of Minneapolis reported at 556 Northwest Second 218 which is the Minnesota Appellate court case from 1996. Mr. Gallagher said today, July 18, 2005, a lawsuit involving Mogren Landscaping, LLP, against the City of Maplewood for injunctive relief in this matter was heard by the Ramsey County courts by the Honorable M. Michael Mohanan, District Court Judge. Judge Monahan states in the handout given to commissioners and staff on page 4 that "Assuming a long-term lessee can be an "owner" at common law for some purpose, nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how the City came to the conclusion that it could consider a rezoning petition filed by one of two disagreeing "owners" given the wording of its ordinance. But, this initial puzzlement is not the point. The controlling point is that it is not part of the judicial function to render advisory opinions. The City has not acted yet. I am not ready to assume that it will act in an unlawful manner. This motion is not timely. Addressing the technical question, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm. Having to participate in a "political" process is simply not a type of "harm". Participating in the political process is the essence of a civil society." Planning Commission Minutes of 07 -18-05 -21- Mr. Gallagher said obviously the order in the memorandum speaks for itself but it seems clear that the court is warning the City of Maplewood that although it hasn't acted yet if they do it is very possible it would be deemed an illegal act and subject to an injunctive relief. That has yet to be determined and it is not right as the court pointed out and the motion was denied because it wasn't timely. If it does become an issue they are going back to court. Commissioner Ahlness asked what harm is Mogren Landscaping, LLP, going to incur and why don't they want this to happen? The planning commission is not qualified to make any legal determinations for this proposal. Mr. Gallagher said he doesn't want this to become a legal hearing on these merits. Mogren Landscaping, LLP, hasn't shared with him why they don't want it done. You can't bulldoze this decision through without the fee owner approving it. This is real estate and by definition would be irreparable harm because you can't turn things back. Commissioner Ahlness said apparently Mogren Landscaping, LLP, didn't convince the judge those reasons were good enough because the judge stated "the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm." Mr. Gallagher said his judgment is because the City of Maplewood hasn't decided to do it yet. It is not timely. When the point and time comes where it isn't and a decision is made, arguably the harm would then be vested. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Gallagher's points are all well taken but this doesn't help the planning commission. The city is bound by the 60 day rule and city staff was directed by the city attorney this afternoon that the city has to process this application. The final decision is not made by the planning commission, it is made by the city council. All this testimony is much better heard by the city council when they get to make the final decision and the attorneys have more time to talk. He would disagree with Mr. Gallagher's point about the city code, the amendment to the zoning map may be initiated by city council, planning commission, city staff or by petition of the affected property owners. The city can rezone property if they want to whether the property owner likes it or not. The property owner may not like it and they may sue the city, but the city has done it. The city likes to resolve things and work with people and not end up in court. But to say just because the property doesn't want a zoning change doesn't mean the city isn't going to do it is not true either. The most important point is there is a lot of legal stuff going on and some of it was just heard today. Mogren Landscaping, LLP, says don't do it and Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, says keep going ahead with the action and the city attorney says the city is bound by the 60 day rule. If it turns out this was a mistake, which is something the city council and the attorneys will have to answer to, but at this point staff would recommend the planning commission proceed and make an action for or against this proposal. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was any history of stopping the clock before the 60 days rule for legal actions? Mr. Roberts said he's sure it has been done but the order today doesn't say that and unless it states the city should not proceed because of a judge's order that would be fine. The city staff has not received that yet. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -22- Commissioner Ahlness said he is still wondering what the concerns are for Mogren Landscaping, LLP. Anything legal is not the planning commission's role so all the legal jargon is not for the planning commission to review and the city attorney is not here to assist the planning commission and is not proper. Commissioner Dierich said on page 4, under C. Discussion it states "Plaintiff's motion to enjoin the City's rezoning process". She would submit that is illegal to stop the city to stop their business on rezoning or not rezoning. The judge is correct in not allowing this motion to go forward but that 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 the city council. Then let legal counsel fit it out in the courts if indeed that is where it ends up. Commissioner Trippler asked if Mogren Landscaping, LLP, owns the property why doesn't Mogren stop proceeding with the development with Walgreen's. If he owns the property doesn't he decide who can build on the property? Mr. Gallagher said Mogren Landscaping, LLP, owns the property but its leased to the applicant Maplewood Financial, LLP, over 30 years ago so they control the property under the lease. Commissioner Trippler said then Mogren Landscaping, LLP, gave up their right. Mr. Gallagher said that is another legal issue and he doesn't put that before this body of commission members. Commissioner Trippler said now he understands the situation better. Mr. Gallagher said it's not his intention to plead a case here and he understands the planning commission is charged with making recommendations and he wanted on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, LLP, to be aware of some of the situations here. This is just some of the history. Commissioner Dierich said unless Mogren Landscaping, LLP, states the reason they don't want this done this just isn't not enough of a reason for the planning commission to understand the opposition to the rezoning or why they don't want this Walgreen's proposal built here. The planning commission wished they could hear the real reasoning behind this request to be rezoned and have a Walgreen's on this property. Mr. Gallagher said just to point out this is a partnership. He wanted to point out that there is an error in the staff report on page 2, it states May 12,2005: The City of Maplewood received a court order which directed the city to proceed with the rezoning request as proposed by the applicants. That is not true. In the third document that he handed out was the actual order that was issued and had nothing to do with rezoning. Commissioner Pearson said there is no information on what the long term lease conditions were with the Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP. Mr. Gallagher said that would be embodied in the lease itself and he didn't think the planning commission would have an interest in reviewing leases. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -23- Commissioner Pearson said the question comes up because of the legal information that was handed out by Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher said he understood. Chairperson Fischer opened up the public hearing. Mr. Regan said their legal counsel is present this evening if the planning commission has any questions for them. Mr. Don Regan, Partner of Maplewood Financial Center, and Chair of Premier Bank, addressed the commission. He asked if Mr. Gallagher could offer the same handouts that were offered to the planning commission so they can respond to it? He asked if they could take a 10 minute recess so they could review the documents and have a chance to respond to them? He doesn't want to rehash old wounds and good friends who are now deceased. He doesn't want to embarrass anyone in the process or do anything improper but he would like to have a few minutes to review the documents. Commissioner Ahlness offered his handouts to Mr. Regan. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if taking a 10 minute recess is allowed during a public hearing? Mr. Roberts said that was up to the planning commission members. Commissioner Trippler did not want to take a recess and was ready to make a recommendation. Commissioner Ahlness said he thought he made himself clear before those legal arguments are outside the realm of what the planning commission reviews here. Based on the merits of the project and the staff report and how it relates to zoning and planning he does not see where the legal argument would serve a purpose in advance his decision making on this. In all due respect, he thinks the commission has to make a decision here unless there is other public members that want to come forward on this subject matter. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody disagreed with Commissioner Ahlness' comment? Commissioner Grover agreed and said while the legal issues are very great in this case they don't cloud his perspective on the zoning application moving forward. Mr. Regan asked if the commission was going to take a recess? Chairperson Fischer said no. Mr. Regan said since there would not be a recess he wanted to continue with his comments. A little bit of history might be appropriate regarding this situation for the planning commission. This has gone on now for 33 years. Mr. Regan said he applied for a bank charter at the corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue in 1972. In those days, unlike now when you could get a bank charter if you have money without much problem, in those days it was extremely difficult to put up a bank charter. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -24- Mr. Regan said he went to his good friend Jerry Mogren and asked him about the property at the northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue. They agreed on a selling price, it was zoned as LBC (Limited Business Commercial) as it is today. As he understood it at that time, Jerry and Bob Mogren (both of whom are now deceased) were the owners of the property. When he went to close on the property Mogren Landscaping had a third partner named Richard Schreier. Even though the Mogrens were the majority owners of the partnership they couldn't get their partner Mr. Schreier to agree to sell the property but Mr. Schreier would agree to lease the property. Mr. Regan said he was between a rock and a hard place because he would not have been allowed a bank charter had he looked elsewhere for a site. He told Jerry and Bob Mogren they couldn't do this and the Mogren's responded that they have no alternative and that's the way it's going to be. Very reluctantly Mr. Regan proceeded with the lease. As time went on Mr. Regan got a very bad vi be from Mr. Schreier and had negative responses to anything that would happen. Mr. Regan said he was able to get the fee ownership for the property across the street and he moved his bank charter with the approval of the Minnesota Commerce Commission. At the time he signed this lease all three parties wanted Mr. Regan to take all the LBC property which includes the strip center to the north. He said he would have all he could handle with the 120,000 square feet building, so he declined. A few years later Mr. Schreier came to Mr. Regan and asked him to support his request to change the LBC zoning to BC (Business Commercial) where the strip center now stands. Mr. Regan did not contest the request for BC zoning and that is where the strip center is now. That left his site with what would be known as a spot zoning situation. They were the only party in that location with LBC zoning. Since then Mr. Regan has paid the lease and the real estate taxes and has about 1 million dollars tied up in this. They are 33 years into a 99 year lease and every condition has been complied with. They have tried to be reasonable, fair and a good neighbor. They have been paying the real estate taxes on the western driveway on Beam Avenue. The courts have decided that his position has prevailed and that is why they are here today, 33 years later. He believes this request should go forward and thinks they will prevail over Mogren Landscaping, LLP, and Richard Schreier. Mr. Gallagher said he objects to a fee owner trying to safeguard his rights and characterizes this as intimidation. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Oierich moved to adopt the land use plan change resolution attachment 19 in the staff report. This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan map for the west 290 feet of the vacant property located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenue from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because it will: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. c. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. d. Minimize the land planned for streets. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -25- e. Minimize conflicts between land uses. f. Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets are not available. g. Help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan including: 1) The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 2) Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. 3) Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. 4) Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made natural barriers. 5) The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. 6) Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. 7) Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. 8) Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. Adopt the zoning map change resolution on attachment 20 in the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for the west 290 feet of the vacant property on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -26- This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005. VI. NEW BUSINESS LAND USE AND DENSITY REVIEW - EAW STUDY AREA (9:18 -10:00 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said on May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed the preliminary concept plan for the proposed Copar Companies development on the Schlomka property and authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the development. As a part of the city council's review, it was discussed that the EAW analysis also should consider the future possible development of the properly east of 1-494 in the area. Staff believes this is important since this future development may impact the city infrastructure (sewer, water) required for the Copar development. City staff and the consultant selected for the EAW (Kimley-Horn & Associates) are now requesting input from the planning commission on possible land uses and densities for the properties east of 1-494. Staff and the city's consultant will use these land use designations in the EAW analysis. Staff would like the planning commission to provide direction as to the proposed land use and zoning assumptions for the area south of Carver Avenue and east of 1-494. Staff will then use these land use assumptions for preparing the EAW for the area. Commissioner Ahlness asked what dollar amount is the city thinking about for this land per acre? The reason he asked is because if for example the land would cost $500,000 per acre then he knows what kind of development could be built there. Chances are single family homes couldn't be built because it would be too costly. Mr. Roberts said the big factor regarding the price is would sewer and water be available here? Developers would buy the land one way if there was sewer and water and the developers would pay a lot less if there isn't going to be sewer and water. He has heard if sewer and water is available the land could sell for $100,000 to $150,000 per acre for raw land. Staff needs input regarding the density the commission would like to see. He asked if the commissioners could see medium density in this area. Chairperson Fischer asked if city staff could foresee any reason that sewer and water services could not be provided because of the topography and length of extensions? Mr. Ahl said staff foresees having sewer and water some day. Currently the city is looking at extending sewer and water services underneath Highway 494 from the west side to the east side so that a future extension could be made. Commissioner Trippler thought he remembered the city did a sewer study for this area and that because of all of the lift stations that were required, economically sewer and water services would be too expensive and wouldn't be possible. Mr. Ahl said the sewer study was done about two years ago and they determined that because of the lift stations needed it would take 20 years before there would be sewer and water in the area. But because of the pressure to develop this area the city needs to be prepared for the potential amount of density that could be built in this area. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -27- Commissioner Trippler said he spoke to Mr. Roberts on the phone about this and he feels very uncomfortable making any decisions that would give anyone the slightest hope they could have R-3 density. He would like to see this part of south Maplewood retain the open space character and he would like to see R-1 zoning as the highest zoning in this area. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't see how highway 494 could be conducive to allowing runoff from one area to another. Traffic is a huge issue and unless the city has the right of way for Henry Lane or Sterling Street to go four lanes wide she doesn't see how the city could let more development other than R-1 zoning solely because of the traffic. Because of the watershed district and the easements that run across the properties back there she doesn't think you could develop a whole lot at this point, especially along Carver Avenue. Sterling Street isn't regulation wide and it has a deep drop on either side of the street. She asked why Baileys Nursery wasn't included in this study? She asked who was paying for the EAW study? Mr. Ahl said the funding for the EAW study costs $35,000 and CoPar, the developer, is paying $25,000, the city, through the utility fund, is paying the other $1 0,000 to update the utility plans for the area. The city excluded Baileys Nursery from the study for sewer, drainage and roadway reasons and is outside the scope. This is something that would have to be coordinated through Woodbury. When the property for Bailey's Nursery develops that would have to have its own EAW study. Commissioner Dierich asked why the property owners along Carver Avenue were not included in the study? Mr. Ahl said those areas could be added into the study and the city is looking for direction from the planning commission for densities in the area for traffic and utility reasons. Commissioner Pearson said it doesn't show on the maps what the zoning for these homes is currently. Mr. Roberts said Commissioner Pearson is correct and that should have been included in the staff report. From 1491 Sterling Street and south, the zoning was changed to R-1 (R) because the city did not think the sewer and water would happen anytime in the near future. Commissioner Pearson said to continue to fit in with the area he would recommend R-1(R) zoning. Mr. Roberts said two years ago staff thought that too. The question is, does the planning commission feel comfortable with that. Commissioner Pearson said while talking to some of those homeowners a few years ago the highway noise was so loud you couldn't carry on a conversation unless you walked around to the front of their house. This area is going to be right on top of the highway and it doesn't make any sense to build so close to the freeway noise. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city would put the sewer and water in all at once or would the city do it in stages? How far up would the city go with extending the sewer and water? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -28- Mr. Ahl said the sewer and water would be done for the whole area so they can do it one time and do it right the first time. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city planned to widen roads and what does that do to the property owners that can't afford the assessments? Mr. Ahl said this process would identify some general traffic volumes with Sterling Street. The plan the city is going to be working on should guide the city overthe next 20 years to 30 years. In 30 years Sterling Street would be upgraded. The way the city finances roads by assessing property owners. If someone can't afford the assessments the city does grant deferments for people that have hardships. If a property owner can't afford the assessment sometimes it forces people to sell their property in order to payoff the assessments. Commissioner Dierich asked if the property owner is assessed, by frontage or land size? Mr. Ahl said the city currently assesses roadways per unit size or by lot and not by frontage. Chairperson Fischer opened the discussion to the public. Nobody came forward to speak. Commissioner Grover said it may be appropriate to have some degree of flexibility here. Some areas could be R-1 zoning and some sections closer to the highway could be a higher density just to give greater access. Commissioner Trippler said once you put the sewer pipe in and you size it for a condominium that is the sewer size you get. If you construct the sewer pipe based on single family homes than you have limited the development options. Personally he would prefer R-1 zoning. Commissioner Pearson said he would prefer R-1 (R) zoning. Chairperson Fischer said she comes from the time where the average property size is one acre. Depending on what the acre will cost will depend on the size of the lots for sale. Commissioner Dierich asked if we could hear from the consultant from Kimley-Horn Associates. Mr. Jon Horn of Kimley-Horn Associates, addressed the commission. They felt it was very important to consider vacant property on the east side of Highway 494 as part of the analysis for CoPar development while going through this process. As engineers they like to be conservative and in the discussion with staff they arrived at assuming 6 units per acre. Commissioner Dierich asked what total amount of area they are looking at developing? Mr. Horn said they are looking at about 60 acres and if it is 6 units per acre they would be looking at about 360 units. Commissioner Dierich said if you looked all the way up to the Woodbury border it would about 900 units. That is a lot of houses that the city would have to plan for. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -29- Commissioner Trippler said he realizes this is just a planning process but he can almost guarantee it if the city goes through the process of looking at a higher density in 1 or more years a developer will come back and say the city was looking at this as R-3(M) density so they must have been thinking about R-3(M) density. He wants it made clear that he would recommend no more than R-1 or R-1 (R) density. Chairperson Fischer said she would agree with the engineer's estimate of 6 units per acre. What the city thinks is the best plan isn't necessarily what ends up happening. Commissioner Trippler said if the city has a vision then that is what the city needs to do and hold on to that. If a developer comes in and asks for R-3(M) density the city can say no to the developer and have them go back to the drawing board for less density. Chairperson Fischer said she is uncomfortable with keeping the R-1 (R) zoning. Commissioner Dierich said if the zoning changes to R-1 (R) zoning people would probably subdivide the lots. She prefers R-1 zoning and that is the highest density she would be happy with. Commissioner Ahlness said he likes the R-1 zoning. Chairperson Fischer said regarding the freeway noise, does the UBC building code require higher standards when building close to the freeway? Mr. Ahl said part of the reason the city is requiring the EAW study to be done is because of the noise levels in the area by the freeway. The study that was done in the Legacy Village area showed there were some areas that exceeded the noise level. The UBC code requires the home cannot have a deck facing the noise level, they must have a higher class of window and insulation in the home, the home has to have air conditioning and if there is going to be a play area the area must be screened to help with the noise level. These standards hold true whether it is for single family homes or for multiple housing. Commissioner Trippler asked the chair to ask each commissioner what zoning they would prefer. Chairperson Fischer individually asked their zoning preference. Commissioner Grover: R-1 zoning Commissioner Dierich: R-1 zoning but is not opposed to attached town homes as long as the density would be similar to the density in the R-1 zoning. Commissioner Trippler: R-1 zoning Commissioner Pearson: R-1(R) zoning but would be okay with R-1 zoning. Chairperson Fischer: R-2 zoning but would keep options open. Commissioner Kaczrowski: R-1 zoning or R-2 zoning okay to include townhomes. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -30- Commissioner Ahlness: R-1 zoning or R-2 zoning okay to include townhomes. Mr. Horn said the schedule for the EAW study is to bring the document to the planning commission on September 6, 2005, then bring it back with comments received by the planning commission on October 17, 2005, and to the city council on November 14, 2005. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Yarwood was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the July 11, 2005, city council meeting but was unable to attend. Mr. Roberts reported the Lot Width and Setback Variances at 1774 McMenemy Street was passed by the city council, the Lark Avenue Right of Way vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets was passed by the city council, and the Richie/Anondson four-plexes at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East for the Land Use Plan Change and the Zoning Map Change was passed by the city council with some conditions. b. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the July 25, 2005, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat (Hoyt Avenue, east of McKnight Road). c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commisision representative at the August 8,2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Woodlands of Maplewood (McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue) for the Land Use plan Change, Zoning Map Change, Street right-of-way vacation, CUP and Preliminary Plat. Utility Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition), and the Walgreens Pharmacy Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Update Mr. Roberts said the annual city tour is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at city hall on Thursday, July 28, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -31- b. Gladstone Update Mr. Ahl gave an update regarding the Gladstone area. The next public meeting is scheduled for August 11, 2005, at the Maplewood Community Center. More information regarding the Gladstone area and the meeting dates is available on the City of Maplewood's website. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Best Buy 1845 County Road D July 27,2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Tim Palmquist, representing Best Buy, is proposing to construct a new 45,243 square foot store at 1845 County Road D (Town Center shopping center). The proposal includes the demolition of the existing Frank's Nursery store within the center and relocation of Best Buy's current store into the new building. Requests To construct the new store, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. Building Setback Variance: Commercial buildings within the Business Commercial (BC) zoning district require a 30-foot setback to the right-of-way. The new building is proposed with a 25-foot setback to the County Road D right- of-way, which will require a 5-foot building setback variance. 2. Parking Count Variance: City code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of retail space. Town Center shopping center, including the new Best Buy store, requires 553 parking spaces. Upon completion of the new Best Buy store, the overall parking count on the property will be 522. This requires a variance to have 31 fewer parking spaces than code requires. 3. Design review. The planning commission should review and make a recommendation on the variances at the July 27, 2005 meeting. The community design review board will review and make a recommendation on the design elements at their August 9, 2005 meeting. Final action by the city council is currently scheduled for August 22, 2005. DISCUSSION Best Buy Relocation The Town Center shopping center consists of nine businesses including Best Buy, former Frank's Nursery, Pannekoeken Restaurant, and various smaller retail stores. The existing 43,203-square-foot Frank's Nursery store has been vacant for over a year. Best Buy proposes to demolish this portion of the shopping center and construct a 45,243-square-foot freestanding building on the west end of the shopping center to relocate their existing store. There are no specific plans for the existing Best Buy portion of the shopping center at this time, but it could be leased to another retail use or subdivided for smaller retail uses. Curb Cuts There are three existing curb cuts on County Road D into the shopping center. With the reconstruction of County Road D in 2009, a traffic signal will be constructed at the intersection of Southlawn Drive and County R.oad D. Because of the traffic signal, Best Buy is proposing the major access point for the new store to be at this intersection. This will reduce the number of curb end to the site to from three to two, one on the east and one on the west side of the property. Building Orientation The location of the future traffic signal at the intersection of South lawn Drive and County Road D required Best Buy to locate their new building as far west as possible to ensure a drive aisle could be located in front of the building. Best Buy also discussed the possibility of constructing the building in the center of the site, at the approximate location of the existing Frank's Nursery. The discussion included two options, constructing the building with the front facing west, with parking for the store on the west side of the building or constructing the building with the front facing south, with parking for the store on the south and west side of the building. Neither of these options was found to be viable. First, the property managers did not approve of the construction of the building with the front facing west as this design would turn the Best Buy store's back toward the rest of the shopping center. Second, Best Buy determined that constructing the building with the front facing the south would not allow for adequate parking in front of their store, which would be a similar parking situation to their existing building. As such, they found that the proposed plan was the best option to meet their needs. Building Setbacks City code requires setbacks for this building to be 30 feet to both right-of-ways (County Road D and 1-694) with no specified setbacks to the west side property line (toward Slumberland). The new building will maintain a 30-foot setback to 1-694, a 25-foot setback to County Road D, and a 10-foot setback to the west side property line. A 5-foot building setback variance is required to construct the building within 25 feet of the County Road D right-of-way. This site is difficult for a "large" store such as Best Buy to redevelop because of the narrow shape of the lot. Shifting the building to face south would preclude the need for a variance, but would also create an inferior parking situation as discussed earlier. Five feet is a minimal variance request, and as such, staff finds that Best Buy could reduce the need for a variance altogether by reducing five feet from the length of the building. This is particularly warranted with such a large store. The reduction of five feet to the length of the building would reduce the store's square footage by 950 square feet, for a total of 44,293 square feet instead of 45,243. It should be noted that the city council approved the construction of the Ashley Furniture store across the street with a 15-foot setback to the County Road D right-of-way. This building was approved as part of the overall planned unit development of Legacy Village, which was envisioned as a more pedestrian-friendly development with reduced setbacks. The new Best Buy building is located within the business commercial zoning district and is adjacent to buildings with increased setbacks to the road including 2 Slumberland and the existing Town Center shopping center that maintains an 80-foot and a 108-foot setback to County Road D, respectively. Because of this and the fact that the five-foot reduction to the length of the building would only reduce the overall square footage minimally, staff finds there is no true hardship for the setback variance and recommends denial. Parking Lot Initially city staff determined that a parking lot setback and parking space width variance would be required for this development. However, upon further review it has been determined these variances are not required for the following reason: Within the business commercial zoning district city code requires a parking lot to maintain a 15-foot-setback to a right-of-way and parking spaces for a retail use to maintain 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 parking spaces are 9 feet wide and 18 feet long. The city code allows the expansion of a nonconforming parking lot such as this as long as the parking lot does not exceed the existing setbacks or dimensions. With the expansion of the parking lot, Best Buy proposes to maintain the existing setbacks and dimensions and therefore can be accomplished without the need for a variance. Amount of Parking City code requires five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. There are currently 487 parking spaces located on the property, for an overall parking ratio of 4.48 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. With the redevelopment of the site city code would require 553 parking spaces. After completion, Best Buy and the property owner proposes to have a total of 522 parking spaces, for an overall parking ratio of 4.72 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. Therefore a parking count variance of 31 parking spaces is required. The appiicant states that the redevelopment of the site will improve the parking situation overall, both in number and in location. In addition, there is ample opportunity for shared parking throughout the shopping center with various uses operating at varying times of the day. It should also be noted that reducing the square footage of the building by 950 square feet as discussed earlier would reduce the parking count variance from 31 to 26. For these reasons, staff supports the parking count variance. Design Review The community design review board will review all design elements of the project including site plan, building elevations, landscaping, lighting, etc. During this review staff will propose changes to the site plan as specified by the city's engineering department (Attachment 10). These changes include the applicant dedicating a pedestrian and utility easement to accommodate the future roadway expansion and the construction of a 6-foot-wide sidewalk within the easement along the property's entire length of County Road D. In addition, staff will comment on other areas of the project that need improvement or addressing including building elevations, comprehensive sign plan, landscaping, and lighting. 3 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 20 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Only one property owner responded as follows: William A. Hinks, CEO, Ashley Home Stores: We are very excited about the prospect of Best Buy building a new store in the old Frank's Nursery space. A new store in that space brings more customers and dollars into the Mapiewood marketing area. We are 100 percent in favor of the proposal. OTHER COMMENTS Engineering Department: Chuck Vermeersch, civil engineer, reviewed the applicant's request and outlines his comments in the attached engineering report dated July 27, 2005 (Attachment 10). Building Department: Dave Fisher, Building Official, reviewed the applicant's request and outlines his comments in the attached memorandum dated July 1, 2005 (Attachment 11). Fire Department: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, reviewed the applicant's request and outlines his comments in the attached memorandum dated July 15, 2005 (Attachment 12). Police Department: Lt. Kevin Rabbett reviewed the applicant's request and outlines his comments in the attached memorandum dated July 1, 2005 (Attachment 13). RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny Best Buy's request for a 5-foot building setback variance which would allow Best Buy to construct their new store at 1845 County Road D with a 25-foot setback to the County Road D right-of-way. The city bases this denial on the following reasons: a. There is no hardship to warrant the variance. b. The reduction of five feet from the length of the building would reduce the overall size of the building minimally, and reduce the need for the variance. c. The new Best Buy building will be adjacent to buildings with increased setbacks from the road including Slumberland and the existing Town Center shopping center which maintains an 80-foot and a 108-foot setback to County Road D, respectively. 2. Adopt the parking count reduction variance resolution attached (Attachment 14). This resolution approves a 31 parking space variance for the Town Center shopping center located at 1845 County Road D in conjunction with the construction of a new Best Buystore on the property. This variance is based on the following findings: 4 a. The redevelopment of the Best Buy building will improve the existing parking ratio from 4.48 to 4.72 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. b. There is ample opportunity for shared parking throughout the shopping center with various uses operating at varying times of the day. c. Approval of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the shared parking opportunities. This variance is approved with the following conditions: a. The applicant shall dedicate 12 feet of pedestrian and utility easement along County Road D to allow for future improvements. County Road D is scheduled in the city's CIP for reconstruction and widening in approximately 2009. b. Best Buy shall provide the city with an approved letter of credit to assure the city of Best Buy's contribution to the cost of the signal system construction at the intersection of Southlawn Drive and County Road D. It is estimated that Best Buy's share will be approximately $31,250 (50% of $62,500). The letter of credit shall remain in effect until the City Council authorizes and/or levies the final assessments and financing plan for the signal improvements, but no later than December 31, 2009. 5 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.76 Acres Existing Use: Multi-Tenant Retail Center SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: 1-694 County Road D and the new Ashley Furniture store across the street Aamco Automobile Service Center Slumberland Furniture Store PLANNING Land Use Designation: Business Commercial (BC) Zoning: Business Commercial (BC) Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasolnable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and a variance if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 5, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by September 3, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:\com-devlsec34-30\best buy\8-1-05 PC report Attachments: 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Land Use Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Existing Conditions Survey 6. Demoiition Plan 7. Site Pian 8. Landscape Plan 9. Exterior Elevations 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Engineering Report Building Department Memorandum Fire Department Memorandum Police Department Memorandum Variance Resolution 6 Attachment 1 June 14, 2005 Ms. Shann FinwaU Maplewood Community Design Review Board City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Best Buy Store Maplewood, MN Ms. Finwall, Best Buy Company, Inc. currently has a 39,900 +/- s.f. store at 1885 County Road D. Best Buy proposes to demolish the existing 43,203 s.f. Frank's Nursery at the west end of the existing strip center. In its place, we plan a new freestanding 45,243 s.f. Best Buy store. The new store will face east and our parking field will be located between the new store and the remaining strip center. In order to accomplish the new design, we request the following variances: 1. Front Yard Building Setback. Because we have an exposure on both 1-694 and County Road D, we have two front yards. The front yard setback is 30'. We request a reduction to 25'-0" along County Road D. 2. Front yard parking setback: Again, we have two front yards. City ordinance requires 15' setbacks in the front yard, 5' on the side and rear. The existing parking is 15'-11' from County Road D and 6'-6" from 1-694. We propose to maintain these distances. We are eliminating 16 stalls along County Road 0, but only adding 5 stalls along 1-694. 3. Parking Stall Size. City standard stall size is 10' x 18' with a 24' drive aisle. We request to use a 9' x 18' with a 24' drive aisle. This appears to match what is existing on site. 4. Parking Reduction. City standards require a 5/1,000 parking ratio. Per my calculations, the existing strip center is 57 stalls short of this. Building Area: Existing Franks Existing Strip Center Total Building: 43,203 s.f. 65.403 s.f. 108,606 s.f. B ~ WCL ASSOCIATES, INC. Architecture Interiors m ~ 1433 Utica Avenue South, Suite 162 Minneapolis. MN 55416 Phone: (952) 541-9969 Fax: (952) 541-9554 Parking: Existing Franks Existing Strip Center Total Parking: 205 cars (4.75/1,000) 282 cars (4.31/1.000) 487 cars (4.48/1,000) Proposed Building Area: New Best Buy 45,243 s.f. Existing Strip Center Total Building: 65.403 sJ. ' 110,646 sJ. Proposed Parking: New Best Buy Existing Strip Center Total Parking: 226 cars (5.11,000) 296 cars (4.5.11.000) 522 cars (4.72/1,000) As you can see, we have improved the situation from 4.48/1,000 to 4.7211,000, overall. Of course, patrons are free to park anywhere on the site. We have been working with city staff (planning and engineering) on these issues. City staff has also informed us of the widening of County Road D and the installation of a signal at County Road D and South lawn Drive. They seem to be comfortable with the current proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Paul D. Anderson, AlA WCL Associates, Inc. Attachment 2 Best Buy 1845 Co. Rd. D Land Use Legend N W+E _ Limited Business Commercial _ Business Commercial Small Lot Single Dwelling Resi Single Dwelling Residential _ Double Dwelling Residential High Multiple - Dwelling Residential _ Park _ Church s Land Use Map Attachment 3 Best Buy 1845 Co. Rd. 0 I I IlrF Zoning Legend N W+E _ Limited Business Commercial _ Business Commercial Small Lot Single Dwelling Resi Single Dwelling Residential _ Double Dwelling Residential _ Planned Unit Development Park _ Shopping Center s Zoning Map Attachment 4 Best Buy 1845 County Road D ~ I~an lfCJ o 0'0 o 0 o c:::J o M plewcilod M II -===- 0 '[fQ \ CJ 0 \7 '" N W E s Location Map I: ilii!lIll-illi! : ., l,i11j""ilidj, +- '-:;H ~ - I. id ft., I !,I -I', ,- '---'j '. I Iii f~j. i~a ~ If ~ I! ,1;1 d~i II~ ,'~!,;;I h itl I ;1 i In !I'! h ;' 8 III' i! " '<;;c' .l II .l C:z 1 " ~~ !I ~'" 'I ~o , ' I : illllf~ I ,n~ I a~!' i--ll ;. -u~~r~\ I !I ~li'lll I ...... i I ~I I Pi] r ']'~~,~: I:li irU!i'l~. !;iilll,II~llliiiiriijl;iFii l~ IW' - 1i illil.'lIr~ , ~I ~ dl! iq ~ n'l ~ I Ii' iii, 1'1' II .. 11-:1' '~o!! ~ ,!lmll ~,,~ ; if!l '._ i' ,__________________________..__ ____n_________________ ______________________________________________.________.___ _.. _. .__ ___________________________________________________________________________. Illl.l! I.!! llil! f.!I!I.' I 1",,!WI""W"; I !Ili lid II 19 'I"j" 'I"j f I.. ! ~ i !: j ~!t (ill- !ill' Ii! UI; ! U!I I II! !!I! I ill! I !I! lilll fill, I 'i 'Ii I' I II jl I ,i! , ,!i' !!' I 'i . I' ' iI.I.!1 'hl !.~t ,R- '1' ill 'I': 'I. 'll~ i I J~ '''I''i] I-I.h! 111l!h "Ill! 'I!'l!'! ill; I'!!'l ','1111 Ilji !l1l1.".1 II...I! il Uh! III!il 'mi! 1m : 8 "81' ilil I' , I', " I i !(" ! .!t) ! . Attachment 5 Ii Ii ., .1 J ~. 1"11 ,II :'1 ~ -, II ., .. I' 'I I. , ! Z- -I rn I' ;;tl 'VI '-I :l> I~ :r: I, Ci I' :I: , ~ 1-< z 9 en <.0 ./> <:I Ii _~1 '. II' . ~;J ij '" I I I -" ~ '<".L ./ I mdum-__ I' n~ ~n i 0'" ...- : c~ ~~ i Zo go ' ~~ 0' i 8 II. ~I~ U~I .~. . h~! ~~ .. il~ ~ IIli !!ll I,ll; j" Ii 'II hi iI. (,.) DEMO PLAN - Attachment 6 , j II '::..- " ..... . i . l Ii I....... ,.....~:[m>< :,l n " 0 ~c sz ~.~ ~i! . I 1~ 25..,. !~.; i '::::>oil~ " ,..,::1 VI" ... P , " "" ~ it]l " z """" rri :=0 VI --1 P -i rn :I ,., j 1 I I L ~ ... y $.:, !i ~j! : 'il ,q ~~.. , ,; " " !~ I ... . li,:..............T.......m. I "Or' 1-1 " , oj . Iff; 1111 " . I"a .1' I I I 1111'; "1!!IU; l;' '11 i! II II I'll ,I 11111 illi I!ll II!! i,i.i 'ill IIi II l'I!!ll !~iI Iii ii I! I." II! . I'" 1:111 a'l i.; Ii ,1,li' ~!l .11 1 JIIl-- ~ J J I i,z+ ~I i , , I , . . I ! . i l.~~nllml~l. ,,~...;....~.:.. ~ ."."" I,! I' 1IIIIilili!!I!!lIi'I!!ill"11 I . 1!lil!:I,~!!j !'I'~lj i ii' I 'j i , I ~ ~~M: ::':'=L:~"'-=- - e~~ ii' -----.----- =-. .....UW<XiD. .......l!SaTA. - ctlNST1l<IM'lO" $ U~li cl[ f h~8 it:; , n . illl '1'1 i.1i, I ," Iii .j, '" II' ill ~ Attachment 7 I \, i '"',; t- ~~~;"'iJ"'-' . "".....,.,~" ~ '''-''1' '''-' '" ~ .... '" "".xc .n;J.U , . , U, lUUit...... ~''''i!l IIIlilliliilllliilliUl' iaillll'll!r.'!ll'lr, III rdill~,dl! I~l llillj! II ~ 'III ~ hl-I'II!l., " , -I p' !! III - ii .lj j I II , · - i III ! , I . I m,l _.~ , ~~ 9 ~~~ ~ . Ii d .. I; " I I ..--\ . I q '.....~r ;;1 ; ,~ ~ : ~~ ~1" ni,,~ . 0,,' i~i!!i II IF, '" I ~ _~~i;~ rtl[ · i . ; t ~ 1 -! . 'j Z -1 rn i ~ :I> -j rn I ,el !I .~ :I> -< z o ,UI" II' ,.. r' ~ lf9 ;r !l: \1 ' , , ,i 1 ' , Jil ll"1 ,L ;~i~~~;illi!i!i i! i!! Ii i Iii ~~~::~!Ii I;i~:ml!lt;i;;;;;;;;i;;ii I ~ ji~ llll! ill!l ill :I'I! :' li n!l:ii I"' ililii",!!PI!jl ! ~ "ll-i I 1111'" q- I 'il , ' I ~. Iii I ! i 1!1~1i i::!1 ! - I ! Zt - " I- ~I I; i I I I , , I' I i 1'1'1 I ! , , 1 I ! Ii!! I' - , '" t ~ I I" Ii". s. . ... 8 Ii ~I' ~~-g.1 ""~I ~~ ~ I W~ 'I~ n LANQSCAPE PLAN II" !.! ;t ... .II! ! . ''1''ll!!11101 . ll'lijl'lll!! 11'(lf I nil' I ii i i ; . !P~"li!P ~ I i, ~ ; t ~ Hli/U'u-g-?1 ~y l" - --~ --- ===--==- l . , \ , ; -j ;~j !~, '" ~ ;:, :: ~ , ml CD 51 ;;;.* rn iii ~~ ~ 'I !;~ I -< , I , , t .'11 " " " ii, " " :: ~ " " " " " " " " " " " , " " " " " " :: 01 :: v.J II!,,, ~ ~',r . - 'I ~) J ! , " .r ~~.I!:~S:~\lI'1_Ui~'~~~~~t"""''''~~~''1 \" ~ I -1 1, lllif! I~lg@ I~ :i d !iil ~ *!i " i 11 ~ ,:~ ~ j~ : ~!i .i :l' ' Ii l' ,~:'" I :; !i.............+.....m.... I' L1j, I' I _" " ..I iiil!i ill! il III Ii! ollU Iii' .!Ii!!':!! I ;i! 'Ii! I I "Ill ii, , I I !,I, ~l' illi, Ii: Ii! =! I! ii .,!, !I' "I 'I <,Iii iii "i . I'll' ill' i . lllli :i! 1111 I "'3 II I I ! " II' , . J ill\ Iii I ~ Ii ! I I " III !ll Ji,I"""."" hi . ~~ '(~ Ii ii' . i'! ! .:.;. I" i... ," Iii I ~fi~ I!'I i,iI ~ .lIi ~ Iii I 'i' .. Ii! Ii: \"~' , , , , , , . \~\ , , , \\\ ~-:J:1'~'e._.':"~ , \~ ~ . ~,~ " II ...~ e oX : ~ , . , , . ~ . ';, . . :"" , r. ii" , _0 ,! ~~ 'f. C,Z " ...-...., 1" Ij~ Iii ~ "~ " l:i i. :! ~ ~~ , ,I !l: \ "" Attachment 8 o I q z ..., '" ! ;x:l . Vl . ..., :r:o ..., m :r: ,.G , "T" , - ~~ ':r:o -< z 9 I : ~; , I ! 1 ~ ~~~t~II't;:!' ~:bw"."";.".l':. . i ".." '" " i I'jl!i!i!i!!'i!lIi'llllll' i! i I '" 5..~1~~=~!!~! 5~i . ~ I ilil'l I'll II i , . I~Z. '-l _.4.,..~1c ~-L:-"'-~....- I~ l~,'~ I~ .il ~~~. --------- ~ il1 ~1il r!l r!11 Ii' T II .~ I ." ~: ! .z '0 I -~ ~ --0.$ - '~ , , .~ ~ '1 1!.li z !lil !.II "[ 'i! ! I ~'~--e --0 !1!liI111'jl! , Ii I! II !,III ~ . d~l~l~1 !i !11'!!II' Ii <l Ji I~ II i' Wq I' i'l Ii .I I' I i ~ -----e ! I' I 1 , 0 , , , , , : , : lni! , , , Ii Hi , II I; 1 , : II ,: -----0 , , , , ! , -,- ------0 I I , I , , ! c. ,! 1111 11 ill li il h II il , II II I!i 11 i I! l I lil ill f lil III il -j II !I I ,1 , ~ !I l --0 I 11 j i I Ii n i i n I, II Illll. II' i 1 ,i ., I I II I' 1IIIIIjW1lWW '!l!ijibl ! ' Ill!!! ,I '!hlm '!l!li!!ill'lll :!l'il' jll I III II jl,l'l -, ~ , : j -, . f -, --- -- -- -.-- I ---- -=1 -- ---- \ \ , \, . , ! --- -~ -- --I -, \ ---\ , , , . ---- f-'~ , Ii . , , ;::, f-o . . ----. I I, W m.. l)lIli!l! ! ! !Ii Ii!d~! !I illl 1'11111 II ----------(9 , -" -- ------.-.----@ @ @ ill" -Ii ---@ !,i v I , I ---- 'I , ---0 "I in 11.'I'!', ~ I'll!' II!!!!! i--~!~-@ : 11111:1 o . I.. I ill -----.---@ ~u n I!I! __!l.!i____-@ I , ' I I I I ----0 II jl I 1 ,- II Ii h --.1..--------0 '1-- , @ I I I I I .1-- --------------<!J I \ "1\ '1I lj II @ i i ll!l! III ljl .0 . ------------0 -----------8 o ----------0 o in,l '!1Ii'Plll i! li!lliid - Ii III ill! II I . " . ~ ~i 1! ,I. ~. ~ ! q'l 11.1 II" I~ lm~ Il"~ mil ~I~m < , MAl'LEWOOD. '" i ~ ""I ~. I hl~ I: I , i~,. ~w 1'1 ! , ~~ , . . .--- ---....-----...- _.__........_~Im...... ---..---.-- -- Attachment 10 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: Best Buy PROJECT NO: 05-24 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: July 27, 2005 Best Buy is planning on relocating to the vacant Frank's Nursery store at the west end of the retail center at 1845 County Road D. Various site plans and layouts were reviewed by staff early on. This current layout is the best scenario that addresses traffic flow entering and leaving the site, as well as internal traffic flow. The applicant shall address the following issues: Drainage 1. The applicant shall provide storm water treatment in the form of a treatment structure or other BMP prior to drainage flowing to the ditch. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the annual cleaning and maintenance of the BMP. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Inlet protection shall be provided for all storm sewer inlets. 2. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review. Utilities 1. The applicant shall submit plans to SPRWS for their review. Site Lavout 1. The applicant shall dedicate 12 feet of pedestrian and utility easement along County Road D to allow for future improvements. County Road D is scheduled in the city's CIP for reconstruction and widening in approximately 2009. 2. The applicant shall revise the entrance across from Southlawn Drive to allow for two exit lanes and one entrance lane. The access shall be approximately 40 feet wide and include a combined left/through exit lane (11 feet wide), a right turn only exit lane (13 feet wide), a two foot median and an entrance lane (14 feet wide). The centerline shall lineup with the centerline at Southlawn Drive. Traffic/Signal I. The current proposal for Best Buy identifies the maj or access point for this facility at the Southlawn and County Road D intersection. The Engineering staff supports this access location. The City's Capital Improvement Plan identifies the intersection of SouthlawnlCounty Road D for construction of a signal system in 2009 at the cost of $250,000. This signal system will benefit Best Buy and the other businesses within this development area, It is typical that benefit for signals is assigned based upon approach legs. In this case, this development may be assigned up to 25% of the signal cost ($250,000 * 25% = $62,500. We have identified the need for Best Buy to revise the width and alignment of this driveway slightly to accommodate the proposed signal system. Best Buy shall provide the City with an approved letter of credit to assure the City of Best Buy's contribution to the cost of the signal system construction. It is estimated that Best Buy's share will be approximately $31,250 (50% of $62,500). The letter of credit shall remain in effect until the City Council authorizes and/or levies the [mal assessments and financing plan for the signal improvements, but no later than December 31,2009. 2. The applicant shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city to ensure the necessary easements are dedicated to the city along with the letter of credit required for the signal system. Attachment 11 Memo From: David Fisher, Building Official July 1, 2005 To: Shann Finwall, Planner Re: Best Buy's New Building The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC Table 602 for exterior wall protection. A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permit. All new office buildings over 2000 square feet are required to be fire sprinklered and NFPA 13. The new building must be built to meet Minnesota State Building Code and 2000 IBC, Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for accessibility, I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building department. Attachment 12 Plan Review Comments Date: Project: Planner: Reviewed by: 7/15/2005 Best Buy Shann Finwall Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Comments: I. Need 20 ft emergency access road 2. Fire Protection System pre-codes 3. Fire Alarm System per-codes 4. Product location plan for main floor and warehouse 5. Proper marking of door where fire protection system is located 6. Service doors shall be identified inside and outside (check with Fire Marshal) 7. Annunciation panel for fire alarm system shall be located at main door 8. Fire Department lock box installed (Fire Marshal has order form) Attachment 13 Maplewood Police Department Memo To: Shann Finwall / Lt. Kevin Rabbett ~ UL From: Date: 7-1-05 Re: Project Review: Best Buy I have reviewed the attached plans and have a few public safety concems. I would suggest the standard surveillance lighting system for commercial buildings. In addition there should be a high quality video recording system installed given the high dollar value of the merchandised located within the store. Additionally, I would suggest concrete barriers in front of all entry doors to prevent drive through burglaries. The parking plan has two issues, both related to automobile crash prevention. The narrower than standard stall width would increase the potential for sideswipe type of accidents. Also. the less than standard number of parking spaces for this high volume store seems problematic. Customers are likely to park in available space across County Road D in either the Myth Nightclub or Ashley Fumiture lots. This could lead to serious car-pedestrian crashes. I believe that increasing the number of on-site parking spaces is essential. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at x2604. 1 Attachment 14 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tim Palmquist, representing Best Buy, applied for a 31-count parking space variance to allow the overall shopping center in which Best Buy is located to have 522 parking spaces. WHEREAS, city code would require 553 parking spaces for the overall shopping center based on square footage of buildings and uses. WHEREAS, these variances apply to the Town Center shopping center located at 1845 County Road D. The legal description is: THE EAST 231 FT OF THE S 693 FT OF THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 22, LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY NO 694, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA LOT 5, EXCEPT THE E 82 FT, BLOCK 1; TOUSLEY COMMERCIAL PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA THE E 82 FT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, TOUSLEY COMMERCIAL PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On August 4, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. 2. On the city council discussed the land use plan change. 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 variances since: 1. The redevelopment of the Best Buy building will improve the existing parking ratio from 4.48 to 4.72 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. 2. There is ample opportunity for shared parking throughout the shopping center with various uses operating at varying times of the day. 3. Approval of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the shared parking opportunities. This variance is approved with the following conditions: 1. The appiicant shall dedicate 12 feet of pedestrian and utility easement along County Road D to allow for future improvements. County Road D is scheduled in the city's CIP for reconstruction and widening in approximately 2009. 2. Best Buy shall provide the city with an approved letter of credit to assure the city of Best Buy's contribution to the cost of the signal system construction at the intersection of Southlawn Drive and County Road D. It is estimated that Best Buy's share will be approximately $31,250 (50% of $62,500). The letter of credit shall remain in effect until the City Council authorizes and/or levies the final assessments and financing plan for the signal improvements, but no later than December 31, 2009. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on