Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2005MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 20, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Rotl Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 6, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Lot Width and Setback Variances (1774 McMenemy Street) 7:15 Lark Avenue Right-of--Way Vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets) 7:30 Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Faality (south site - NW corner of Highway 81 and Beam Avenue) a. Condrbonal Use Permit (CUP) Revision (for parking ramp and for motor vehicle sales within 350 feet of residential district) b. Setback variance for parking ramp from public right-of-way 7:45 Maplewood Toyota Expansan (north site -north of LaMettrys Collission {2923 Highway 61)) a. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor motor vehicle storage b. Variance to store motor vehicles within 350 feet of residential district 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness June 27 Counal Meeting: Mr. Grover July 11 Councl Meeting: Mr. Yarvvood 10. Staff Presentations Annual Tour Update Schlomka Property Concept Plan Update 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Present Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Michael Grover Present Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Present Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes-Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 16, 2005. Commissioner Trippler asked staff for clarification regarding the amount of parking spaces for Home Depot whether it was 122 or 172 parking spaces. Mr. Roberts said after checking further the correct amount of parking spaces for Home Depot should be 122 not 172. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 16, 2005. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Dierich, Grover V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 2006 - 2010 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) (7:01- 8:00 p.m.} Mr. Roberts said the city updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Richard Fursman, Maplewood City Manager, addressed the planning commission. The planning commission viewed a video presentation for the 2006-2010 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan from 7:02-7:26 p.m. From 7:26 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. there was a question and answer session. Commissioner Trippler lives in the Sherwood Glen neighborhood and he asked why the street improvements for the County Road C area shown on page 3-34 of the CIP are assigned to the Sherwood Glen area when they are actually in the Hazelwood area? Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. Mr. Ahl said Commissioner Trippler is correct. There was apparently an error in the mapping and that should be moved from page 3-34 to 3-20 of the CIP. Commissioner Trippler said comparing the Capital Improvement Plan for 2005 and 2006 in about 80% of the cases it appears projects that were proposed have now moved back two or three years. This results in a 20% or more cost increase to do the project. He understands Maplewood has a difficult economic situation but it seems things are not getting better. If we delay doing projects but it increases the cost by 20 or 30%, he isn't sure the city is doing themselves any favors. Mr. Fursman said the city can't argue with that comment. Projects that are put off seem to end up costing more. It seems to cost less to borrow money at 3 to 4% then to have 10% to 20% inflation costing the city more money for projects. It makes sense to borrow money but the city is at debt capacity and there is only so much the city can do to take on debt before they reach a threshold. When the city works through the budget and the money isn't there, then the projects need to be delayed. Commissioner Trippler assumed there were no projects pushed back that would be detrimental. He remembered hearing an engineer say you can only push road reconstruction back so far and then it gets to be more costly because the road deteriorates. He asked if the city checked into its projects that have been moved back to make sure the city is not getting past that costlythreshold. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 06-06-05 Mr. Ahl believed only 20% of the projects were being delayed having been the one who prepared the majority of the projects forthis report. There is a cost relationship and construction costs and in some cases certain materials are going up 10% to 12% per year and other materials are going down. But in general, construction costs are increasing more than the rate of inflation. Mr. Ahl said if the city had no debt capacity they could catch up and do all of the street projects. The city is trying to first take care of the poorest streets in the city. The city is using a lot less materials to repair the streets then they did 5 years ago. The city is making progress, unfortunately the city started its street reconstruction plan about 8 years ago when it should have started 28 years ago and now the city is trying to catch up. There is a slight reduction in the amount of maintenance the city has to do because they are taking care of some of the worst streets now. One example of one of the worst streets was English Street and look at how nice the street is now. There are streets in the city that are in very bad condition but they are on the list to be fixed in the next five years. Given the debt capacity limit the city is doing a very good job with it. Commissioner Trippler heard in the past the number of children who play baseball and softball have been going down and the number of children who play soccer has increased significantly. In the capital improvement plan there are two parks listed to have the ball parks upgraded. He wondered why there were no additional soccer fields being constructed despite the survey numbers that show soccer is increasing. Mr. Bruce Anderson, Maplewood Park and Recreation Director, addressed the commission. He said Maplewood has excellent soccerfields. Because of the European influence at 3M in 1975, Hazelwood Park was scheduled to be an 8 ball field complex and it turned out to be a 9 soccer field complex. There are 2,400 kids playing soccer in Maplewood and 600 kids playing baseball. The fastest growing sport is LaCrosse and they use soccer fields for that sport. The two parks scheduled for renewal is Harvest Park and Lions Park. Harvest Park is scheduled for irrigation to be installed to preserve the heaviest used fields. At this point the city is not sure if Lions Park will be redone or not. There are drainage issues in that area and part of it may just turn into a holding pond. The best example of ball fields compared soccer fields is the Afton Heights Park which used to have five ball fields and now has three ball fields and two soccer fields. Youth athletics are changing and in the very near future and Lacrosse will be more popular than baseball and soccer. Commissioner Grover asked given the dilapidated condition of Lions Park, is there was a way to move that project up sooner? He lives in the neighborhood and has had to keep his kids off the playground equipment because of the condition the equipment is in. Mr. Anderson said Lions Park is scheduled to be redone during that particulartimeframe because that is when the streets will be redone. There is a "slight" chance Lions Park may be turned into a subdivision, but the ball park will probably not be reconstructed. Commissioner Dierich noticed Applewood Parkwasn't listed in the 2006-2010 CIP and she asked if that was scheduled to be done yet in 2005 or if it was eliminated all together from the 2006- 2010 plan? Mr. Anderson said Applewood Park is scheduled for 2005 and the city hopes to be out for bid by August 1 and have a large portion of the park done some time in September. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl if the Century redevelopment from Highway 94 to Lower Afton Road would stay single lane and if that area is considered Woodbury or Maplewood. Mr. Ahl said the Century Avenue project has now been extended all the way down to Lake Road assuming there is a gas tax increase, but that may not happen now. A lot of projects are going to get delayed in this area if the state doesn't get the gas tax increase. It's the only source of funding at the county and state level and that is where those projects are funded. The most congested intersection is at Lower Afton Road and CenturyAvenue in south Maplewood. Those road congestion problems lead to safety problems. There has to be funding available by the counties since these are county roads. Commissioner Ahlness said regarding money for open space, a few years ago when the commission talked about redevelopment by the golf course on Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue, he understood the city was either out of money or that there was little money left in the account. Yet he noticed the city is using open space money to fund projects. On page 3-62 in the CIP it shows an expansion for the Maplewood Nature Center site. He asked what the status was for open space money. Mr. Dan Faust, Maplewood Finance Director, addressed the commission. He said the current status of the open space fund is about $200,000. The city started out with a $5 million dollar bond issued and there was interest earned on investments and the city earned about $300,000. Mr. Anderson said there is a property at 2668 Brand Avenue in Maplewood that has become available and the city is looking at that parcel. The acre of land will cost somewhere between $45,000 and $60,000. Atone time the city thought they would acquire the property and subdivide it and resell the home and the city is now working with the homeowner to complete the subdivision ahead of time. Commissioner Ahlness said he thought he saw on the Maplewood CIP video a project was being funded by open space money. The project shown on page 3-61 of the booklet shows the project is funded by the park development fund. He may be mistaken, but encouraged staff to check into that further. He lives close to the roundabout at English Street and Frost Avenue where it was first universally hated by almost everyone, but now that people are used to it almost everyone likes the roundabout. He asked if roundabouts were ever considered in areas where traffic lights were proposed such as at Lakewood Avenue and Maryland Avenue, Southlawn Drive and County Road D and Kennard Street and County Road D. Mr. Ahl said the city does not have plans to install any more roundabouts at this point otherthan the roundabouts at Frost Avenue and English Street, Kennard Street at Legacy Parkway and one at Legacy Parkway. There was a fourth roundabout proposed at Hazelwood Avenue and County Road C which wasn't approved. Commissioner Ahlness said a few years ago the city had discussed bridging Hazelwood Avenue over Highway 36 and he asked if that was still in the future and is it something that is still needed in the future? Mr. Ahl said Hazelwood Avenue used to cross over Highway 36 in the 1970's. MnDot closed that intersection and made it a right turn in and right turn out from Hazelwood Avenue onto Highway 36. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 06-06-05 Mr. Ahl said there is now a pedestrian crosswalk across Highway 36 which is clearly marked, however, people don't observe the crosswalk and rarely stop when someone is waiting to cross Highway 36 to Hazelwood Avenue. The city asked for federal funds through MnDot and the Metropolitan Council to upgrade the pedestrian crossing, but the city request was denied. Mr. Ahl said again without the gas tax increase, projects that need to get done are not getting done without the funding that the gas tax increase would help pay for. The city just received a resolution that Highway 36 is going to become asix-lane roadway from Highway 35W to Highway 35E. The city of North St. Paul is going to have a freeway at Highway 36 and McKnight Road and at Margaret Street. Highway 36 will be a freeway beginning at Highway 35 to Highway 120 except for one signal at English Street and a right turn in and right turn out at Hazelwood Avenue. Because MnDot is so short of funds, one solution is to remove the stop lights at English Street and make it a right turn in and right turn out. One of the plans is to figure out how to handle the pedestrian crossing. The best plan would be to eliminate the pedestrian crossing at Hazelwood Avenue so it's saferfor pedestrians. Because of funding, nothingwill happen with the pedestrian crossing in the next five years and it takes 6 to 10 years to develop those types of projects. Commissioner Desai said on page 3-36 in the CIP booklet it shows the Maplewood Community Center fitness expansion proposed for a cost of $250,000, he asked if the MCC was supposed to be self sufficient why would the Maplewood Community Center need to get funding from the City of Maplewood? Mr. Anderson said 2004 was the first year MCC showed a positive cash flow within the facility for revenue and daily operational expenditures. The precedence has been that the MCC was never anticipated to be run through revenues from the MCC but the expectation was that the operating costs would be covered by revenue from fees which was accomplished in 2004. Each year they try to increase that so that greater expenditures can happen. There are over 350,000 users of the MCC and they look at that the MCC as being the number one park in the city. According to the way the budget looks it will be a huge challenge to pay for improvements. Commissioner Ahlness asked if the City of Maplewood is trying to model Maplewood after another city in the Twin Cities as far as property redevelopment. . Ms. Melinda Coleman, Maplewood Assistant City Manager, addressed the commission. She believes Maplewood is behind the curve for redevelopment. Many of the first-ring suburbs have been doing redevelopment for quite some time. The City of Maplewood started redevelopment funds about five years ago for redevelopment in the city. In the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) the city was looking for funding in 2006 but is now highly unlikely because of the budget situation but will again look for redevelopment funding again in 2007. The city continues to look for opportunities to purchase housing in poorcondition and use those redevelopment funds to better the neighborhoods and the city. The properties on Larpenteur Avenue have been the most recent redevelopment. The city has also used that money to fund the Gladstone study and the city council will also be looking at participating in a revolving loan fund. The city is doing the best they can with the limited resources. Maplewood is behind in redevelopment compared to other communities. Ms. Coleman said some cities have had money in funds for years to redevelop, some cities have modeled their budgets differently, they've used TIF funds, used an HRA levy and other tools for redevelopment in their city. Some cities Maplewood would model redevelopment include Richfield, St. Louis Park, Crystal, and Robbinsdale. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 06-06-05 Chairperson Fischer said it was mentioned that Holloway Avenue was turned back to the City of Maplewood by Ramsey County in 2004. She asked if this was an isolated case or was Ramsey County in the process of turning county roads back to the municipalities? Mr. Ahl said in 1994 Ramsey County adopted a plan and a majority of the county roads that Ramsey County identified to be turned back to the city's have been turned back. Holloway Avenue just happen to be a street that because of its joint nature of being a border street it was on Maplewood's funding system and it had no Ramsey County funding. Eventually Ramsey County reached an agreement on funding and Holloway Avenue was turned back to City of Maplewood. He said over the next two to three years the city will see another round of turn backs. Chairperson Fischer asked when Beebe Road is reconstructed would there be sidewalks on the side of the road that does not currently have a sidewalk? Mr. Ahl said they have sidewalks proposed on both sides of the street. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes -Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 13, 2005. b. Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition} (8:00 - 8:01 p.m.} Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kevin Clarke, representing the developer and the property owners, is asking the city to vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement on the site of the future Heritage Square Fourth Addition townhouses. However, plans have changed so staff recommends tabling this and will soon bring this back before the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler moved to table this item. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to table passed. c. Richie/Anondson four-plexes - (1349 & 1359 County Road C) (8:02 - 9:18 p.m.} Ms. Finwall said Fred Richie and Craig Anondson are requesting a comprehensive land use plan change and rezoning for the two properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The properties are currently guided in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned as Double Dwelling Residential R-2. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 06-06-05 Ms. Finwall said the city approved the construction of two duplexes on these properties in 1968. Some time afterthe city's initial approval ofthe duplexes (approximately 1970), previous owners converted the duplexes to athree-plex (1349 County Road C) and a four-plex (1359 County Road C}without the required city approvals. The additional units exceed the approved land use density and zoning requirements. The new property owners are now attempting to resolve the density and zoning issue by requesting the comprehensive land use change and rezoning from Double Dwelling Residential R-2 to High Multiple Dwelling Residential R-3(H). No additional units or exterior modifications are proposed. Commissioner Dierich asked after 30 years was there a need to rezone this orwas itjustto make the plan look good. She asked if the city could make an exception in this case, it seems like a lot of work for city staff for not a lot of gain. Ms. Finwall said this was an illegal nonconforming structure constructed after the zoning was in place. The city deals with legal nonconforming structures all the time. An example would be this duplex being constructed prior to a double dwelling zoning district. That structure could maintain itself until the end of time or until it was destroyed to more than 5D% of its value. This being an illegal nonconforming structure the city is required to either make the owners convert it back to a double dwelling or gain the comprehensive land use plan change and rezoning. She did not believe there was a statue of limitations on this type of land use issue. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city didn't make the original owner convert it back to a duplex when they found out it was a tri-plex and a four-plex? Ms. Finwall said the city found out these buildings at 1349 and 1359 County Road C was converted to a tri-plex and a four-plex last fall with the current owners in place. The structures have been this way over 30 years without the city's knowledge. Commissioner Trippler asked whose idea it was to request R-3(H) zoning? Ms. Finwall said that zoning was recommended by city staff so that it would comply with the land use designation requirements. The city could not change the comprehensive plan to R-3(M), which is medium multiple family residential zoning because ofthe density requirements, which are six units per acre. Seven units would be over the allowed density for R-3(M). Commissioner Trippler said in his opinion city staff should require the current owners to convert the buildings back to duplexes which is what theywere approved for ratherthan figure out some way to work around the ordinance. When he visited the site at 1349 County Road C East it appeared the exterior of the building looked pretty rough. He asked if the statement made by city staff that the structure could maintain itself until the end of time or if it was destroyed to more than 50% of its value, means the city can require the owner to convert the buildings back. Ms. Finwall showed a photo of 1349 and 1359 County Road C East to the planning commission. It appears that 1359 County Road C is in better repair. She was referring to a legal non conforming structure where state statue would allow that structure to remain until it was destroyed to more than 50% of its value. W ith this type of illegal structure the city could currently require the owners to convert it back to the duplex. Commissioner Trippler asked why city staff did not consider that option? Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 06-06-05 Ms. Finwall said city staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and comprehensive land use plan change in order to allow these property owners to maintain these structures. These owners have made several improvements to the property which has been attested to by the neighbors. She said this property would be considered affordable housing in Maplewood as well. Ms. Finwall said according to police records, the property has improved considerably as far as police calls. With Craig Anondson and Fred Richie's son living on site will improve the maintenance and management of those buildings. It is a difficult legal prospect for the city to require someone to convert a tri-plex and four-plex back to a duplex after over 30 years. Commissioner Trippler said the combined area of the two properties at both 1349 and 1359 County Road C East is less than one acre in size. Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Trippler asked how far back the lot went? Ms. Finwall said each lot is about 65-feet wide and 285-feet deep. Commissioner Yarwood said he has concerns about rezoning these properties and setting a precedent of rezoning properties to make an illegal structure legal. At the same time the current owners have made some improvements to the property. Is there a way that the resolution can be worded to make this a conditional zoning change such that any new development that were to take place on the property, or if the existing structures were torn down or rebuilt, that the property needs to be consistent with the other surrounding properties? Ms. Finwall said according to the city's legal counsel that would be considered contract zoning and is illegal. Commissioner Yarwood said being one of the newer commissioners he had to ask that question but now he knows that is illegal. Commissioner Trippler said he likes to read the citizen comments to see what the neighbors have to say. The staff report on page 3 says most neighbors were positive in their comments and supported the change to the comprehensive land use plan change. He wondered how staff figured most neighbors were "in favor' of this proposal because there were only six comments. He counted two neighbors were opposed, two neighbors that didn't respond, two neighbors that were in favor. Ms. Finwall said some of the responses specified concerns butwere overall supportive. Some of the neighbors are in the audience tonight and will have an opportunity to speak and can share their comments with the planning commission. Commissioner Grover asked if changing the zoning from R-2 to R-3(H) changes the setbacks? Ms. Finwall said with amulti-family dwelling which is allowed with R-3(H) zoning they would be required to have a 50-foot setback from the surrounding residential properties. Ms. Finwall said the structures themselves were approved with a building permit so they would be grandfathered in. The structures sit approximately five to ten feet from the property lines. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Dierich asked if there was anything otherthan multi-family dwellings that could be built on this parcel if the city approved the R-3(H) zoning? Ms. Finwall said they could only have multi-family dwellings including double dwellings on this parcel. Chairperson Fischer asked if there could be a PUD on this property so it would limit it to the existing structures? Ms. Finwall said you could have a (PUD) Planned Unit Development for the zoning with the land use plan for the R-3(H) zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Craig Anondson, 1349 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He bought the property in November 1998 with the understanding that this building was suitable for a four-plex and was happy leaving it the way it was setup. He has slowly been improving the site and trying to keep the riff-raff out which can be a battle at times. He was new at being a landlord and has finally gotten a grip on that. He has been improving the site and it looks a lot better than it did when he bought it. Since 1998 he has called the police twice at this address. Once was because one of his tenants was trying to commit suicide and another time was because a carwas parked in his front yard. He is amazed how all of this has come up. He found out the situation regarding this mess last year from the other owner, Fred Richie at 1359 County Road C East, and here he is today. Commissioner Ahlness commended the applicant, Mr. Anondson for making the improvements to the property. Mr. Anondson said the realtortold him the propertywas approved forthree and four units. Commissioner Ahlness asked what real estate company it was? Mr. Anondson said it was Edina Realty. He said Fred Richie is in the hospital having surgery so he could not be present at this evening's meeting. He can only. speaking for himself on this matter. Commissioner Dierich said in the staff report Lt. Kevin Rabbett stated there have been at least one hundred calls for service since 1994 at this location and within the last year there has been a significant reduction in calls. She asked what happened in the past yearto cause the reduction in phone calls. Mr. Anondson said having Fred Richie as owner of the neighboring property has decreased the telephone calls to the police. This also made better tenants move into the home. The following people spoke during fhis public hearing: Planning Commission -10 Minutes of 06-06-05 Ms. Beverly Willin4, 1366 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood. Ms. Willing said her property is behind these two properties. She said they have lived in their home since 1968. An old neighbor, Roger Fontaine, built these duplexes in a neighborhood that mostly consists of single family homes. So many things have happened at this location over the years. She wasn't sure why they never called the city to complain about things that have occurred on the property. There has been smoke and fire coming from these homes but they could never figure out what the neighbors were burning at the property. There have been golf balls hit with baseball bats at her home and onto their deck while they were having company over or while enjoying the outdoors. She thinks there are more than enough families living in those homes. There were supposed to be two families living in each building and now there are three families in one and four in the other home. She thinks the homes should be converted back to duplexes as they were built and approved. Just because the owners are living there now and they have been attempting to clean the property up doesn't mean they aren't going to move out and problems will increase again. The home was zoned for duplexes and someone illegally added living quarters for more occupants. Why aren't they required by the cityto return the home back the way it was originally built? Arlene Brzinski, 1358 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood. She has lived at this residence for 37 years and has a lot 310 feet deep. She wonders how this property has been occupied as a three and four-plex unit for 30 years illegally zoned? Next to this property, east of these homes, is a vacant lot. She is concerned that someone could buy that lot, which is a dry pond, and build on it. Someone could come to the city and request the vacant lot be rezoned to a multiple dwelling to fit in with the duplexes on the property next door. Ms. Finwall said that vacant lot could only be rezoned if the city council approved of that. However, at this time there have been no requests of any kind. If there would be a request it would have to go through the neighborhood notification process. Ron Brzinski, 1358 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood. He said the neighbors have been through this before back in the day when Mr. King owned the property. Mr. Roger Fontaine asked the neighbors if he could build duplexes on this property and rezone the property R-2 in an R-1 neighborhood. The neighborhood agreed but not without some concerns. They were told the owners were going to live in the duplexes and that did not stay that way for long. Now the second set of owners lives on the property but the neighbors have no idea how long that will be the situation. Trying to be good neighbors, if they saw something wrong occurring on the premises the neighbors would walk over to talk to the renters about the problems rather than calling the police. One day he was sitting on his deck and he heard a loud thump and thought someone had shot at him. He got up and looked around and found a golf ball that hit the soffit of his house and then the golf ball bounced off his deck. He went next door to talk to the renter when the man ran and hid in his home. The kids that lived there said the man was afraid of Mr. Brzinski and the man wouldn't come outside. He feels the duplexes have been operating illegallyfor 30 years and should be required to return as duplexes, which is the way the homes were approved to begin with. He wonders how many tax dollars Ramsey County has missed out for the past 30 years since the county thought these were duplexes. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 06-06-05 Mr. Brzinski said these property owners are not going to live there forever. These duplexes should be zoned R-2 as they were originally zoned. These were side by side duplexes with walkout basements far two families living in each building, not three families in one building and four in the other building. Mr. Brzinski said people have rented garages in the rear of the property other than the occupants of the duplexes. Those people were fixing and tuning race cars at all hours of the night and day. If you come or call the city every time you see something strange happening at an address then you're known as a trouble maker. Last year he heard a bobcat on the rear of the property and it turned out someone was filling up the drain from the pond to the east and it had to drain out to the west. He called the city and the city came out and investigated and found out the person was going to level out the area and tum it into a park like area without permission or permits. When he bought his house he hired a lawyer to check the abstract and the property to make sure everything was legitimate. He has no sympathy for the current owners regarding the situation they are in now. Mr. Brzinski said they should have checked into things further but all they did was rely on what a realtor told them. He wouldn't have purchased a property if it wasn't zoned properly. He doesn't have any sympathy for buyers who bought something that was illegal to begin with and then come to the city to have their problem fixed. He believes the original zoning change happened some time after 1971 when Roger Fontaine came around and asked the neighbors how they felt about these duplexes being built in their neighborhood. To him illegal is illegal and in his book the homes should be brought up to code and into compliance. To him zoning is like the law and the law is the law. Mr. Anondson and Mr. Richie have a legal problem and should talk to a lawyer and the realtor to figure out what they need to do to correct this problem, not come to the city and ask them to change the zoning to make things legal again because of their neglect to check into things before purchasing these homes. Will Rossbach City Councilmember and Maplewood Resident. 1386 County Road C, Maplewood. Mr. Rossbach said the staff has done a good job with a difficult situation. Surrounding residents were trying to rememberwhen the transition from duplexes to tri and four- plex occurred. He spoke with the neighbors and found out most neighbors have lived in that neighborhood for a long time which is the case with many neighborhoods in Maplewood. He lives close to these homes and has noticed some exterior improvement over the past few years. He hasn't noticed much police activity at this location over the years. He has noticed construction going on there over the past two to four years with sidewalks, driveways etc. and was happy to see someone was making improvements to the site. Nobody knew there were three and four units in these homes all these years and the neighbors were probably not aware that there are other rental units in this area, mostly on the perimeter of the neighborhood. With R-3(H) zoning the setbacks are different, building design factors are different, trash containers need to be built with a material similar to the construction of the buildings. There are other things that he would like to know about the R-3(H) zoning. There are frontage requirements for double dwellings. He walked around the buildings and noticed some construction improvements that were made recently such as new doors on the back of the buildings. 1359 County Road C did some structural changes in order to put in a new door, window, new driveway and sidewalk that required some grading. So forthis reason he would be interested to see permits for building, grading, driveway, and anything else that requires permits to see the difference between the old and new ownership. This is a bad situation, there was a lack of knowledge, and the people that bought the buildings did not do any due diligence work. For that reason the city is being asked to resolve the problem for the new owners. He's not sure it should be the City of Maplewood's role to solve this problem. Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 06-06-05 Chairperson Fischer said the other problem is the city doesn't have the staff to go out and monitor things happening in the city. Generally the city is a complaint driven compliance organization and if the neighbors aren't calling to alert the city the city isn't aware of things like this taking place. Mr. Rossbach said the original design of the duplexes were to appear like single family homes from the front. There's a single door on the front of the buildings and you step inside the buildings and there is a hallway and doors that split off into the units. The original concept was good, in fact maybe too good because the city was not aware 30 years ago when these buildings were changed from two units in each building to the three and four units that exist today. The majority of what has taken place has occurred on the back side of the buildings. The neighbors that live behind these buildings have deep lots and that's another reason nobody knew how many families were living in these buildings. Chairperson Fischer said another thing is when the buildings were sold to these owners she wondered if Truth-in-Housing inspections were done, and if so, what was indicated on those Truth-in-Housing forms. Did it say these were duplexes for two families each or what was stated on the form? She asked if someone didn't tell the truth is there any recourse? City councilmember Rossbach said that's an excellent question. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city would be setting a precedent here by rezoning this to make an illegal structure legal and has that happened in the city before? City councilmember Rossbach said that type of thing has happened before but he isn't sure this exact situation has occurred in this context. Chairperson Fischer said the occasional duplex has popped up in asingle-family neighborhood that has been there for a long time with the R-2 zoning over the years but that is rare. Mr. Roberts said each rezoning and land use plan change has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. This is clearly a unique situation and in all the years he has worked here he can't remember anything like this. He doesn't think this sets a precedent because he doesn't think you would find anything like this in Maplewood. Chairperson Fischer asked city councilmember Rossbach what he thought about placing R-3(H) zoning on this along with a PUD to limit what exists now and if someone wanted to do anything else on the property they would have to come to the city and get it changed in the PUD. City councilmember Rossbach said that is an interesting situation. It's a difficult question and there is really too much to consider for this situation. What if there was a fire on this site and it had R-3(H) zoning put on it, then the owners want to build an eight plex on the property, what happens then. For that reason he would want many limitations placed on the property. He said he is usually against putting something in the middle of R-1 zoned neighborhoods so if there is another option regarding this situation he would like to hear about it. Planning Commission -t3- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Desai said he heard staff comment earlier that there maybe some legal issues if the planning commission decides to not approve this as R-3(H) zoning. He asked what the legal issues are for this situation. The new owners did not do any research into the property to verify what the correct zoning was for this property. Apparently the realtor told them it was a legal building, what legal action do the owners have against the realtor? City councilmember Rossbach said that would be a question for the city attorney. Chairperson Fischer asked if this were not a three and four-plex situation, which is what the square footage of the site would allow, would he feel differently about R-2 zoning if it were a six- plex? City councilmember Rossbach said this structure is compatible with the neighborhood as far as the style, the depth of the lot and the front appearance of the building. Commissioner Dierich asked if you calculate the size of the lots separate, because their under separate ownership, what density are we talking about and does that change what the commission is looking? Commissioner Trippler said it ends up coming to a little more than 18,000 square feet per lot. Ms. Finwall said the smaller lot at 1359 County Road C would allow forthree units and the larger lot at 1349 County Road C would allow for four units. Mr. Roberts said that really depends on if you are referring to medium density or high density. Medium Density at 1349 County Road C could have 2.9 units and 1359 could have 2.4 units. Ms. Finwall said for high density 1349 County Road C could have 4.37 units and 1359 could have 3.7 units. Commissioner Dierich said as a city we don't need to be concemed about anything because most homeowners have title insurance and if there's an issue, it's Ramsey County's fault for not completing the title search correctly and the title insurance would cover that for them, She is also concerned about the vacant lot and there is nothing from stopping the future owner from buying the lot and coming back to the city and saying they want it to be consistent with the high density and put more units in there. High density requires code compliance and if these units were split in the 1960's or 1970's they don't meet high density development as it is, so she is concerned about that as well. She is also concerned about setting a precedent here to correct what really is a homeowner issue not a city issue. Ms. Finwall said staff is proposing to grandfather in the structures. City councilmember Rossbach was referring to the requirements for additional screening and landscaping for multiple-family dwelling to residential or additional design standards etc. However, it was staffs opinion that these structures themselves were grandfathered in and it was the zoning that was illegal and nonconforming. Chairperson Fischer asked if a duplex or four plex were being built today are there building code requirements the city would enforce that are not in place today in the structures? Planning Commission -14- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Dierich said there are clearly nonconforming uses in this home especially in the basement such as bedrooms without egress windows, additional kitchens with sinks etc. so you need to consider these things as well. Ms. Finwall said Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, toured 1359 County Road C East for life safety issues and stated that since these buildings were built and approved in 1968, during the time when there was no building code in place. It would be difficult to require the property owners to comply with today's codes. What exists now is basically grandfathered in under that code, however, the intent would be for the Fire Marshal and Building Official to tour both structures to ensure both buildings and their units are up to the life safety code and the citywould require any improvements such as fire alarms, widening of egress windows, etc. and require those things to be done. Commissioner Trippler said when the property owner came to the city and asked for R-2 zoning to build a duplex and then when the building inspector went to look at the buildings, was the inspector looking at a duplex or a four plex? Ms. Finwall said when the building was complete the inspector approved the final building final as a duplex. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was a certificate of occupancy done for this address? Ms. Finwall said there was no evidence of a certificate of occupancy in the building file but a building final was done. Of course things were done differently in 1960's and 1970's compared to the way things are done now. Chairperson Fischer said basically the building was approved and inspected as a duplex but we don't know if it would have met the specifications for a tri or four-plex today. Commissioner Trippler said obviously someone did something they weren't supposed to do when they changed the occupancy from duplex to four-plex. He thinks the city is setting a bad precedence and trying to make something legal that they made illegal. He praised the applicant for cleaning the place up but in his opinion these buildings should go back to being duplexes and should have to be brought up to those standards for which the building permit and building final were approved for, not looking for a way to get around the zoning to make this legal. Mr. Brzinski said he thinks it was later than 1968 that they applied for a building permit. He believes the buildings were built closer to 1972. He thinks there is only one entrance on the rear of each of the duplexes from what he can see from his property. He hopes the commission considers keeping the zoning R-2 and considers requiring the owners to convert the units back to duplexes from the illegal tri and four-plex units. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler wanted clarification in the staff report on the bottom of page 1 in the last paragraph; it says 1949 and 1959 County Road C and believes it should be 1349 and 1359 County Road C. Ms. Finwall said that was a typing error and she would get that corrected. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Pearson said he would not be supporting this proposal. If this proposal came to the city as a new proposal with R-3{H) zoning, it would never get city approval. He is surprised city staff has brought this before the commission without the building official and fire marshal going through the homes and checking for code violations and fire safety issues. Commissioner Pearson said he has no sympathy for the naivety of somebody who buys multi-tenant property and doesn't know what they are doing. They relied on the statement of a realtor which is ludicrous. He believes if the city gives this property R-3(H) zoning there is a good chance that the value of the property overall to a new developer is going to increase considerably over what it is in its current zoning. How long have these properties had a tax benefit paying taxes based on these being duplexes rather than a tri-plex and four-plex? While serving on the HRA they discussed Truth-in-Housing and what amount of control the city should have overthose housing inspections. Personally he wanted strict control at the point-of-sale. The City of Maplewood requires aTruth- in-Housing be complete but it is used only as a disclosure report. Other communities that have Truth-in-Housing require the homes be brought up to code at point-of-sale. Many times he has gone to open houses with reputable realtors and not found aTruth-in-Housing report on site nor was aTruth-in-Housing report done. The realtors don't get punished for not having aTruth-in- Housing report done, even though it is a city ordinance. Homes for sale by owner rarely ever have aTruth-in-Housing report done. Realtors working in this city should know it's a city ordinance to have aTruth-in-Housing inspection and if they don't know, they should be calling the city to ask when listing the home before it is shown. The report provides some cover for the realtors but if we aren't going to punish people for not getting the report done what is the point of having a city ordinance to have aTruth-in-Housing inspection done. Passing this proposal only rewards people who take chances to develop properties without getting permits and it would infuriate people that do things to code and get building permits and have city inspections. Chairperson Fischer asked what the Truth-in-Housing reports for 1349 and 1359 County Road C say? Ms. Finwall said according to city records there was aTruth-in-Housing report done for 1349 County Road C which was for the last sale and it was reported as a duplex. There was no Truth- in-Housing report on file for 1359 County Road C. Chairperson Fischer asked if a realtor was involved? Ms. Finwall said she did not have that information. Commissioner Ahlness said he had a question for Fred Richie who is not present but perhaps staff can help with this question. The staff report said Mr. Richie obtained the property by default in the Fall of 2004 when his financial partner was no longer able to hold onto the property. He asked if staff could give further information regarding that situation. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Richie has a serious illness and was unable to be here for this meeting but had full intention to be here. She understands Mr. Richie loaned a friend or an acquaintance money to purchase the duplex and this person was unable to pay the loan. It was never Mr. Richie's intent to own a duplex but he became the new owner. When he did become the owner he contacted the city and found out the property was not zoned correctly and he immediately began improvements and requested the rezoning. Planning Commission -16- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Ahlness said redevelopment in the city is very important but at the same time we need to maintain the value of our neighborhoods. He commends the current owners in doing the best they can to help improve these properties. However on site managers who are also the owners is not a sure thing down the road. Just because they are living here now doesn't mean they are going to live there forever. It's not the city's responsibility to fix something that was done illegally just because the owners bought it without researching things before purchasing the property. CommissionerAhlnesssoid forthese reasons he would not be supporting this proposal either. Commissioner Dierich said the city is setting a very bad precedence if we approve this. There are people all over the city that would like to use their basement as an apartment and could fall into a similar situation. Commissioner Trippler said in reading the conditions listed by staff he doesn't see how this fits in with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code and it doesn't fit into this neighborhood for these reasons, in addition to the other reasons he listed before, he won't be voting for this. Commissioner Pearson said besides the fact that he would not be approving this proposal he believes the city should require the duplexes be brought up to code and return back to duplexes and not the illegal tri and four plex buildings that they have been for 30 years. Commissioner Pearson moved to deny a~eve the comprehensive land use change resolution. n 11' D •.+ +• I !D QLI\ F +h .+• I -++.,.+ -,+ ~l ann .,.,.a ~'1 C.o r~.,~,^fi, 17.,~d L' C~..+ Th '+ h.. +h h~+ .. +h., F"IL,...'r,^ finrlin^c ~h~+++h^ ~i+., i.. °r fnr ~.nrl ., i~+°..+ y a a ~ ~ .;tn-t#e~~s-p~~e#c~,-h;~h-~..o.~,~.sider~#;al use. Th,^ ^I,,,+° . Commissioner Pearson moved to deny the zoning map change resolution. °^^r^~~° +~° ~^^I^^ rr-ap shange resolution Th' I +' h., .. +h° r, sr^^, n^,.hl° n,.,~r Commissioner Ahlness seconded Ayes- Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay -Fischer The motion to deny the comprehensive land use change resolution and rezoning map changed resolution passed. The reasons for denial are as stated by the planning commissioners during the meeting. Chairperson Fischer voted nay because she believes the city has a very unique situation here. She lives in a neighborhood where there are very deep lots. Deep lots against other deep lots may be why the neighbors haven't reported things that have happened in the past. The city is on enforcement by complaint type of system. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 06-06-OS Chairperson Fischer said she can see if there was aTruth-in-Housing inspection done on this that the owners felt they had some type of coverage that they didn't really have. She may not have necessarily voted for this as it was recommended by staff, but if it had been a PUD which would have let the duplex remain as it is currently she would have been comfortable with this because it does fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson recommended that the city take action with the property owners of 1349 and 1359 County Road C in Maplewood to bring the property into alignment with the current R-2 zoning as duplexes for those properties. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 27, 2005. d. Pondview Townhomes (Krongard Construction} Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street) (9:18 - 9:43 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said in 2002, the city acquired five single-family houses located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with the city's Housing Replacement Program funds. The city originally purchased three of these houses after they were flooded during a rainstorm in April 2001. Ms. Finwall said the two adjacent older homes, which were not flooded, were purchased by the city in order to combine them with the three previously purchased lots to create a larger building site to allow the development of up to eleven town house units on the site. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., has purchased the properties from the city and is now proposing to develop the 1.92-acre site with eleven town house units. The town houses will be constructed within two separate buildings -one with five-units and the other with six units and these units would sell for between $190,000 and $220,000. Commissioner Desai asked if the city permits moving the additional parking spaces between the units where the utility easement would be located? Mr. Ahl said that's okay to do. Utility easements are for storm sewers and construction over the top with parking is acceptable. There are parking lots over utility easements in several areas of the city. CommissionerTripplersald in a few places in the staff report it discusses additional landscape screening to buffer the two properties on the west but in looking at the diagrams that were provided in the staff report all he could see on the west side of the five unit building was a rather extensive retaining wall. He asked if there would be additional trees planted or is the proposed buffering the 11-feet of elevation difference? Ms. Finwall said staff will require additional landscaping for the CDRB to review, currently the applicant doesn't propose much landscaping in that area other than afour-foot high retaining wall. Planning Commission -18- Minutes of 06-06-05 Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant is okay with the additional screening? Ms. Finwall said the applicant is not yet aware of the request for additional screening. Commissioner Trippler asked about the wetland setback, are the buildings clearly outside of the 25-foot setback that the city is proposing? Ms. Finwall said according to the previous site plans it reflected a 43-foot setback, however, the new plat map showing the structures is not to scale so it is hard to say for sure, but it appears to be 20 feet from the current ponding easement which is the ordinary high water mark of the wetland. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant moved the buildings further north so the parking would not be an issue off of LarpenteurAvenue? Ms. Finwall said staff does nvt think the building setback will bean issue where the applicant would have to move the structures themselves. Commissioner Dierich said staff said the city council approved the 16-foot setback variance on the one side. She asked if the variance was a given or was this just a formality and the commission has to vote yes for the variance because the city council already approved a piece of this. Ms. Finwall said when the city council approved the rezoning; staff put together a concept of what could be built on this site. The city council approved the concept plan perhaps without the knowledge that the plan had a variance attached to it. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there would be any traffic implications by having the one outlet on Adolphus Street and does there need to be another outlet onto LarpenteurAvenue? Mr. Ahl said there were four homes with driveway access onto LarpenteurAvenue. With this new development the city has set the driveway entrances and exits on Adolphus Avenue because of traffic concerns. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., 14791 - 60~' Street North, Suite 2, Stillwater, addressed the commission. Mr. Krongard said he wasn't aware there was a variance attached to this because his company took the footprint of the reconstructed building pads from the City of Maplewood and created the buildings to fit the reconstructed pads. The parking was designed based on what was given to him by the City of Maplewood. As far as the landscaping he will work with staff to make it work on the site. He has money budgeted and monies can be shifted around to take care of redesigning the landscape plan. Planning Commission -19- Minutes of 06-06-05 Mr. Ahl said regarding the variance situation and the limitations on the site, Adolphus Street requires a 15-foot dedication of right-of-way, if you take away the 15-foot dedicated right-of- way, the 16-foot variance becomes aone-foot variance. Adolphus Street is offset and that site could be moved further to the west but there was a drainage overflow problem with water up to the rafters in the basement of the houses in this area before the city purchased them. The city put a 20-foot drainage easement for an overflow of the pond into the center and then put the restriction on the far western side of a small retaining wall and tried to put landscaping there and started reducing the width of the site with restrictions. Mr. Ahl said there was existing traffic problems on Larpenteur Avenue so they designed the plan to have the driveway location enter and exit onto Adolphus Street. Then the city discovered the soils were bad and to increase the value of the site, the city removed the foundations, improved the soils and had to figure out how to get 11 units on this site to save funds which is how it ended up being laid out. So the planning commission is not locked into this variance but the soils are corrected to that variance and site plan because of the other issues that exist there. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city corrected the soils between the buildings so the buildings can be moved closer than what is shown on the plan? Mr. Ahl said the city doesn't want to have a drainage problem again as they did in April of 2001, so the 20-foot drainage easement is required there. Mr. Krongard said keep in mind these are front to back units so the activity is in front and back and the side of the unit will pretty much be a screen by itself. Commissioner Pearson said about the same time the flooding problem occurred in these homes there was also a problem with the Ramsey County sewer line and he asked if that problem had been corrected yet? Mr. Ahl said the sewer problem Commissioner Pearson is referring to was with the MnDot system off Highway 35E. MnDot is proposing to upgrade Highway 35E in the next ten to fifteen years to a wider freeway, which will increase the runoff. However, that system is not up to capacity and will not be able to handle additional runoff. He has seen enough heavy rainfalls in his career and the city knows to correct and provide proper drainage for those overflow events. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Pondview Town House preliminary plat date- stamped May 9, 2005. Prior to final approval of the common interest community plat by the city, the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Revise the location of the wetlandlponding easement to ensure a 20-foot bufferfrom the delineated wetland. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. b. Prepare and submit easement documents for the required utility easements to city staff for approval. c. Revise the grading/drainagelutility plans as specified by the city's engineering department in their June 2, 2005, engineering plan review. Planning Commission -20- Minutes of 06-06-05 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the owner or developer must complete the following: 1)Record the utility and wetlandlponding easements. 2)Since the plat is a common interest community plat and not officially recorded until after the structures are built, are five individual lots must be combined into one property for tax and identification purposes, and a revised lot line subdividing the two buildings must be administratively approved by city staff in order to allow the construction of the two buildings on two separate lots. e. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the buildings, the owner or developer must record the final plat. Approve the variance resolution (Attachment 9) as shown in the staff report. This resolution approves a 16-foot setback variance to the adjacent residential property for the proposed Pondview Townhomes located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Approval of the variance is based on the following findings: • Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created. by the property owner. The location of the existing wetland and storm sewer limit the location for the proposed town houses. • The reduction in the town houses setback to the adjacent residential property line will be mitigated by the following factors: the town house will be located approximately eleven feet lower than the adjacent residential lot line; the town house proposed is only atwo-story structure, and not a large multi-dwelling building; and additional landscape screening will be added to buffer the two properties. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the CDRB on June 14, 2005, and then to city council on June 27, 2005. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission -21- Minutes of D6-06-05 IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. No representation was needed forthe May 23, 2005, city council meeting. Commissioner Dierich said the EAW environmental study on CarverAvenue forthe Schlomka property was discussed. Mr. Roberts said the city council gave permission forthe EAW environmental studyto be done along Sterling Street south of Carver Avenue as well as some other properties. The city is contributing $10,000 to the environmental study and the developer is contributing $25,000. b. Mr. Ahlness will be the planning commission representative at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Roadway Easement Vacation on (Marylake Road west of Century Avenue), the CUP revision for Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street), Trout Land Auto Dealership (Highway 61 and new County Road D) CUP, and the 2006 - 2010 Maplewood CIP. c. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the June 27, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Richie/Anondson four-plexes at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East for the Land Use Plan Change, Zoning Map Change, and the Pondview Town House Project at Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Avenue. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Update Mr. Roberts determined the best day for the city council is Thursday, July 28, 2005. b. Rescheduling of July 4, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting to eitherTuesday, July 5, 2005, or Wednesday, July 6, 2005. After checking with planning commissioners the Monday, July 4, 2005, planning commission meeting is being rescheduled to Tuesday, July 5, 2005. Planning Commissioners Desai and Trippler are unable to attend the planning commission meeting for both July 5 and July 6. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION Project Description City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Lot Width and Setback Variances Jeff Kissel) and Tom Dahlquist 1774 McMenemy Street June 10, 2005 Jeff Kissel), representing Kissel) Construction, and Tom Dahlquist, the property owner, are requesting that the city approve ivvo variances to create a new lot for a new single family home. The requests are for the property on the north side of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. The city code requires lots for houses to be at least 75 feet wide and that they have a side yard setback of at least ten feet. Requests The applicant's are requesting city approval fora 73.5-foot-wide lot (a 1.5-foot lot-width variance) with a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot side-yard setback variance) to create the new, narrower lot. (See fhe applicant's statement and the maps on pages six through nine). BACKGROUND On December 8, 1977, the City Council approved a special use permit for the property at 1774 McMenemy Street. This permit was to allow the construction of a double dwelling on the property north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. This approval was subject to several conditions including: 1. City approval of a lot split. 2. The owner submitting a survey showing that the new lot line would meet city standaMs (for setbacks). 3. The proposed construction was to meet all building and fire code requirements. (See the council minutes on page ten). On January 12, 1978, the city counal approved a fot division for the property at 1774 McMenemy Street. This approval was so the owner could create a new 75-foot-wide lot north of the existing house. The survey the owner submitted for this request showed a new 75-foot-wide lot with the new line 5.5 feet north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. (See the survey on page eleven.) The property owner, however, never recorded the deeds for this split DISCUSSION Section 44-106 of the city's zoning code states that °the minimum lot area in an R-1 residential zoning district shall be 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width at the building setback line shall be 75 feet.° As 1 noted above, the applicants are requesting that the city approve a 73.5- foot-wide lot (a 1.5-foot lot-width variance) with a seven foot setback from the e~dsting house (a three foot side-yard setback variance) to create the new, narrower lot. In order to comply with the state land use law, the city council is required to make two findings before granting a variance: (1) Strict enforcement of the city ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that: (a) You cannot put your property to a reasonable use under city ordinances. (b) Your problem is due to circumstances unique to your property that you did not cause. (c) The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. (2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Unique Hardship The problem requiring the variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. The city had approved a lot split for this property in 1978, but the previous property owner never completed the division of the land. Since that time, the city's minimum lot width standard of 75 feet has not changed, but the city increased the minimum side yard setback requirement from five feet to ten feet This increased minimum side yard setback now requires the owner to get city approval of a variance to allow for the cxeation of the new lot. This code change is something that the owner or applicant did not cause. In addition, the variance and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. Spirit and Intent The variance woukf be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. In order to help reduce the potential impacts of having a new house in this location, city staff is recommending several conditions of approval for the new house and garage. These include increased building setbacks from the north property line and the addition of landscaping and fencing along the north property line. SUMMARY The variance request for reduced lot width is quite minor. The proposed new lot would require a 1.5-foot lot width variance, for a new lot width of 73.5 feet and a three foot side yard setback variance. The area of the new lot would be 14,976 square feet (due to the 203 foot depth of the lot) which would exceed the requirements in Section 44-106 for lot dimensions. The development of the proposed lot with a 1.5-foot tot width variance would be in keeping with the character of the neighbofiood and would not be visually noticeable. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 15 and 16. This resolution approves the two variance requests for the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street These indude having a 73.5-foot-wide lot (a 1.5-foot variance) and a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot variance). The city is basing this approval on the fact that the proposed lot width would be in character of the existing lots in the area, as well as the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for this variance request that meets state law requirements incuding: 1. The problem requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. 2. The variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. 3. The variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the dty had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. 4. The reduced lot width and building setback also would not be visually noticeable. Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: 1. The house and garage on the new lot shall have at least a ten foot setback from the north property line. 2. The dry engineer shall approve a grading and drainage plan before the city approves a lot split for the creation of the new lot. 3. The builder shall provide asix-foot tall privacy fence and eight-foot-tall coniferous trees (black hills spruce or Austrian Pines) along the north property line. The final design and location of the fence and trees shall be subject to the approval of city staff and the contractor shall install these before the city grants an occupancy permit for the new house. CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 54 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the four replies, one was for the proposal, one was against and two provided comments about the proposal. For On that land a new home would be good for all of us. It will add to Maplewood. (Gross - 366 Summer Lane) Against 1. See the letter from Jay Swanson of 1780 McMenemy Street on pages 12 - 14. Comments We have no objections to this variance being granted. (Bogut -344 Summer Lane) 2. I have no problem with the lot variance and lot split. (Kowalczuk - 348 Summer Lane} REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: Single-Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single-family home East: Single-family homes on Ripley Avenue South: Church driveway and single-family homes on McMenemey Street West: MnDOT truck yard across McMenemey Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Single Dwelling Residential Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) 4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL The city code allows city staff to approve variances administratively where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet or less and where the adjoining property owners sign a petition supporting the request. For other variances, state law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance. These are: 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 quest~n cannot be put to a reasonable 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 The city received the application for this variance request on May 20, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends July 18, 2005. P/sec17/1774 McMenemy St Variance Attachmerrts: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Address Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. December 8, 1977 city council minutes 6. Survey dated December 30, 1977 7. Letter dated May 30, 2005 from Jay Swanson 8. Variance Resolution Attachment 1 Date: 4/6/05 Lic#20170364 ~ /r C'". C4NSTRUCT~ON INC. To: Director of Community Development From: I{issell Construction Inc 1899 Rice Street Roseville, MN 55113 Office 651-778-1322 Faa 651-774-9713 Cell 612-685-0515 Re: Side yard variance Property Address: 1774 McMenemy Street Maplewood, MN 55117 Tom Dahlgnist, along with Kissell Construction Inc., is requesting to split the lot at 1774 McMenemy Street into two residential lots. Tom's house at 1774 would remain untouched. The proposed division would regaire a side yard variance for the property at 1774. The new property would not meet the current requirements for front yard, but would meet the requirements of the city for lot square footage. It is our assumption that allowing the variance would not negatively impact any surrounding residential properties or the church to the south of 1774 McMenemy. We also feel that a newly constructed home priced between 5225,000 and $250,000 would only add to the surrounding neighborhood. In closing, attempting to construct a new home in this area that is priced affordably would not affect the surrounding community but only add a new family to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Jeff I{issell, President Kissell Construction Inc. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT Attachment 2 r-~ '~ ~~ ~ i l l ~ i II II- ~ ~":.--- l i ~ I J I I ~I 11 It----~I-1~iC~i}"_ i ~I I~ ~ I I 1~ ~ I I'~ , I l;-~~~~~~ I ~, - ' i ~ I I~~ ~' Ir~l 1 ~;~ II Ij ~I Il - I~_I ' 1 I 1y ~------- ij~. -__1i I~__~ - F-% fI I + I, 11 III III i ~--~-_---~I IF---f ~ rr I y I ~ y {4 !I ih.l I I `' ~ -- ~ I ~~ ~ ~ I ~I y~ ~' I I fl I ~---r- ~--~ 'r- ~~I 7I ( I I~ + I ~ I f ~' JI I } I' ~ j ~i~~.ll r- ,I~ ~~`~ ~;N~ ~~ +- ~-. ~~ ~ '~ii1-~ ~ ,r I ~ '~ yy s !l i~ iii` ~ ~, ~ l._' _ . 1 4l I I1 I r,l Li-l 7~-~ I I ~`- i I I i, ~~ -~ y~ ~ 1 fr~l ~ I II j ~t~' I I I I ttl ~}t It I I ,r , , I I- I-- ff II--- -- I I .4 y t~ I I Jr ill _ I ~ ~. - ~~d t~.._~ t y I fr ~I I , i I ~ I;! ~i ,~ =k = y,~ If I j ~ ~ ", .I ~ OVERVIEW 1 -- ~'i I~~ ~I ' I + i I I ~l y~ Western Ff71~ Rark y f ~ _ 14~ i ~ ~.jj~ ~ ~ ~~a~ _' + I j I i '~.1- ~ , -~ ~ ~ _ ;; ~ _ r`--..~f ~ Iti _ .. I ~ I .I MNDOT III ~~, - -~ ~ / t t 4 1 I I SffE ~ ~~ _ _11'1 ~.-t"rs `~ -" ~ ~il , __ I I t 1 4 ~-~-- I ~~ ~~ r ~ r 11 y I-~.! ~~ I I : -L- to i ~~ ~ '~ ` .+ i t i~ 1, l y I I _,.~ o,.~_ Jrl ! 11l 41 II ..~ . rr I it, I i ~_ . r 4 1 t I I '' ~''~~ ~ I r I t y tx I l y ~' ~ 1! I l i {11 + I I 4 t r ", I I --~ _~~, ~. ~I ~' 71 i t I yyy ~ I r~ I+~ ~ ~1 i Ji I I I yy ~ ; -_I Ittf r'-~ I _' _~ _ _! f----y f t III _ I'4 - } I .__..- - - _ d I - - - - ~ -ri._ . -^ _ .. .SAINT PAUL II ~-_ ~ -1='- ~I~;, ,4-_~.~__ _ - ~_ ~.-. I _.._.- -. I ~.~ II ~ I '~, + I I ._ ,,, ~ ~" ~~I --- - .1 '.I -~- -- ; I ~ ~ i' l 1 I ~ ; r II4y ~ I ` ~ I I I~- L r-•'' ! I LOCATION MAP N Attachment 3 OVERVIEW MNDOT i 1779 cn q b _ .. . o 1767 ~ ~~~ ~~ 1741 _ __ ._ 173 1740 1750 ADDRESS MAP a I _ I _ _ E1 ~ ~ 380 ' I I ~ 1866 I ~ SAINT JEROMES ~ I I I . ~ i j ~: L- . _. ... _ __._ ... ---- --. _._. ____.. _. I --` _.. r-~~ ~ riJ4 _J ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ '` 390 ~~. 1855 ~ I I t8 o 86 ~ r~ 3 ._........ I I i i _. D ~ , ~Z~ 184 ' i' i I [~-, ~ ~2 I ~~ -,<. 378 Lr_~ 1~ ~ Jam, ~0~ 370 374 ~;~ 35 gj I ~a j~ - ` ._.. ~-1835 t I f ~~I r ~ ~ ~ I I I _ - ,~ ^ I I ~ 1780 -~ i ~ C i I r 37~ ~L_ t ~ ~J y I --- - - ----- --- RIPLEY AVE ---- ----- - -- } I ~ I IW I W - ~ 9774` F PROPOSED LOT SPLIT - ,.__ --- r ~ ' 390J - ~ 398 I ~ r -L 4 ~-405 418 it ~~ I U' ~ r SITE f '~-~2~ ~~ ~ ~~ i __ _. ~ I I ~ ~ J I 17~' ___ '- I ~ . _. ~~ _...... ___ ...... 1770 '~.~{] I I CHURCH ' 1~ I i N Attachment 4 M f 1~10~, ~U~~ f ~f :~f 41~! "15TM ~~I. I IfISSELL CONSTRUCTION . ~ 1899 Rice Street I ~ ~ Rasevtiile, dfinnesata 55713 651-778-1322 I /' I ~ I ::: I " I~ I ~ t ~~: „ " ---------- -~ i -- I1 I ~ ~ .. I • ~ ~ ... '" ~ ~ 378 a I ~ I ~ ~ F-- o 0 ; ~ I ~ e ' m a ~ 9 - ~ I / q :~ ' $ ~ a I / e o / j PROPOSED LOT SPLIT ~ n ..~ tai .. / = I I~ o a 3 // / 3a I I `~' ..a I '~ 1= O / O / y / C& I 1y1 € / nao I I / I GRAPHIC 9CALF i yre.a s QQ~QS P/JiCEL PARC0. 0 NORT:1 1 nnroy s~liy Mat !n4 •nrw•x Wm a rNdl ~a~ WNad !Y mA ay untls' sl fuprM~m en a CWY Rpiafm0 CmW Snwyor wCr Nr lens e! tM Shot. e/ Nsn.aaiv. ~~.~. AW Oar 3-1C-~°et rk.~r na ~'Ip SITE PLAN 9 N Attachment 5 2. Special Use Permit - Douhle Dwelling - 1774 McMenemy Road - 7:.30 P.M. ~~ a. Mayor Murdock convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of Ronald and Carole Dahlquist for a Special Use Permit to construct a double dwell- ~.~ ing north of their existing single family home at 1774 McMenemy Road. The Clerk ~~ read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. b. Manager. Miller presented the staff report recommending approval subject to: 1, Approval by the City of alot split; 2. Submission of a survey verifying that the new lot line will not violate minimum required set hacks; 3. Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes; 4. Construction of driveway turn-arounds; S. Agreement to the above in writing. c. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation: "Commissioner Fischer moved,.based on analysis of the staff report, Planning Com- mission recommends approval of the application for Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the City of a lot split; 2. Submission of a survey verifying that the new lot line will not violate minimum required setbacks; 3. Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes; 4. Construction of driveway turn-arounds;-and 5. Agreement. to the above in writing, Commissioner Waldron seconded. Ayes - all. d. Mr. Ronald Dahlquist, 1774 McMenemy Road, the applicant, stated he agreed to the conditions. e. Mayor Murdock called for proponents. None were .heard. f. Mayor Murdock called for opponents. None were heard.. g. Mayor Murdock closed the public hearing. h. Councilman Anderson moved to approve the Special Use Permit, as requested by Ronald and Carole Dahlquist, 1774 McMenemy Road, to construct a double dwelling north of their existing home subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the City of a lot split; 2. Submission of a survey verifying. that the new lot line will not violate minimum required setbacks; 3. Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes; 4. Construction of driveway turn-arounds; aad 5. 'Agreement. to the above in writing. Seconded by Councilman Wiegert. Ayes - all. 10 Attachment b daAN ].-RYAN GO. 1595 SELBY AVENUE, ST: PRUL 5610Y SCALE: i INCH SO FEET ~ ~ - TELEPHONE: 6466859 ~. ~. "~~.~~~.~ ~,~,-f .~~~,.,.: PLAT QF SLTRV~Y OF,PROPERTY OF y~Joa~/~ GV ~ah1,/nrris~ LOCATION f77¢ /fr r/s~°w°i3e~'i99L/ T~~~~LIr'f~+~~,~1~~'*3r`*~° /~j1r 7 bESCAIBED AS FQilOWS rir ~'~r^•rT~ ~7Y#i°~G~rf~'aa a-/C %~7~?~'{~/'r~ ~¢Q~fja~ .t~r ,v~s~j~ of~5~ ~orh5~r©,s~.~,%~ o~f~~ .,tea ~r~-% ark LSecfir,~i7, T~i?.29,.,~;~'..~'~, sSidj;~c~~r.~~r1; rt°~~rrp~~y /.~l>_~r,: F.rr, y azs ~i -LAR i ' ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ I 33 ~ ~ I a'k '~ ~ I ~~ i O i Ir: l ~ I ~ fi, ~ 33 " 1 --- -- 56.-3 ~5.--- ; 4~ 3Z6. 92 __-_ ____._~ 2 2 93. 92 ~ a~ ~~ ~r ._ -------- - 0 tM '-~~ 1~„ ~ • ~ . - 4 . I ~ ` ~ i ~ fe.va 0 'a ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ . i ~~ ~'~ 3~ I ---------- ---a93. ~8.._ .__.__ s _ j -- 32.7.:4 ... t ,S. N1. f6.2.O.° ~k~i~ of,S-~ri.%St ,drf .rIl~Y1~oP ,Sse:',~ JPr~ !7. 19-22 CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUI~.DING I hereby cartfty Chat as ~Z '-jD. 19 ~7 ttiia mousy, plan, or report leas prepared by me or under my diteet supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Sar xeyar under t ]ass of C~ State of Minnesota. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY E hereby certify that on ~' ~~ lg 7 7 this survey, phw, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Su~veyor ua~er tJ$e 7ayvayof the Stata of lYiianesota. J. Gary Ryan, Regutved Land Surveyor, Nu. 1152' Joan J. Ryarz, Regisrved Land SurveYUr, No. M89 Paul f. franc, Registered Lead Surveyor, No. dYt9 71 Attachment 7 May 30, 2005 Mr. Kenneth Roberts Planner Office of Community Development City of Maplewood JAN Q 2 z011~ 1830 County Road B East R E C E f V E Maplewood, MN 55109 0 Dear Mr. Roberts, Maplewood Planning Commission, and Maplewood City Council, There are two reasons why I am opposed to this project: 1. Lot width; 2. Price range of proposed house; I feel that both reasons will negatively affect my lifestyle as well as the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood. I offer the following explanations to my objections to this request for variance: 1) The space in question is obviously too small to be in keeping with Maplewood's vision of less crowding of homes. A number of years- ago Maplewood changed the minimum setback requirement from five feet from the lot line to ten feet. I would have to assume that this change was made to avoid crowding houses together and ultimately benefiting the beauty and quality of life in the city of Maplewood; ensuring that Maplewood grows as a model, tier-one Twin Cities suburb and city in its own rite. Here I, however, have to defend the good judgment shown by the city at that time. The variance is asking for a seven foot setback instead of the ten foot setback (as required by the city) for the Dahlquist property. This, along with the 73.5 foot lot width instead of the 75 foot width (as required by the city) for the new lot, adds up to a shortage of 4.5 feet. Asking for a nearly five foot variance does not just bend the newer setback requirements, it negates it. The closeness of the existing Dahlquist home to the proposed new home, along with a garage potentially five feet from my lot line, will result in a crowded look and feel which I believe the City of Maplewood was trying to avoid when it amended the setback requirements. This would be particularly true placed next to my one-acre, treed and landscaped lot - a lot that neighbors have said contributes to the open, spacious feel of the neighborhood. 12 2) The price range of the proposed home to be built on this lot is not in accordance with the value of surrounding property and current construction. I was originally told by Mr. Dahlquist that a home in the $300,000 - 350,000 range would be constructed and would be designed in accordance with the look and feel of my home. I have. spent time talking with neighbors on Ripley (directly behind said property), who assumed that any new homes constructed in their community would indeed by similar in style and price to theirs. They were shocked, as well, when they saw the price of the home being proposed. On a street in a community that has seen several new projects resulting in a huge change for the better (the cul- de-sac on Ripley, the Masterpiece Homes projects, and other proposed and in-progress projects), this proposal is simply not a good fit. I was told by Mr. Kissell that the average home selling price in the neighborhood is between $185,000 - 207,000. These prices may reflect the sales of older homes, but not the newer homes. Mr. Dahlquist's existing home, built in 1966, was recently appraised in the $210,000 range. The townhomes to the north of my home have sold for $235,000 to 300,000 per unit. The Masterpiece project across the street and next to the D.O.T. has an estimated starting price of $350,000 per unit. Although these projects have added to additional noise, traffic, lack of privacy, and wholesale loss of trees, wildlife and green space, they at least have contributed to the community by offering exceptional housing that can only increase the value of neighboring property. These projects have also been, or will be built, on land that still will give the area a spacious feel. All of this is in contrast to the starting price of the home that Mr. Kissell and Mr. Dahlquist want to construct on aless-than-legal lot size. I have also been told by Mr. Dahlquist that he intends to rent out his home and build a house on the lot in question to relieve a financial burden. This does not sound like Mr. Dahlquist has neighborhood improvement in mind. In Mr. Kissell's applicant statement, he does not give any examples of how this project will add to the neighborhood. He only states that he does not think it will affect the neighborhood negatively. I do not see how a new house that is priced in the range of older homes in the area instead of priced in line with the newer construction (priced at $300,000 and up), as well as a house that is being squeezed onto a lot that is too small can possibly be considered an asset to our neighborhood. For all the above reasons, I am asking that the City of Maplewood decline the variance request of Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Kissel. 13 In the event that the City Council feels that their request should be granted and a lower priced home should indeed be placed in that narrow location, I am asking that a ten foot setback (instead of five foot) for the garage will be required. In addition, I request that a fence and substantial landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc.) be added along my lot line to maintain my level of privacy and comfort. I would also like to be presented with andlall building plans and landscaping plans, with anapproval/no approval option. Thank you for your valuable time in reviewing my response to this proposed variance. Sincerely, J Swenson Maplewood Resident 1780 McMenemy Street Maplewood, MN 55117 14 Attachment 8 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jeff Kissell artd Tom Dahlquist applied to the cityy for approval of two variances from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, the variances apply to the proposed single dwelling lot north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. The proposed legal description of the property (Parcel B) is: The north 73.50 feet of the south 162 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Except the east 90.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. Subject to the rights of the public in that part used for McMenemy Street. (Part of PIN 17-29-22-32-0030) WHEREAS, Section 44-106 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that lots for single dwellings have a minimum lot width of 75 feet and Section 44108(a) of the City Code requires a side yard setback of at least ten feet to a dwelling. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 73.5-foot wide lot and a side yard seiback of seven feet to an existing dwelling.. WHEREAS, these require a variance of 1.5 feet and 3 feet respectively. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On June 20, 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 recommended that the city council approve the variances. 2. The City Council held a public meeting about this request on July 11, 2005. The council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council the variance requests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described variance for the following reasons: 1. The problem requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. 2. The variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. 3. The variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. 4. The reduced lot width and building setback also would not be visually noticeable. 15 Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: 1. The house and garage on the new lot shall have at least a ten foot setback from the north property line. 2. The aty engineer shall approve a grading and drainage plan before the city approves a lot split for the creation of the new lot. 3. The builder shall provide asix-foot tall privacy fence and eight-foot-tall coniferous trees (black hills spruce or Austrian Pines) along the north property line. The final design and location of the fence and trees shall be subject to the approval of city staff and the contractor shall install these before the city grants an occupancy permit for the new house. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2D05. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Lark Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation LOCATION: Between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street DATE: June 15, 2005 INTRODUCTION Request Wanda and Lyle Pichelman are requesting that the city vacate the unused 60-foot-wide Lark Avenue right-of-way located between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street. (Please see attached maps and the applicant's statement.) DISCUSSION Reasons for Vacation Wanda and Lyle Pichelman own the property at 2255 Hazel Street (hereinafter the "property"). The property is 0.51 acres in size and is the site of the Pichelman family home. The property is located to the north of the unused Lark Avenue right-of-way. The Pichelmans are requesting the vacation of the right-of-way in order to construct an addition to the south side of their house within the newly acquired 30 feet of right-of-way. The addition to the rambler style house includes an attached garage and upper bedrooms. The Pichelmans also intend to remove part of a shed from the backyard and pave the existing driveway. The Pichelmans desire the addition because they have a significant need for storage space but do not have a garage. There is currently not enough room to build an attached garage on the side of the house and it would be difficult for them to build a detached garage anywhere else on the site because of the steep grade which drops to the south on the property. Criteria for Approval State statute requires that a petition approving the vacation of a street be submitted to the city council by a majority of the owners of land abutting the street. To date, the applicants have been unsuccessful in obtaining approval from one of the abutting property owners and were therefore unable to submit such a petition. Joseph Lapinski, 2241 Hazel Street, is opposed to the vacation of the unused right-of-way for the following reasons: He is concerned about his property taxes increasing. He is concerned that the Pichelmans do not have the financial capabilities to complete the project. He does not want a garage to be located close to his property. State statute further states that the city council may approve the vacation of a street by a four- fifths vote if the vacation appears in the interest of the public to do so. Engineering Comments The Maplewood engineering department has reviewed the proposal and concluded that it would be in the interest of the city to retain part of Lark Avenue right-of-way for future use. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, stated that constructing a street through the Lark Avenue right- of-way would be unlikely and cost prohibitive because of the large grade differences between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street. Mr. Cavett, therefore, recommends that the city treat the east and west segments of the right-of-way separately. Based on the rationale that the easterly properties would be difficult to redevelop and the property owners have no desire to redevelop, Mr. Cavett recommends vacating only the easterly segment at this time. There is, however, a possibility that the properties on Van Dyke Street could redevelop because of the large deep lots. These lots could redevelop with the extension of a short cul-de-sac into the unused Lark Avenue right-of-way. In such case, the abutting properties on the north and south sides of the right-of-way would be involved in a mutual replatting. Conclusion The Pichelman and Lapinski properties would be more difficult to redevelop due to the fact that the Pichelman lot is smaller. Also, the Pichelmans and the Lapinskis have both indicated they do not wish to have a roadway built adjacent to their homes and neither have plans to redevelop the property. The vacation of the easterly section of the unused Lark Avenue right-of-way is in the interest of the public because it will allow a resident to expand and improve their home adding value to the community. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution. This resolution vacates the easterly 300 feet of the unused 60- foot-wide Lark Avenue right-of-way located west of the right-of-way line of Hazel Street. The city should vacate 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 street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow a resident to expand and improve their home. REFERENCE Vacations Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 states that the council may by resolution vacate any right of-way on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting the right-of- way. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four- fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by a two-week published and posted notice. Application Date The city received the complete application for this proposal on May 16, 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 July 16, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Sec 11 Lark Avenue R.O.W vacation Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Topographic Map 4. Site Plan 5. Proposed Elevations 6. April 5, 2D05, Correspondence from Applicants 7. Street Vacation Resolution Attachment 1 ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~' ~- Highway 36 ~:~m BmC~ _~ - _ ~ ~ 8 -! ~ ~ m ~, ~ ~ , ~'a - ~ - - ~' ~ Proposed Vacation ~ - - ~ . o 0 ~o o ~ a "~ ~ ~s~ ~, v ~ ' ~ o c~ ~_ > ~ ~ 4 ~© ~~~ Q° f~_-~ ~ - ~ rJ - ~ ©. `~ ~ - ~ - o©_ I® ~ ® ~ '' ~`~ ~~ ~ ado ~i~~~~ ~ ^ ~ ~9° oun oa ~~' LOCATION MAP N a Attachment 2 I i fAl Y 2266 e ~~ 2255 ® ® j O c ^ ~I Proposed Vacation ^ ~ ® 2242 2241 PROPERTY LINE MAP ^4 N Attachment 3 '] ~., ' r ~ t - o- v 3 '``~- ~ K 932.8 E ~- _ -~~V ~ _. ~ ~"-W ~ 3 ~ r .~ £.y ~,,, ~ A ~ ~ -_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ...,.;„.gyp s . ~ y' -r+~ j ~ r M JL t~ ~~ ~ e _._ # p . ~.,,~ ~-- ~ ~~~. t ~ x B43 ~ ~ ~,-, i TOPOGRAPHIC MAP N Attachment 4 2261 I~ . _.. ! j - ~, R//ernove L .__ --~! X11 0{~ Shed ~~- i r-- I V 2255 -_ I ~ '~ ~ iV2w I (~. f IRdd;}Gon ~ I ~~ ~.~,~- - _ I ~~ - -~~ -.~_ s.. ~nuSed. C.a~~ eve. ~~ght 0~ _ Wq ~ ~~ ~t _i ~- 7 i 2241 i ~__ I SITE PLAN CI ~ u N Attachment 5 ~= ~ .. ., ._ _ ~~ --- i - ~.. - --- --- -~ ---- -~ - _ T ~ ~ -~IIt' i~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ _-~ I -~. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ^4 N Attachment 6 April 5, 20t~5 City of Maplewood To Whom This May Concern; Re: Vacating a dedicated Street so we can erect an attached gazage at 2255 North Hazel Street I am writing to ask the City to vacate Lazk Street between 2255 Hazel Street, and 2241 Hazel Street. Lark Street will never be built because of the topography, and we require the space to build an attached garage on my property at 2255 North Hazel Street. I have lived at this residence since 1961. This is a rambler style home without a garage and paved driveway. It is my desire to build an attached garage and add a paved driveway to improve the appearance and value of my home. I've been told by city planners that in order to do this I need to ask the city to vacate the street, Lark Street, between my property and the property at 2241 North Hazel Street. I have obtained some signatures from surrounding property owners as required, please see attached. I am hopeful this will be an adequate gxplanation of my plans for improvis}g my property. It if is not, I will yvait to heaz from you. SiJncer~ely, p ~~ ~ LN (~-'i'~'~`' Wanda Pichelman 2255 North Hazel Street Maplewood, MN 55109 651-773-5881 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Lyle Pichelman and Wanda Pichelman applied for the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: The easterly 300 feet of the unused 60-foot-wide Lark Avenue right-of-way located west of the right-of-way line of Hazel Street. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On June 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. On June 27, 2005, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: S 75 feet of E'/ (subject to roads) of Lot 2, Block 3, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul 2255 Hazel Street North, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 11-29-22-33-0026 2. E'/z of (subject to roads) Lot 1, Block 14, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul 2241 Hazel Street North, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 11-29-22-33-0029 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and abutting property owners have no plans to build a street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow a resident to expand and improve their home. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2005. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Maplewood Toyota Parking Ramp Proposal LOCATION: Northwest Comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 DATE: June 14, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota, is proposing to build a one-story parking ramp on the existing Maplewood Toyota parking lot at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This proposed ramp would be a one-level ramp above the existing parking lot. Mr. McDaniels proposes to continue to store and sell cars from this site. The proposed ramp would have aground-level sales office in the southeast comer of the structure near the intersection. The elevated level would be at grade with the abutting Maplewood Toyota site to the north and would be bridged across to that site for vehicular access. The proposed ramp would have an exterior of precast concrete spandrels {panels) and precast concrete columns. The proposed sales office in the southeast comer of the structure is designed to be the more decorative and prominent element. The proposed outside walls of the office would have an exterror of metal panels, aluminum framing and glass. The upper-level fascia material of the office area would be constructed of reinforced metal panels. Northerly Site During the construction of the proposed ramp, the applicant proposes to move the kxrs from this site to his vacant lot between Gulden's Roadhouse and LaMettry Collision. Mr. McDaniels proposes to provide a graveled parking lot to temporarily store cars. This northerly lot is also proposed to have a permanent pervious-paver area for water permeation. Staff will address this proposal in a separate report dealing with the specifics of that site. Refer to the applicant's letters and plans. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: • A CUP (conditional use permit} revision to allow the parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. The proposed ramp structure would be 200 feet from the nearest residential property. Mr. McDaniels owns the nearest house to the west which he rents out. This house is on the subject property. (Please note: The applicant's narrative states that the ramp setback would be 154 feet. It scales 200 feet on the plans, however.) • A setback variance to build the ramp 25 feet from the Beam Avenue right-of-way and 15 feet from the Highway 61 right-of--way. The applicant proposes to follow the existing southeaty parking lot curb line as the building edge on the south and run the building straight north from the southeast comer of the building at the 15-foot setback mark. The ramp setback would increase to 62 feet at the north end of the site. Architectural, site and landscaping plans. BACKGROUND January 18, 1979: The city council approved a CUP for the original Maplewood Toyota dealership on the south side of Beam Avenue. October 8, 2001: The city council approved the parking IoUsales lot on the north side of Beam Avenue by CUP. There were subsequent annual reviews by the council. On March 28, 2005, the city council granted an indefinite CUP approval-to be reviewed again only if the applicant proposes a change. DISCUSSION CUP Revision for a Parking Ramp and Car Sales within 350 Feet of Residential Property Staff feels that the primary determination the city must make is that of how compatible the proposed ramp would be with the abutting residential neighborhood from the standpoints of function, nuisance control and appearance. Function Staff does not see that the ramp would be any more of a burden on the neighborhood than the existing on-grade parking from the standpoint of activity. Granted, the existing parking lot has, according to neighbors' replies, created too much traffic congestion at the comer. Neighbors also pointed out that, along with the traffic congestion, the Maplewood Toyota pedestrian crossing further delays neighborhood drivers in their wait to cross or enter onto Highway 61. Staff does not feet that the capacity to park more cars would affect the traffic issue to any substantial degree. If a new or additional use was proposed that would draw new customers for a different reason, staff would think differently. This is not to say steps should not be taken to try to improve an existing problem. Some of the neighbors stated that they felt that the easterly curb cut into Maplewood Toyota's main site south of Beam Avenue is too dose to Highway 61. From a functional perspective, staff agrees. Drivers attempting to enter this curb cut will hold up traffic on Beam Avenue as will those exiting the site onto Beam. If the planning commission, community design review board (CDRB) and city council look for ways to improve traffic flow at this location, perhaps the redesign of the main Maplewood Toyota parking lot should be considered. This site, however, is not spedfically the subject of our review, but it is a related element. On-Street Parkin An aspect of dealership function that should be addressed is Maplewood Toyota's use of Beam Avenue for on-street parking by employees. Staff sees no reason for this to continue. Although legal if not prohibited by signs, this on-street parking is a nuisance to the adjacent homeowners on Beam Avenue. nth the proposed addition of 173 parking spaces on the upper level, staff would recommend that a suffident number of off-street parking spaces be provided, and dearly signed, for all employee and customer needs. Staff found it very difficult to park while inspecting the property for this review. There is simply no on-site partcing available for visitors without parking in drive aisles. Nuisances Noise Several neighbors commented on hearing the P.A. system that is on site. Staff has not heard this system in use, but with the availability of personal electronic paging devices, it seems like this problem can be easily solved by eliminating public broadcasts into the parking lot. Lights Certainly, the applicant needs his site lit for security. The city code and the police department, as well, require site-security lighting. We did receive survey comments from neighbors, though, stating that the site lights are a nighttime problem. In the last few years, Mr. McDaniels installed new site lights throughout his property. These fixtures were properly designed to aim downward and not allow horizontal shining. Staff has a concern, though, that any lights proposed for the ramp be designed to comply fully with city code to prevent any light-glare nuisance from occurring. The applicant has provided light-intensity measurements on Sheet 901-FL in the plans. This plan identifies four existing back-to-baGc pole lights, and six others are noted but are not shown on the drawing. The proposed design details for the lighting fixtures are not shown either. Staff does not know where any new lights would be placed, but it seems obvious to staff, that they would be on top of the proposed ramp. Pole height could be a problem. The city will require a full photometric plan with fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in designing such a plan should be to ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted far CDRB review and approval. Appearance/Aesthetics Ramo Design The front (southeast) comer of the building is certainly the most attractive view of the proposed ramp. This is the sales-office comer with a decorative facade. The material of the majority of the proposed ramp, however, is utilitarian in appearance. Precast concrete spandrels seem to staff to 6e the minimum in terms of design quality that is available. During early meetings with the applicant, staff stressed the need for an attractive ramp design. There are many new examples of improved parking ramp designs staff has seen on recent redevelopment tours in other cities. Here in Maplewood, in fact, we have a very good example of what a ramp can look like that would be considerably more attractive and compatible in a location that is both residential and highly visible to the public The St. John's Hospital ramp on the comer of Hazelwood Street and Beam Avenue, one half mile to the east of the proposed ramp, is very attractive with its brown- colored aggregate finish and architectural detailing. This is also cone-level ramp (ground level and one upper deck) like the one proposed. The top level of this ramp also tapers into the grade on the north side as the proposed one would. Staff is not able to forward a recommendation of approval for the proposed ramp. As a guideline, the applicant should redesign the exterior of their proposed ramp to be at least as decorative in materials and appearance as the St. John's Hospital ramp. LandscapinaiScreenin The site is already screened fairty well from the homes to the west by existing trees. This is clearly the case during the summer. In the winter, when the deciduous trees are bare, the Toyota site will be more open to view. The applicant is not proposing any additional landscaping. A few neighbors had requested some. Staffs opinion is that there should be evergreens added on the west side of the holding pond to help provide winter screening. Granted, it will take many years for any evergreens to grow tall enough to provide screening for the neighbors. Even though, the applicant should attempt to improve the buffer/screen for the neighbors. Variance-Parking Ramp Setback-Reduction from Streets Staff cannot find any basis for approval of the proposed building setback variances with the required state-statute findings. For variances, state law requires that the city council make certain detemtinations for approval. These are: 1) the finding that the applicant cannot meet code requirements because it would cause them undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the property and, 2) that, if approved, the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Regarding "unique hardship,' this means that the property in question cannot be put to use without a variance. This variance is difficult to justify under the requirements of state statute since setbacks could be met. Staff agrees that it is neater from a site utilization standpoint to follow the established curb line. There is no reason, however, preventing the applicant from meeting the 30-foot setback requirement stipulated in the ordinance. Department Comments Police: Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett stated that "1 have reviewed the attached plans and have no public safety concerns. This project actually wiH help solve the lack of surtace parking that leads many dealerships to park on unimproved grass surfaces. I would recommend the standard security lighting and video surveillance systems far commercial installations such as Maplewood Toyota already has in place in the rest of the complex ° Fire ilMarshah. Butch Gervais, the fire marshal, has noted that there must be a standpipe for the fire department to connect to in case of fire. Building Official: Dave Fisher, the building official, has the following comments: • Proposed building must meet the 2000 International Building Code (IBC), MSBC 1341 accessibility requirements and all related codes. • Separate permit is required for this comer site and the northerly site by Guldens. • Separate permit is required and engineering for retaining walls over four feet in height. City Engineer. Chuck Verrneersch, one of the Maplewood staff engineers, reviewed this proposal and has submitted the attached report. Mr. Vermeersch found that there are no engineering or drainage cencems with the proposal for the ramp site. The applicant would not be increasing the amount of impervious surtace on the site and there would be no increase in surface runoff. They would, in fact, be improving the storm water discharge by installing a storm water treatment structure for the removal of sediment from the runoff prior to discharge into the onsite storrn water pond. SUMMARY Staff feels that the proposed ramp would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. It would, likely, enhance the site if attractively designed. The additional parking would allow the applicant to provide adequate parking for his employees and customers as well as increasing his inventory parking. Staff can't make the findings, however, for approval of the front setback variance. The setback from the street right-of--way lines could be met easily and not drastically alter the proposed site plan. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for a parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. ~ . All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped Mav 26 2005 with the exception that the street-side setbacks for the proposed parking ramp shall be set further back to meet the reauired 30-foot setback requirement. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the plans 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of councal approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. . Maplewood Toyota shall issue a building permit. 5. VehiGe-transport deliveries shall continue to be handled on site and not within the right-of-way. 6. The applicant shalt submit a detailed site-lighting plan that inGudes fixture design pole heights and light spread intensities at residential lot lines This plan shall ensure 7. The applicant shall change their on-site paging system to utilize personal electronic pagers instead of a broadcast system to stop broadcasts that can be heard in the adjacent residential neighborhood. ramp to be at least as decorative in materials and appearance as the St John's Hospital ramp. 9. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community desian review board for approval providing for a continuation of evergreen trees on the west side of the holding pond. B. Deny the request for a setback variance from the street right-of--way lines for the reduced parking ramp setbacks. Denial is because the findings for approval, as required by state statute, cannot be made. There are no characteristics with the property that would prevent the applicant from complying with the city code that would cause an undue hardship. C. Deny the plans date-stamped May 26, 2005, for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The concept of the proposed one-level parking ramp is acceptable. This recommendation for design plan denial is to give the applicant the opportunity to revise the plans for a more attractive and compatible design. Plans required for review board review shall inGude: The ramp-design plan, with bridge details, shall be revised and resubmitted for community design review board approval that improves the exterior design and choice of materials. As a guideline, the applicant shall redesign the exterior of the proposed ramp to be at least as decorative in materials and appearance as the St. John's Hospital ramp. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval providing far a continuation of evergreen trees on the west side of the holding pond. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the community design review board showing fudure design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in designing such a plan should be to ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directty and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city lighting ordinance. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 53 surrounding property owners for their opinions about the two Maplewood Toyota proposals. Of the 11 replies, none were in favor, nine were opposed and two expressed concerns or raised questions. Opposed Traffic is too unbearable at Beam and 61 already. This will make it worse. Make them stop parking on Beam Avenue_ The site is already fully developed. (Leanne Hammer, 1227 Countryview Circle) • I have a number of questions and concerns. Who in our community will benefit from these projects? How will noise be contained? Loudspeakers and car alarms are ever present! Why does the city consider this a valuable consideration/project? What will the ownerldeveloperglve back to the city and the neighbors? I presume those projects will benefit the auto dealers by providing larger irnentory, additional sales and greater profits. Is this what the city wants to see? 1 say don't. (Donald and Marguerite Newpower, 2946 Duluth Street) • Absolutely No! Since this development (Kohlman Lake) has been built, Toyota has expanded, LaMettry has been built, Country mew is gone-The feel of the neighborhood is fast diminishing. A parking ramp?! And then another (north lot)? No way! It is hard enough to feel safe on Duluth Street for my kids with biking and walks. The traffic light & three entrance/exits for Toyota (61/Beam) already create traffic backup and unsafe residential conditions. The traffic tight needs to be green longer-the right turn lane should be right turn on We need sidewalks from Duluth StreeUBeam Avenue all the way to the library/mall area. No other dealership has a 2-story raised parking rampflot. Let alone a dealership that neighbors a residential area. As you can tell, I'm very much opposed to this plan, as I'm sure much of my neighbors are. Please pass this along to any applicable parties. ff I can be of further help, please let me know. (Karen and Rich Mohr, 1243 Duluth Court) Please refer to the attached letters from Lynn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street Greg and Lorraine Johnson, 1233 Duluth Court James Anderson, 2890 Duluth Street Christopher and Mary Trembath, 2908 Frank Street Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin, 2882 Duluth Street Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian, 1221 Countryview Circle In summary, these letters express the following concerns and comments: • There is a current lack of landscaping. More is needed to screen the parking lot. • The current lighting is very bright. Perhaps a roof on the ramp will be beneficial. • Pedestrian traffic in Toyota's crosswalk across Beam is a nuisance. • There's no allowance for employee or customer parking. Stop their on-street parking. • The easterly curb cut of their original site is too close to the comer. • Lot lighting is a nuisance now. • Loudspeakers are a nuisance currently. • A concrete ramp to look at would be unsightly. • Traffic at this intersection is Crary and too congested. • Why do we have zoning laws if they are not followed? • Restripe the lanes and improve traffic flow on Beam so traffic isn't so jambed up. • Have Toyota build a noise wall to eliminate garbage-hauler and P.A. system noise. • The ramp would degrade the residential properties. • The parking on Beam should end. • Safety concerns: Blind spot due to the ramp? Traffic bad already. Concerns/CommentslQuestions • Keep lights & noise down! (Robert Anderson, 1242 Duluth Ct) • Would this project be possible in some other configuration without a variance? (Hubbard Broadcasting, 3415 University Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Maplewood Toyota parkinglsales lot and an existing single dwelling owned by the applicant. Site size: 2.62 acres (total). The single dwelling site is 9,280 square feet in area and the existing sales lot is 2.41 acres in size. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Maplewood Toyota building South: Beam Avenue and the main Maplewaod Toyota dealership site East: Highway 61 and the Country View Golf Course (now closed) Wesi: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Criteria for CUP Approval Section 35-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance "Undue hardship°, as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls_ The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shat{ not constitute an undue hardship rf 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 May 26, 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 6y July 25, 2005. p:sec4lMaplewood Toyota NE Beam & 61 6'05 to Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Sde Plan~outh Site 5. Site Plan-North Site 6. Landscaping Plan~cuth Site 7. Landscaping Plan~lorth Site 8. Parking Ramp Design Elevations 9. Parking Ramp Design Perspectives 10. Project Summary Narrative date-stamped June 6, 2005 11. CUP Submittal Justfication date-stamped June 6, 2005 12. Setback Variance Submittal Justification date-stamped June 6, 2005 13. Letter from Lynn Benson dated June 6, 2005 14. Letter from Greg and Lorraine Johnson dated June 5, 2005 15. Letter from James R. Anderson dated June 1, 2005 16. Survey-repty from Christopher and Mary Trembath dated May 2B, 2005 17. Letter from Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin dated June 1, 2005 18. Survey-repty from Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian dated May 26, 2005 19. Engineering Review Comments from Chuck Vermeersch dated June 7, 2005 20. CUP Resolution 21. Plans date-stamped May 26, 2005 (separate atachmenls) 10 LOCATION -MAP N U Attachment 1 Attachment 2 ~..... 1i .., -- _ - - ~ ] ~u- _ t~ ~ ~~ PROPOSED T I ~ --- ~ ~+ ~ ~?- OPEN PARKING g - +- ~R~ ~---- ~ 8 FUTURE RAMP' ~ ~ r' ~ ~ ~ ~ i y `' ~. Q _' Q-.. ~ - ~ 1~' I ;- _ ~~ ~~ '~ . __~" ' ;~r.... ` ~ .PROPOSED _ ' ~ `~T"r RAMP AND i ~®~ ~ ~ ~ ..... 'CAR SALES` - - - ._.__ Q ! .. ~ ~ -._-. i .. _.. ___ ~~-~ - ~.~ ----- ~ BEAM AVE ~~ i ~®` ~ ~ ~ I A _ ,, ~. ~~~ ~ ~ i ,~ ~ _ -~ ~_ `~ ~` ~. ~, I ~~, -~ ~" PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP N Attachment 3 LAND USE MAP N U Attachment 4 1 ~ ! ~ ' ' "'~ 9 __- e '~, ~ ; I ,....... Gl - ~ .~. I 3 IW c c 51 a °'~ Z L. _~ ~ . io sion eiwcn° - ~' a" PROPOSED - ~`~ ~ '~ ~ PARKING _ • r~, R ~, - RAMP = - ~ / ~~ .. PROS LES ~ ,~~. i , ;......•„.....- CAR A ~ ~'~ Q ~ ... .W , °-~' a ~a, ~ a~KR OFFICE i 3 ' V "' my enii `sam uo ~ ~ S . I a ~~ ~ ~~ BEAM AVENUE SITE PLAN SOUTH SITE 1 N a Attachment 5 ~y o~ ~~=jog ~ dJS~ O ~ O 4 0 O~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ Q Q~~tti?Q b GULDEN'S ~, .. mH f _.. - ~ M-~.a., -- ,. w ..... _ PROPOSED ...... TEMPORARY 11 GRAVEL PARKING !a ~ ~~~, I ~ OPEN PARKING AND FUTURE ~ / I ~ i PARKING RAMP ° " T LOCATION ~2 •~ ° ~ ,,, _ ~ ,. ' ..._....___.__............~.__. - is ~ tlAREO DRIVEWAY J ~ )' s ~-^~ .~ SITE PLAN NORTH SITE N Attachment 6 TREE KEY: ~ f i MOOIFY OUf71NG IRIHCATIONTO ' ~ COMMRELY COVET ANY GREEN fFACEf. ~..., ` ~ NIfTING TREFf • RECENT - ~ NGf f[O - NO DITIONA .. LY ~ .Q ..J ~ ~~ "~ ~ i ~ !I ~ l ~ ~ i E%IfTING + ~ 1 MATURL • ~ iREFf ~ ~ I f12 .. ,y....."~ j N ~~. e • ~ NFW •~ ~ J 3 ! I ~ • ~~ T ,~ i•i. RREP MIFAf ANY TREE[ IfTURRED pURING CONSTRUCTION EITHER~_ EIEAM AVENUE R!lOCATE OR R@EACE W17N NEW RANTNCf TO MATCH. -----~ ~----------------~ r----~ LANDSCAPING PLAN SOUTH SITE olwuoua TREeE O l%ISTIHp lMTUR! TRllS pILSFINp R[dNTI,Y lLWT(0 TRlEE ,~],]~ ~[r~ HEW TREEf CONIFEROI b TR!!S IRISTINOAN7URl TRIIF DUSTING RFCENFLY FIANTIp TRILS !~ H[WTRIE! olaouous sHRUFs uRETwpfNEUR[ N a Attachment 7 TREE KEY: ~~M _ ;_ .... ,_ ~ i 1 ' 1 f f' , b 41 .~ 1 !• I • x / 1 i . ~ 3 ~.. I , Y 1 l ! - i~ t 1 1 .. ........~ .... \ r•r ~~ 1 1 ' 1 I i ~~ ~ 7 EJfIfTWGTREE!• E"' .,.,.... , I P R[CINTLYIltANTEO~.I I 1 1 I • ~ I TURRED PUKING CONETRUCnON EIENER S ANY TRIE R DI a RELOCATE OR RERACE WITH HEW RANTINGS TO MATCH. LANDSCAPING PLAN NORTH SITE okcTOUOUS TRkn E%6TINGANIURTRW E%IfTINO RECENTLY RANTED TRIff NEwrRW CONIFEROU S TRIES E%ISFWORN7URl TRW /y V E%ISTING RI[EMLY FW~17kD TAW NEW TR[k! oElrouous sEnuss • IMSTWOlHRUES N ~4t i s J Attachment 8 .ICI 'f r ~,' i4 I i i,,^^ V+ Z a ~a ~w Z J . W YZ C~ a v~ W i_ ti18G .: Attachment 9 .~C ,, ~_ ~: z o0 O QR ~N v °o L ° a0 f W C R d ,+ -, i, ,- ~r,:;'== f' ` , C r,: :,_ '`_ f[%:. ~,, ~.:,- N m a s 0 ~n 0 w a .` a Q 0 w3 AW ii r~ r ~1 - (~ d F, 19 W d t is 0 0 w d ~G=. c4 ~' c o0 O °R FYI a a C ° IC f Q K W C Y {C a •F+ Q O 3 as r F lyd `. ~ 20 -x= a~` 3= oa = oa O er ~N a °o C ~ ~ f a x W 8'f C !4 i ~ 1 ~\\ ~ /7 ~ O d! m H O a O 0 3 d w ~ .~ r ~, o 0 `. ~ z~ Attachment 10 ~::.. BWBR ARCHITECTS MEMORANDUM Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 To: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner, Ciry of Maplewood From: Roger Larson, BWBR Architects RECEIVE D Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects Date: June 6, 2005 JUN 0 6 2005 Subject: Planning Commission Submittal cc: Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota Jake Boerboon, KA-St. Paul Steve McDaniels, the Chvner of Maplewood Toyota, plans to do substantive construction on his properties north of Beam Avenue and west of Highway G1. A narrative of three phases is outlined below fox clarification of what work is done and in what order. I. Project Summary Narrative North Lot Phase, hereinafter to be referred to as NLP, (grade level car storage) develops the northernmost property to a level that will support inventory cat storage while a South Lot Phase, SLP (one level storage ramp above the existing storage parking lot) is constructed. The automobile inventory from the south lot requires relocation to allow continuation of business during construction and beyond. The SLP will be completed when the one level storage ramp, the lower level sales office, and the landscape and site improvements are fuushed. The North Lot will remain inventory car storage after the South Lot is constructed. G:10421400~AtlminlClty SubmittallCiry Subrttit 0541-051Projed Summery Nerralive.tloc Lawson Commons 380 St. Perez Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, IvZN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 Eax 651.222.8961 wwtiv.bwbr.com 22 Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Service Page 2 of 2 A. North Lot Phase (NLP): The zoning requirements fox the site requires 50% pervious land use. The Owner has an agreement with the City for this ratio to 30% pervious and 70% impervious through allowances granted fox prior land agreements with the City of Maplewood. The west side of the site will have permanent pervious paving, which is 30% of the site area. The remaining 70% may be temporary/permanent and constructed with Class 5 gravel base. The pervious pavement will be a manufactured pavers system that allows water penetration. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit fox the (NLP 1) proposed storage of vehicles within 350 feet of a residential district. 2. A variance (NLP 2) for storage of motor vehicles within 350 feet of a residential district. B. South Lot Phase (SLP): A one-level storage parking ramp will be constructed above the existing on-grade vehicle storage lot. This design does not add additional impervious land use to the site, as the site is currently paved to the allowable maximum. The upper parking deck level maintains the minimal setbacks that are currently in place for the current on-grade lot. The one level storage ramp is constructed o£pxecast concrete and includes aone-story sales office area below the southeast corner. The ramp is 154 feet from the adjacent residential district and requires a vaziance and Conditional Use Permit, as it is closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Access to the one level parking deck is via two nearly constructed drive lanes/bridges from the Owner's property on the north adjacent lot. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a automotive related business structure located closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 1). 2. A variance fox a structure closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 2). 3. A variance to having a structure within 30 feet from right-of--way lines of Beam Avenue on the south side of the property {SLP 3). /ce Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MV 55102-1996 651.222.3?01 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com 23 Attachment 11 RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 BWBR ARCHITECTS Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service - Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 May 11, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESIGN SUBMITTAL SLP 1 City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-511 (4) (a) Proposed structures axe to be located no closer than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district. A conditional use permit to allow a vehicle storage structure within the 350' requirement listed above is requested. Land Use; A one story-parking ramp will be constructed above an existing on-grade vehicle storage lot. This structure is approximately 20 feet in height. Building elevations are submitted to the City of Maplewood, which show exact size and location of the ramp. The ramp structure is a vehicle storage lot structure in floor plate and height. The natural slope of the site area sloping down from north to south assists in hiding the ramp from views from the west and north. The placement of the ramp above existing non-pervious vehicle storage allows for no additional impervious grading to be added to the present watershed. Existing and new natural vegetation is in place, or designed to minimize the exposure to the adjacent residential zoning district. Reasons for Approval: 1. The structure is virtually the same as the existing on grade parking lot as the on grade lot's design was repeated for the structures design.. The height is only 20 feet tall and the horizontal plane is similar to grade. 2. The existing character of the surrounding parcels that front highway 61 axe similar in nature to the car storage structure requested. 3. Current property values will be maintained. The perceived ]and use mould most likely be commercial in nature. 4. Motor vehicle storage structures axe not a perceived hazard ox innately unsightly. The structure will have design elements, which axe fundamentally similar to Maplewood Toyotas main building. G;~D427400WMinU^LP 1.Aac Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax fi51.222.8961 www.bwbx.com 24 Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Service Page 2 of 2 S. Maplewood Toyota intends to store vehicles fox their business use. The vehicles ate parked and removed by employees. The storage azea is not a sales lot. Access to the lot is primarily through Maplewood Toyota's adjacent property and not on City public access routes. 6. Site requirements are currently supported by public utilities and services. 7. The project will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities ox services. 8. This structure's design has a goal to not add more impervious grading to the current water shed. The "drip line" of the structure virtually the same as the existing impervious parking lot. 9. The design adds no impervious grading to the watershed and due to the vehicles being new, no petroleum leaks are likely to occur. /ce Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 wvcnv.bwbr.com 25 Attachment 12 r' _~. BWBR ARCHITECTS Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service r Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 Map I1, 2005 ZONING CODE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL RECEIVE D SLP 3 Ciry of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-20 (6) (a) JUN 0 6 2005 ^ Proposed structures ate to be located no closer than 30'-0" of sheet right-of-way lines. A variance to allow a structure within the 30'-0" requitement listed above is requested. Land Use: A one story-parking ramp will be constructed above an existing on-grade vehicle storage lot This structure is approximately 20 feet in height. Building elevations axe submitted. to the City of Maplewood, which show enact size and location of the xaxnp. The ramp structure is a vehicle storage lot structure in floor plate and height. The natural slope of the site area sloping down from north to south assists in hiding the ramp from views from the west and north. The placement of the ramp above existing non-pervious vehicle storage allows for no additional impervious grading to be added to the present watershed. Existing and new natural vegetation is in place, or designed to min;m;7e the exposure to the adjacent residential zoning district. Reasons for Granting a Variance: 1. Maplewood Toyota is requesting this vehicle storage structure be allowed fox these reasons: a. The proposed use is consistent with existing and adjacent uses along Highway 61. The structure does not change the character or use of the site. b. Maplewood Toyota is presently utilizing this site fox on-site storage which requites only 15'-0" from the street right-of--ways. This structure is designed to be placed directly above that grade level parldng fox reasons stated above. In the continued overall commercial development of the west side of the Highway 61 strip, we feel this variance is consistent in the long-term benefit. G:W421400V~tlrtinlSLP 3.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peru Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com 26 Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Service Page 2 of 2 We believe the intent of the ordinance is to protect adjacent land uses from detrimental views, hazards, and other real and perceived problems. Maplewood Toyota has integrated itself into this area and is trying to keep the use intended as when purchased. Through the careful use of landscaping and lighting, we propose that the developed use will be a stronger element in the neighborhood. Protection from unwarranted and undisclosed uses is not required and we feel a variance will still allow the City, adjacent landowners, and Maplewood Toyota to continue their current good neighbor relations. /ce Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com 27 Attachment 13 Tom Ekstrand From: Lynn Benson [lynn~notamd.com] Sent: Monday, June O6, 2005 8:57 AM 70: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Maplewood Toyota development proposals Dear Mr. Ekstrand, I'm writing in response to the proposgd development by our neighbors at Maplewood Toyota. Z have several concerns. The first is in regard to the landscaping. We were very disappointed at the negative effect their original parking lot has had on the view from our home. I was very dissatisfied with the lack of a landscape berm from their original project on the site. From the perspective of our home, we see no evergreen trees in the line of sight to the west side of Toyota's parking lot. Throughout the year we have clear sight of the cars and trucks and light from the lot. It was my understanding that they were required by the city planners to provide a landscape berm at least six feet in height. It is my understanding that the definition of a berm is an earthen barrier. It appears they have neglected this requirement in their original development of the site. Zt appears that this new proposal will not have any new lanscaping or berm added on the south site. We would greatly appreciate it if a berm taller than 10 feet with additional evergreen trees could be added to the west side of their parking lot to provide screening from the view of their cars. We would be very pleased if this current project included a roof on the top of the parking ramp to block the view of cars as our home is at a higher elevation than the top of their ramp would have. We would prefer to view a building rather than autos. A second concern I mentioned along with the first. The lighting on their lot is very bright at night and shines into our bedroom windows. Is there any way to reduce the light pollution further. Perhaps enclosing the top of their parking ramp would help with light pollution in the area so they wouldn't have lights up higher than they do currently. Another comment I have is regarding the pedestrian traffic in their crosswalk. Is there any way they could add a pedestrian bridge to cross Beam Ave. to their plans? With the short length of the stop light for eastbound traffic on Seam, it is difficult to have to wait for pedestrians when the light changes before you get to the intersection. A fourth concern I have is their lack of parking for their employees. Even before their current lot was in place employees had to park on Beam Ave. We were surprised when they still didn't make allowance £or employee parking with their new parking lot. I know it affects our neighbors living on Beam Avenue. Will they ever have enough space for their employees to park? Please call me with questions about my remarks (651-481-0076). Thank you for soliciting our opinions regarding this development. We greatly appreciate the city planners' consideration of residential taxpayers and voters opinions and look forward to the public hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Lynn Benson 2898 Duluth St. Maplewood __..._._6.$1-4 B 1-0 076 28 Attachment 14 June 5, 2005 Tom Ekstrand -Senior Planner _ Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Deaz Mr. Ekstrand, -This letter is in regards to the development proposal for Maplewood Toyota as described in your letter of May 26, 2005. First a little background. When most of the residents to the west purchased their homes, Maplewood Toyota was a small dealer located on the SW comer of Highway 61 and Beam Ave. Since then, they have expanded to the north into what was up to that time a parcel that had been used for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales and have also built a large service facility (along with LeMettry Collision} to the north. With their current growth, there have been negative effects on the adjacent residents: 1. The current driveway entrance into the south lot is too close to the corner. When northbound cars are turning west onto Beam, there is usually a car that stops as soon as they get on Beam waiting to tum into the dealer forcing vehicles behind to stop and wait in the middle of the intersection. This driveway location is very dangerous and will cause an accident (if not already). Although this driveway entrance was there before their present expansion, the growth of the dealer and the increased number of homes have made it more dangerous. 2. The dealer was granted permission to have a marked crosswalk just past the driveway entrance. If you don't have to stop for a car turning into the south lot, quite often you have to stop for salespeople and customers in the crosswalk. Many times dealer employees and customers will step out into the crosswalk without giving a vehicle proper time to stop. State law requires all vehicles to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk but the pedestrians also need to use good judgment to give a vehicle proper time and distance to safely stop. This is not always the case. 3. Since expanding to the pazcel north of Beam, the lot lighting is very visible and invasive to the surrounding homes. With construction of a parking ramp, the lights will be taller, and will affect more homes and to a much greater __ __ degree than the current lighting. 4. The dealer has also installed an outside loudspeaker paging system that is very audible for the adjacent residents. ~l" 0 Lt1 G-1^ e y, ~ L o r r d ~ N ~ "~0 ~ J/5 ~s-+.~~ I z- 3 3 ~ ~..1 ~-.~'L+ C'f. 29 City Of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand -Senior Planner 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Development Proposal -Maplewood Toyota Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Attachment 15 This letter is in response to the letter "sent out dated May 26, 2005 on the Maplewood Toyota expansion. I have lived at 2890 Duluth Street for the last seven years and in Maplewood my entire life. Maplewood Toyota has been a good neighbor and I and others in my family have purchased all our vehicles from Maplewood Toyota. I do have one concern currently and several concerns on the future proposal. - Currently, they have a loud speaker or paging system that goes out over the car lot duectly behind our houses. In the warmer months, all my neighbors and myself can hear every page over the system when we blue our windows open or when we aze out in our back yazds. Those speakers need to be re-directed towards highway 61 and away from our homes. - The view out my back window keeps changing. T'm not sure I want to look out at a concrete structure with more car and people traffic. A few years ago, we agreed to an overflow parking lot with a house and pond as a buffer zone. - The highway 61 and Beam Avenue intersection is already crazy with car and people traffic It looks like the new sales center on the other side of Beam Avenue would just add to an already busy intersection. I have almost hit people darting out into traffic trying to cross Beam Avenue. Turn lanes into the new facility are also and issue. One solution to create a better buffer zone is to build an 8-10 foot concrete privacy fence on the back of our property line. Or, add many more 8-10 foot blue spruce trees along the property line to help in the wirtter months when the leaves fall off the trees. This does not fix the additional pedestrian traffic crossing Beam Avenue going to and from the proposed new sales office.. _ I have worked hard and paid a lot of money for my home. I deserve the right to enjoy the peace and quiet of living in Maplewood. Plus, I don't want to worry about the declining value of my home with Commercial growing closer and closer. I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and comments. Sincerely, James R. Anderson 2890 Duluth Street Maplewood, MN 55109 6~1-483-8954 RECEIVED JUN 0 1 2005 30 Attachment 16 May 26, 2005 ® ~ Christopher J Trembath Together we can Mary L Trembath 2908 Frank St N Maplewood MN 55109 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build aone-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing to iristall a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to become acar-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachments. 1 need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email me at tom,ekstrand(caci.maDlewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. ~~ TOM EKSTRAND -SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's. Project Summary 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan-South Site 4. Site Plan-North Site 5. Landscaping Plan-South Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp Design Elevations 8. Parking Ramp Perspective 7r,xr»,~ vuirunc¢s c~.•rld Cond,flanec! k5e perr-rrT.s eue,'y fi-cn,e Sornezv,e ~~p/~ ~S. ~z /1e;56~l~o,M' q~c~ lal,~ hercr,~-`r~j, flre Cloor~ Slam a/,Ln on fhe c~,.cn,~sfrrs Gl"~ 5~'iS A-m i n tht ~'td~n~•'k wtie~ ~e 9u`ffiage. -J,"UC.,C ernFsli'ts fhe ~72rSti @Yl7a~euxzcl Toyel,~ OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENJT 651-249-2300 FAX: 651-249-2319 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Q U/r /~ 31 I have no comments: ~"~(-~'-2 ~ /k2C f~- D ~ r T1 c~~ ~ ~- f S S u CS T1fi~} i /1J~2~ 'j 7) )3~ /~CSozl/CD ~ I3~ f~lec..~~ ooc,~ %? y o7~ 1, dc~ r`~~,~ o~ >2r'~~ ~rL~ L~~~~ ©N C%• 80~~ ~~~ fir/ S~~ vn ~ f earn W• 8 , 13e~ ~I-~ MuS~f" ~rn ~ ~ ~, Baser ~ n rr 2 ~~ f u In S15 ~ G-~ C~~ ~~ ~l c~,J ~. ' 1 -~ 1~• ~o ~~ I3 e ~ m ~-d~ ~'ro ~ N. a . l-~ y ~ /. ®~'~~ log 1'n fF~ 77~,c. lls~ ~ .v~ S ~ ~ !Ln CI ~ Q' re. ~e S u- l ~ CJ 7 1 N°'~ ~ J Cl~~~~w ~ ~~~ t~1 ale ~ov~ ~~y °fi°` C ~~~ ~ ern u 5~~~~ ~~ ~ ~f Je ~a,~ .~ -~ ~s''r ~ ll-I~/Q~Av~ ~ S-F~ (U r ~ K! 1- p/1 I~ QL..~ O~ y ~~2~r/'~ S~ ~ ~`, COTS o~ QCtlcie~4fs € nea~M~~SSeS ~'ler~ I ~ r•~f4/Se~~?a^~ QS iS C{M GP ,'~ Lo n ye5~"S ~ ~ ^ I 'ems (_r M ~~~~~ ~ i~G~ b~OGK- ~-2C1 CI'o.SSi~~~J 'J~~T~J U J(1 ~~.5 Mld ~ock m pple~voad ~~ p~'a acnGt (~f'~e-~i" CU~~i~SiON ~i~.9~" S~r~ cocP~ , l?esfi~,~~ crossw~/~ a~ ~~ x;„~ /S Q5 ~ 6 ~ , S. ~~~ I6 y~~~ d~~.l~~shr,~ ~,%d ~ o~'se wa ll ~~ f~u~~~ ~ , S der, 2 fL ~ /t24r~6 ~~'SI'~~n ~1~/ ~e/~;6r~o~~vd~ - y ~y (/ 32 Attachment 17 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2882 Duluth St Maplewood MN 55109 Development Proposal Response -Maplewood Toyota • Do not believe the ramp is necessazy given the amount of space Toyota owns and the fact that the parking lot has open space every night. • Believe that Toyota should have to meet ordinances and should not be granted further variances that impact residential areas or wildlife. Aesthetics • Personally think it would look bad and according to realtors opinions (whom we have discussed this project with) they believe a parking ramp would likely degrade residential property value. Has any assessment been completed to verify this? Why not put the ramp the south corner of current property? • If approved, we are requesting Toyota to plant many more trees and/or scrubs so residential properties would not have to view the ramp. • Expect City of Maplewood to ensure, if granted, the ramp is visually appealing (end to end) and graffiti will be immediately removed. Environmental • Has an environmental impact study been completed? Highly concerned that continued pervious ratio variances would impact wildlife and residential sump systems. • Run off is also high concern, need to ensure that it flows away from residential property such that it does not create a water problem for residential property and flood wildlife that currently live between the residential property and commercial property. • Think rain gardens are a good start but, who ensures that these are maintained and functioning properly? • Who is liable if changes in pervious to impervious ratio negatively impact residential property? • Ask that if approved, City to enforce no Toyota employees to park on Beam and Duluth crossing or anywhere else on Beam/They currently parking there all day even though space is available in their lots. Safety • Will this increase car traffic on Beam for the long term? Beam & Hwy 61 already a bottleneck. High level of traffic turning onto Beam (at times) creates a bottleneck due to volume of cars in and out of current parking lot. Since the parking lot entrance is less that 1 block from a busy intersection, we aze concerned that this will become anaccident-prone area. Multiple incidences ofvehicle-to-vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle close calls. More parking will logically increase incidents, please comment as to why this should not be of concern. And what measures are being taken to ensure this will not become a safety hazard. • Believe building o f this size, given the limited set back, will create a blind spot for drivers at intersection of Beam & Hwy 61. Again seems like a potential safety hazard. • Traffic already an issue due to construction on Edgerton, and CNTY D. When will the project (if approved) start and end? June 1, 2005 33 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2852 Duluth St Maplewood MN 55109 Project • Expect that if approved, guidelines on time of day for construction would be reasonable. Overall Do not believe a parking ramp fits`aesthetically in this location and truly believe it will create a safety hazard. Additionally, it appears that it has a high probability of having a negative impact on wildlife & residential properties (run-off & safety). I hope the City of Maplewood will consider the input and concerns of the residential population and ensure that our concerns are fully addressed if the city decides to approve this request. June 1, 2005 34 > Attachment 18 . - ~ ~ l~ r~~c>=~vEO May 26, 2005 Together We Cnn JUN 0 6 20D~ Michael Schenian Judi L Johnston Schenian 1221 Countryview Cir E Maplewood MN 55109 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL5 - MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build aone-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing to install a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would .park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to become acar-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachments. 1 need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email me at tom.ekstrandCct?ci.maplewoad.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. fi~ TOM EKSTRAND -SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Project Summary 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan~outh Site 4. Site Plan-North Ske 5. Landscaping Plan~outh Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp Design Elevations 8. Parking Ramp Perspective I have no comments: Comments: L' dhdi C/Y~ .~e+7,', ~2 J a~~Q. -2/'~S Chs~/~•[ir+ f~- Y-k.ey" ..c.~ittn~ mob .,~ ~V.a.~.~.~-~- .~,~~,~.~ c~-~~O ~~~ OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651 -249=2300 FAX: 651 -249-23 i 9 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 35 ~~(X//LJC~. Y.IJ'~a^' ~ ' ~ SB ~y ~ r r t!-"_ "' .. /,' ~iLQ`~ ~ `~°""• ~`. J ~/ ~ ~- ~~ ~~~ . ~ ~ Win` ~ _,,,w ~~ on '' ~~ ~`~" _ - ~~ 6, ~~ ~~ ~~~~ mom- ~''-' ~. w~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 36 Attachment 19 Enaineerina Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Toyota PROJECT NO: 05-19 REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch DATE: June 7, 2005 Maplewood Toyota is proposing the construction of a one level parking ramp and other parking facilities on their two parcels located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Beam Avenue and highway 61. Under the proposal, the north lot would be developed as a parking facility for inventory while the ramp on the south lot is being constructed. The parking area proposed for the north lot is a combination of about 24,500 square feet of pervious pavement, and about 32,200 square feet of temporary, aggregate surtace parking area. The parcels in question fall within the shoreland overlay district. The shoreland (overlay district) ordinance allows 30% impervious surtace within the district, or up to 50% if approved by the city engineer. South Parcel Existing parking area would be removed for construction of the parking ramp. As such, there is no increase in the impervious area on this parcel. Included in the improvements for the south parcel is the installation of a storm water treatment structure for the removal of sediment from runoff prior to discharge into the onsite storm water pond. Given the fact that there is no increase in the impervious surtace, and the storm water treatment system is being improved with the addition of the treatment structure, there are no apparent issues with the proposal for the south lot. Although the parcel exceeds the allowable impervious area set by the shoreland ordinance, this results from previously approved projects. North Parcel The pervious pavement proposed for the south parcel should have.infiltration capacity equal to yr better than the existing condition of the parcel. Consequently, it is not included in the impervious surface under the shoreland ordinance. The temporary aggregate surtace parking proposed for this parcel comprises about 26% of the parcel area. As proposed, it meets the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. However, about three quarters of the aggregate surface drains over the pervious pavement. If aggregate material such as class 5 is used, runoff from this surtace will carry fines which will tend to fill the voids in the pervious pavement, reducing or eliminating its infiltration capacity. This problem could be avoided if clean rock is used. The applicant has indicated that they may wish th use the temporary aggregate surtace parking for up to five years. It is recommended that if~the temporary facility is to be used that long, that it be constructed to city standards (concrete curb and gutter, and paved). If the applicant elects not to do this, the aggregate surtace should be removed and restored with vegetation upon completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel. 37 The proposal for the north parcel includes a retaining wall that ranges in height from 2.5 to nearly 12 feet. This wall will require a certified, engineered plan and may require a special inspections schedule to be completed by the design engineer or his representative. The proximity of this retaining wall to parking on the parcel immediately to the north (Guldens) creates a safety issue that must be addressed. 38 Attachment 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota, applied for a conditional use permit revision to construct a parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. The proposed ramp would be 200 feet from the nearest neighbors' residential property line. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The legal description is: Subject to road and highway, part westerly of centerline of said highway of South 253 feet of the east 608.4 feet of the NE'/ of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On June 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City Staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The city council held a public meeting on , 2005, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 39 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. Automotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M1 districts subject to appropriate conditions. Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. ' . All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped Mav 26, 2005, with the exception that the street-side setbacks for the proposed parking ramp shall be set further back to meet the. required 30-foot setback requirement. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the plans. 2. The proposed construction must be substantialty started or the proposed use utilized within one year of councl approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. TLv 1~oraA.... ~F +F.e .. e.'+..~.::~;.~.:......~ tt ~i~ ~it.°. i~ . ..+ .. .~1 li Ib, ~• 1 ,y ntc In Mn e.1 14.:~ k.,:l.l:.... i1 +.+ + h .++ 1 i ~Gr1 F + i 14. '.J ;' 1 . Maplewood Toyota shall stop the use of Beam Avenue for employee parking The site and ramp parking plan shall be revised to incorporate a suftident number of parking spaces for employees and customers. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the city will issue a building permit. 5. Vehide-transport deliveries shall continue to be handled on site and not within the right-of-way. 6. The applicant shall submit a detailed site-lighting plan that includes fixture design pole heights and light spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for communiiv design review board approval. 7. The applicant shall change their on-site paging system to utilize personal electronic pagers instead Of a broadcast system to stow broadcasts that can be heard in the adjacent residential neighborhood. 8. The ramp-design plan, with bridge details, shall be revised and resubmitted for community design review board approval that improves the exterior design and choice of materials As a guideline the applicant shall redesign the exterior of the proposed ramp to be at least. as decorative in materials and appearance as the St. John's Hospital ramp 40 9. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval providing for a continuation of evergreen trees on the west side of the holding pond. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 20D5. 41 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Maplewood Toyota Parking Lot Proposal LOCATION: Highway 61 between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse DATE: June 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota, is proposing to build a parking lot on the vacant lot between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The applicant proposes to build a 24,920-square-foot pervious-paver parking area toward the back of the site. This would be a permanent parking pad for vehicle-inventory storage. The front 270 feet, 39,000 square feet, of the site would be a temporary, gravel parking lot. This temporary parking area would be to store the cars that are currently being kept on the applicant's parking lot at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 (the applicant's proposed parking-ramp site). This temporary parking is needed for the relocation of cars during the parking ramp construction. In the "Project Summary Narrative," the applicant refers to the proposed graveled parking area as "temporary/permanent.° They intend to use this graveled parking lot until Mr. McDaniels is ready to proceed with his intended use of this site which he would propose later as an auto-repair facility for Maplewood Toyota. As a possible element of this future auto-repair building, Mr. McDaniels is also considering creating upper-level parking on top. "Temporary," therefore, may be several years. Refer to the applicant's letters and plans. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: • A CUP (conditional use permit) for avehicle-storage parking lot. Parking lots as a primary use are allowed by CUP provided they are at least 350 feet away from residential lot lines. • A variance to store vehicles within 350 feet of residential property. The proposed parking lot would be 20 feet from the Heritage Square 4"' Addition town house property and 215 feet from the single family residential properties to the west. • Site and landscaping plans. BACKGROUND This site was created in 1997 by the lot division that also established the LaMettry Collision and the Maplewood Toyota development sites to the south. Mr. McDaniels recently purchased this property to expand his Maplewood Toyota dealership operation. The City of Maplewood also recently purchased the drainage pond on Mr. McDaniel's property for area-ponding purposes. DISCUSSION CUP for Car Storage There are two main issues to consider with this proposal. First are the impacts on the residential neighbors from a visual standpoint (lights and screening) and the second is compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance impervious-surface area requirements. Impact on Neiahbors An important issue is whether the proposed parking lot impacts the residential neighbors. Vehicle parking in an M1 (light manufacturing) district is a common use. The concerns, though, are how to buffer the proposed parking lot adequately from neighbors in order to make sure that the site lights do not cause any nuisance and to try to screen the parking lot from view. Landscaping: City code requires that the applicant provide asix-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen as a buffer for the neighbors. The proposed plan does not do this. The plan must be revised to meet this requirement. It was evident upon visiting the site that screening will not be easily accomplished. The neighboring residential properties are considerably higher in grade than the proposed parking lot. Landscaping will be ineffective until it grows to gain an effective height. Staff recommends a very thick combination of evergreens and thick-crowned overstory trees along the west side and northwest comer of the proposed parking lot to accomplish this. Site Lights: There are six back-to-back pole lights proposed. The lighting plan shows the illumination intensities at points in the proposed parking lot, but there is little additional information. The applicant should be required to resubmit afully-detailed lighting plan with facture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in designing such a plan should be to ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for community design review board (CDRB) review and approval. Shoreland Ordinance Comaliance While negotiating with Mr. McDaniels for ownership of the holding pond, the city engineer and the city's engineering consultant calculated the amount of impervious surface area that would be allowed. The proposed temporary gravel parking lot is considered to be impervious due to the compaction of this material that occurs. The pervious-paver parking lot system is considered to be impervious because of this method's ability to soak up water and filter it before discharge to the pond. The city engineering staff has determined that the proposed parking lot meets the requirements of the shoreland ordinance with a slight modification. The engineering recommendation is that one tenth of an acre of parking that is shown as impervious material (gravel} be left grass or installed with pervious pavers. Refer to the Engineering Plan Review comments in the attachments. Setback Variance Setback Reduction: The city code conflicts with itself in two areas relative to the parking lot setback. Section 44-512(5)(b) allows the storage of vehicles by CUP, provided the parking lot is at least 350 feet from residential properties. Section 44-637(b), however, says that buildings in M1 districts must be 350 feet or more from residential properties, but parking is allowed within 350 feet. When the code conflicts with itself, staff applies the more restrictive requirement. The applicant, therefore, applied for a variance to build the parking lot with less than 350 feet of setback from the residential properties. Staffs opinion is that the parking lot as proposed would not impact the homeowners to the west. There would still be 215 feet of distance from the proposed parking lot edge and the rear lot lines of these properties. This is a substantial distance. The setback that is more critical is the proposed parking lot's proximity to the future town homes adjacent to the northwest comer of the parking lot. Screening for the town homes is a necessity as noted above. Staff does not object to this request provided landscaping is extremely dense to provide a sufficient screen. State-Statute Findings for Approval State statute requires that, to approve the variance, the city council must find that: • Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. "Undue hardship" means the properly cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances uni ue to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not after 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. • The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff is not able to recommend approval of this variance based on the findings in state statute. There are no °unique circumstances" with the site that constitute a hardship for the applicant if code was met. Alternatives As stated above, code allows a parking lot 20 feet from residential property rf it was accessory to a building. Alternative #1. Parking as a Primary Use vs, as an Accessory Use to a Building The parking lot as proposed would be the primary use of the property. Parking lots as primary uses must be 350 feet from a residential district. Conversely, the code also allows parking within 20 feet of a residential lot line if the parking was for a building on the property. With this in mind, what we are dealing with now is whether the city should allow a parking lot to precede the building construction. Mr. McDaniels has indicated that he wants to build an auto- repair facility on this properly. Staff feels that it makes sense to allow the parking lot to be installed first with the stipulation that the building proposal must follow within a specified period. Within three years, pefiaps. The result is the same and this would permit the applicant to use this site for car storage while his ramp is under construction. ARemative #2. Require a 350-Foot Parking Lot Setback The second alternative is to require that the applicant simply not build this parking lot any closer than 350 feet to residential property without a building proposal for this lot. SUMMARY Since the applicant is proposing to build a building on this site, staff favors allowing him to build the parking lot before the building is constructed. Approval of this CUP should be contingent on Mr. McDaniel's starting construction on a building within three years of the parking lot construction. Staff is forwarding one recommendation. This is for CUP approval of a parking lot on a parcel to be constructed before the building is built. There is no recommendation for the variance. Staff is not recommending approval and suggests simply taking "no action." The CUP recommendation gives direction to the CDRB for their review. Any additional conditions the board may add can be formulated in a separate motion. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to store cars on the property between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped May 26, 2005 and also shall follow any conditions attached herein. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the plans. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use uiilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed site-lighting plan that inGudes facture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for community design review board approval. 5. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval providing for a visual screen that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting. This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick-crowned, over- story trees. The site shall also have an in-ground irrigation system installed when the future building is built. The landscaping plan shall also provide sod on the east, north and south sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural. 6. The design of the retaining wall shall be submitted to the community design review board along with the landscaping plan. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. The review board shall review the fence design. 7. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative affect to the Gulden's parking lot ar property due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall. 8. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 9. The applicant shall incorporate low-impact development improvements on the parcel south of Beam Avenue by September 30, 2007 as outlined in the June 7, 2005 Engineering Plan Review by the city's engineering department. The applicant and/or his engineer should meet on site with the city engineering staff to discuss what options would be appropriate and effective. 10. The Class-5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean aggregate may be used subject io the approval of the city engineer and the Ramsey/Washington Watershed District. This gravel parking lot shall not be used longer than two construction seasons, but no later than September 30, 2D07, after which time, it must be removed or replaced with a permanent surface. At that time, if the parking lot remains in use, the panting lot must be upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance. 11. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 12. The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent building on this site by September 30, 2007 to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal. This is because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the applicant's desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. Parking lots that are accessory to a building may be 20 feet from residential property lines. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 53 surrounding property owners for their opinions about the two Maplewood Toyota proposals. Please note that many of the replies below pertain specifically to the southerly lot at the corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Of the 11 replies, none were in favor, nine were opposed and two expressed concerns or raised questions. Opposed • Traffic is too unbearable at Beam and 61 already. This will make it worse. Make them stop parking on Beam Avenue. The site is already fully developed. (Leanne Hammer, 1227 Cauntryview Circle) • I have a number of questions and concerns. Who in our community will benefit from these projects? How will noise be contained? Loudspeakers and car alarms are ever present! Why does the ciiy consider this a valuable consideration/project? What will the owner/developer give back to the city and the neighbors? I presume those projects will benefit the auto dealers by providing larger inventory, additional sales and greater profits. Is this what the city wants to see? I say don't. {Donald and Marguerite Newpower, 2946 Duluth Street) • Absolutely No! Since this development (Kohlman Lake) has been built, Toyota has expanded, LaMettry has been built, Country View is gone-the feel of the neighborhood i. fast diminishing. A parking ramp?! And then another (north lot)? No way! It is hard enough to feel safe on Duluth Street for my kids with biking and walks. The traffic light & three entrance/exits far Toyota (61lBeam) already create traffic backup and unsafe residential conditions. The traffic light needs to be green longer-the right turn lane should be right turn on We need sidewalks from Duluth StreeUBeam Avenue all the way io the librarylmall area. No other dealership has a 2-story raised parking ramp/lot. Let alone a dealership that neighbors a residential area. As you can tell, I'm very much opposed to this plan, as I'm sure much of my neighbors are. Please pass this along to any applicable parties. If I can be of further help, please let me know. (Karen and Rich Mohr, 1243 Duluth Court) • Please refer to the attached letters from: Lynn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street Greg and Lorraine Johnson, 1233 Duluth Court James Anderson, 2896 Duluth Street Christopher and Mary Trembath, 2908 Frank Street Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin, 2882 Duluth Street Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian, 1221 Countryview Circle In summary, these letters express the following concerns and comments: • There is a current lack of landscaping. More is needed to screen the parking lot. • The current lighting is very bright. Perhaps a roof on the ramp will be beneficial. • Pedestrian traffic in Toyota's crosswalk across Beam is a nuisance. • There's no allowance for employee or customer parking. Stop their on-street parking. • The easterly curb cut of their original site is too close to the comer. • Lot lighting is a nuisance now. Loudspeakers are a nuisance currently. • A concrete ramp to look at would be unsightly. Traffic at this intersection is crazy and too congested. Why do we have zoning laws if they are not followed? • Restripe the lanes and improve traffic flow on Beam so traffic isn't so jambed up. Have Toyota build a noise wall to eliminate garbage-hauler and P.A. system noise. The ramp would degrade the residential properties. • The parking on Beam should end. • Safety concerns: Blind spot due to the ramp? Traffic bad already. ConcemslComments/Questions Keep lights & noise down! (Robert Anderson, 1242 Duluth Ct) • Would this project be possible in some other configuration wi#hout a variance? (Hubbard Broadcasting, 3415 University Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION F~cisting Use: Vacant, except for an overlap of driveway paving from the LaMettry Collision site. Site size: 2.7 acres. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gulden's Roadhouse and the future Heritage Square 4'h Addition town homes South: LaMettry Collision and Maplewood Toyota East: Highway 61 West: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the properly exists under the terms of the ordinance. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 26, 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 July 25, 2005. p:sec4Wlaplewrood Toyota Parking Lot 6'05 te2 Attachmenfs: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line2oning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan-Soutfi Sde 5. Sfte Plan-North Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Project Summary Narrative dateastamped June 6, 2005 8. CUP Submittal Justification date-stamped June 6, 2005 9. Setback Variance Submittal Justification datestamped June 6, 2005 10. Letter from Lynn Benson dated June 6, 2D05 11. Letter from Greg and Lorraine Johnson dated June 5, 2005 12. Letter from James R. Andemon dated June 1, 2005 13. Survey-reply from Christopher and Mary Trembath dated May 26, 2005 14. Letter from Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin dated June 1, 2005 15. Survey-repy from Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian dated May 26, 2005 76. Engineering Review Comments from Chuck Vermeersch dated June 7, 2005 17. CUP Resolution 18. Plans date-stamped May 26, 2005 (separate attachments) LOCATION MAP N U PROPERTY LINE !ZONING MAP N U Aa+-... L.._....a ~ LAND USE MAP N U Attachment 4 .~ 1 ~ `. "'_ ~ ~ w G =-- ._._ ~ ...n. ~- IAEAiM 1 MX~pO __ _ /. /~ PROPOSED ~` ,y ,~ ~ RAMP = , ,~ T; "' r PARKING 6 ° ~J ~ ~ U ~ ' ... ... ..... -~- _. ~.. o .. ' `, _.w._ ~ ~" . a .4,~ ....' ~ .EAR ~- o .... CAR~A E5~ ? i { ~~M A~ ~ OFFICE - ~%~ _ .. wv 96~~ ~oK. ~iX _ _.,. ~~o Ego '! ~~ i BEAM AVENUE -----~ ,~-------------------~ r----~ SITE PLAN SOUTH SITE N Attachment 5 ~y ~ J~~~~O~ ~O q04/~ ,~~`Q' 02 Q~ ~~Q4~C ~~~~~ ~' GULDEN'S 5~ ~ _~ ` _ ~' 3 .- ~ TEMPORARY J. ~ PROPOSED GRAVEL PARKING + IQ x.;, OPEN ~ ~~ ~~ . ~~ - 1 .PARKING ------- ~ I~- T y ~2 ~ e; ~, ` ~ !W ~ r ! Ik ~ ~ - - _ ~. -.~NsRED DRIVEWAY - ~ r -ir - SITE PLAN NORTH SITE N Attachment 6 TREE KEY: ~ - _ ._ .. '- ~ ! ..~~ r~ ~ f '•I e I - d •~ r Z .` v , : I ~ 3 - ~ s I ~ t 1 i ~ ~ j i \ rw i - ,` ~ I . ~ i ~l,.~l',F. j EwiTwcTREES- `_ ~ ' ~ REt~![nY~NTEO: ' ~ ANY TREES DISTUR/10 DURING CONSTRUCTION [TRIER I a RELOCAT! OR RETLAtl WITH NEW PEANRNG9 TO MATCH. LANDSCAPING PLAN NORTH SITE DlCIDWIIf TIIE!! O EgIfTING ANriMi T[!RS UIIfTING 1![INRY `~(Y NEW iR!!S CDNI!lROU 9 Tql!! EgilTWDAMTUgl TglB lgBTIND1q[fNTEY RANnDrues N[WTgI[! DEODUDUf SN0.Ue! • egESrwalEUUu ^4 N Attachment 7 -; , BWBR ARCHITECTS MEMORANDUM Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota B~GBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 To: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner, Ciry of Maplewood From: Roger Larson, BWBR Architects RECEIVE D Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects Date: June 6, 2005 JUN 0 6 2005 Subject: Planning Commission Submittal cc: Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota .. Jake Boerboon, KA-St. Paul Steve McDaniels, the Owner of Maplewood Toyota, plans to do substantive construction on his properties north of Beam Avenue and west of Highway 61. A narrative of three phases is outlined below for clarification of what work is done and in what order. I. Project Summary Narrative North Lot Phase, hereinafter to be referred to as NLP, (grade level car storage) develops the northernmost property to a level that will support inventory car storage while a South Lot Phase, SLP (one level storage ramp above the existing storage parking lot) is constructed. The automobile inventory from the south lot requires relocation to allow continuation of business during construction and beyond. The SLP will be completed when the one level storage ramp, the lower level sales office, and the landscape and site improvements are finished. The Norrh Lot will remain inventory car storage after the South Lot is constructed. 16 G:t0421400Wdnun'.Clty SuhmittallCity Subrrit_OS-11-05LPmject Summary Namative.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite G00 Saint Paul, ?vIN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Service Page 2 of 2 A. North Lot Phase (NLP): The zoning requirements for the site requires 50% pervious land use. The Clwner has an agreement with the City for this ratio to 30% pervious and 70% impervious through allowances granted for prior land agreements with the City of Maplewood. The west side of the site will have permanent pervious paving, which is 30% of the site area. The remaining 70% maybe temporary/permanent and constructed with Class 5 gravel base. The pervious pavement will be a manufactured pavers system that allows water penetration. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for the (NLP 1) proposed storage of vehicles within 350 feet of a residential district. 2. A variance (NLP 2) for storage of motor vehicles within 350 feet of a residential district. B. South Lot Phase (SLP): A one-level storage parking ramp will be constructed above the existing on-grade vehicle storage lot. This design does not add additional impervious land use to the site, as the site is currently paved to the allowable maximum. The upper parking deck level maintains the minimal setbacks that are currently in place for the current on-grade lot. The one level storage ramp is constructed of precast concrete and includes aone-story sales office area below the southeast comer. The ramp is 154 feet from the adjacent residcntial district and requires a variance and Conditional Use Permit, as it is closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Access to the one level pazking deck is via two nearly constructed drive lanes/bridges from the Owner's property on the north adjacent lot. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a automotive related business structure located closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 1). 2. A variance for a structure closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 2). 3. A variance to having a structure within 30 feet from right-of--way lines of Beam Avenue on the south side of the property (SLP 3). /ce 17 Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax G~1.222.8961 www.bwbt.com RECEIVED ~• JUN 0 6 2005 Attachment 8 SWBR ARCHiT Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 May 11, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESIGN SUBMITTAL NLP 1 City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-512 (5) (b) ^ Storage of motor vehicles are to be located no loser than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district. A Conditional Use Permit is requested for allowing storage within the 350' requirement listed above. Land Use: The intended use fox the land parcel is for storage of Maplewood Toyota's automobile inventory. The site will have 30% permeable pavers on the west side and 70% Class 5 general aggregate on the rema;,,;.,g eastern two_thirds of the site area. Reasons For ApprovaL• 1 • The Owner has moxked with the City of Maplewood through sale and transfer of adjacent land. It was understood at the time of sale that Maplewood Toyota planned to use this pazcel for the business of car sales. Maplewood Toyota continues, and expects, to use this parcel as previously agreed- 2. The existing character of the surrounding pazcels that front Highway 61 are similar in nature to the caz storage use requested. 3. Current property values will be maintained. Regardless of specific use, perceived land use would most likely be commercial in nature. 4. Motor vehicle storage is not a perceived hazard or innately unsightly. The vehicles axe generally new. 5• Maplewood Toyota intends to store vehicles for their business use. The vehicles ate parked and removed by employees. The storage area is not a sales lot. Access to the lot is primarily through Maplewood Toyota's adjacent property and not on City public access routes. 6• Site requirements are currently supported by public utilities and services. 7. The project allows for 30% pervious pavement as agreed to ~by existing land agreements. 8. The existing parcel is an undeveloped weedy field. The proposed use is seen to be a general improvement. Stormwater management has been considered when designing this site. Pervious pavement is utilized to encourage best stormwater management techniques. /ce 18 G:1°4214WV4dminWlP 1.tloC Lawson Commoas 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbacom Attachment 9 SWBR ARCHITECTS Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 May 11, 2005 ZONING CODE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL R F ~ E ~ V E D JUN 0 61005 NLP 2 City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-512 (5) (b) ^ Storage of .motor vehicles aze to be located no closer than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district. A variance to allow motor vehicle storage within the 350' requirement listed above is requested. Land Use: The intended use fox the land parcel is for storage of Maplewood Toyota's inventory. The site will have 30% permeable pavers on the west side and 70% Class 5 aggregate on the remaining two-thirds of the site area. Maplewood Toyota has retained the land pazcel in question with the sole purpose of developing it for use of its car sales business. Maplewood Toyota has partnered with the City of Maplewood by developing this parcel to accommodate present and future needs in a planned manner. Integrity to the existing water shed is planned by directing stormwater to the existing stormwater retention pond on the west adjacent lot. Reasons For Granting A Variance: Maplewood Toyota is requesting this vehicle storage parking area be allowed for these reasons: a. The proposed use is consistent with existing and adjacent uses along Highway 61. If existing setback requirements are enforced, the alignment and location of the adjacent west property (town homes) line creates an odd relationship with the NLP property line, potentially creating large unusable area of this site. The planned town home development will border similar use, adjacent businesses. In the continued overall coxnmerdal development of the west side of the Highway 61 strip, we feel this variance is consistent in the long-term planning for this area. 2• We believe the intent of the ordinance is to protect adjacent land uses from detrimental views, hazards, and other real and perceived problems. 19 G:5°b2140°lgdmtnWlP 2.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite b00 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 wwmbwbr.com Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Service Page 2 of 2 Maplewood Toyota has integrated itself into this area and is trying to keep the use intended as when purchased. Through the careful use of landscaping and lighting, we propose that the developed use will be a stronger element in the neighborhood. Protection from unwarranted and undisclosed uses is not required and we feel a variance will still allow the City, adjacent landowners, and Maplewood Topota to continue their current good neighbor relations. /ce Lawsoa Commons 380 St Peter Street, Suite G00 Saiat Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.896] 2www.bwbr.com Tom Ekstrand Attachment 10 From: Lynn Benson [lynn~notamd.com] Sent: Monday, June Q6, 2005 8:57 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Maplewood Toyota development proposals Dear Mr. Ekstrand, I'm writing in response to the proposed development by our neighbors at Maplewood Toyota. I have several concerns. The first is in regard to the landscaping. We were very disappointed at the negative effect their original parking lot has had on the view from our home. I was very dissatisfied with the lack of a landscape berm from their original project on the site. From the perspective of our home, we see no evergreen trees in the line of sight to the west side of Toyota's parking lot. Throughout the year we have clear sight of the cars and trucks and light from the lot. It was my understanding that they were required by the city planners to provide a landscape berm at least six feet in height. It is my understanding that the definition of a berm is an earthen barrier. Zt appears they have neglected this requirement in their original development of the site. Zt appears that this new progosal will not have any new lanscaping or berm added on the south site. we would greatly appreciate it if a berm taller than 10 feet with additional evergreen trees could be added to the west side of their parking lot to provide screening from the view of their cars. We would be very pleased if this current project included a roof on the top of the parking ramp to block the view of cars as our home is at a higher elevation than the top of their ramp would have. We would prefer to view a building rather than autos. A second concern I mentioned along with the first. The lighting on their lot is very bright at night and shines into our bedroom windows. Is there any way to reduce the light pollution further. Perhaps enclosing the tap of their parking ramp would help with light pollution in the area so they wouldn't have lights up higher than they do currently. Another comment I have is regarding the pedestrian traffic in their crosswalk. Is there any way they could add a pedestrian bridge to cross Beam Ave. to their plans? With the short length of the stop light for eastbound traffic on Beam, it is difficult to have to wait for pedestrians when the light changes before you get to the intersection. A fourth concern I have is their lack of parking for their employees. Even before their current lot was in place employees had to park on Beam Ave. We were surprised when they still didn't make allowance for employee parking with their new parking lot. I know it affects our neighbors living on Beam Avenue. Will they ever have enough space for their employees to park? Please call me with questions about my remarks (651-481-0076). Thank you for soliciting our opinions regarding this development. We greatly appreciate the city planners' consideration of residential taxpayers and voters opinions and look forward to the public hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Lynn Benson 2898 Duluth St. Maplewood __ ___551-.481-0076 21 ;~' Attachment 11 June 5, 2005 Tom Ekstrand -Senior Planner Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, This letter is in regazds to the development proposal for Maplewood Toyota as described in your letter of May 26, 2005. First a little background. When most of the residents to the west purchased their homes, Maplewood Toyota was a small dealer located on the SW comer of Highway 61 and Beam Ave. Since then, they have expanded to the north into what was up to that time a parcel that had been used for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales and have also built a large service facility (along with LeMettry Collision) to the north, With their current growth, there have been negative effects on the adjacent residents: 1. The current driveway entrance into the south lot is too close to the corner. When northbound cars aze fuming west onto Beam, there is usually a car that stops as soon as they get on Beam waiting to tum into the dealer forcing vehicles behind to stop and wait in the middle of the intersection. This driveway location is very dangerous and will cause an accident (if not already). Although this driveway entrance was there before their present expansion, the growth of the dealer and the increased number of homes have made it more dangerous. 2. The dealer was granted permission to have a marked crosswalk just past the driveway entrance. If you don't have to stop for a car turning into the south lot, quite often you have to stop for salespeople and customers in the crosswalk. Many times dealer employees and customers will step out into the crosswalk without giving a vehicle proper time to stop. State law requires all vehicles to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk but the pedestrians also need to use good judgment to give a vehicle proper time and distance to safely stop. This is not always the case. 3. Since expanding to the parcel north of Beam, the lot lighting is very visible and invasive to the surrounding homes. With construction of a parking ramp, the lights will be taller, and will affect more homes and to a much greater degree than the current lighting. 4. The dealer has also installed an outside loudspeaker paging system that is very audible for the adjacent residents. FY` 0 Lt1 ~r h e~ ~ L o rr ~ ~ N ~ "~0 ~ f/S e-+-~~ Iz 3 3 ~ .-.1 ~~ C 7~-, 22 City Of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand -Senior Planner 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Development Proposal -Maplewood Toyota Deaz Mr. Ekstrand, Attachment 12 This letter is in response to the letter sent out dated May 26, 2005 on the Maplewood Toyota expansion. I have lived at 2890 Duluth Street for the last seven years and in Maplewood my entire life. Maplewood Toyota has been a good neighbor and I and others in my family have purchased all our vehicles from Maplewood Toyota. I do have one concern currently and several concerns on the future proposal. Currently, they have a loud speaker or paging system that goes out over the car lot duectly behind our houses. ]n the warmer months, all my neighbors and myself can heaz every page over the system when we have our windows open or when we are out in our back yards. Those speakers need to be re-directed towards highway 61 and away from our homes. The view out my back window keeps changing. I'm not sure I want to look out at a concrete structure with more car and people traffic. A few years ago, we agreed to an overIlow parking lot with a house and pond as a buffer zone. The highway 61 and Beam Avenue intersection is already crazy with car and people traffic. It looks like the new sales center on the other side of Beam Avenue would just add to an already busy intersection. I have ahnost hit people darting out into traffic trying to cross Beam Avenue. Turn lanes into the new facility are also and issue. One solution to create a better buffer zone is to build an $-10 foot concrete privacy fence on the back of our property line. Or, add many more 8-10 foot blue spruce trees along the property line to help in the winter months when the leaves fall off the trees. This does not fix the additional pedestrian traffic crossing Beam Avenue going to and from the proposed new sales office. I have worked hard and paid a lot of money for my home. I deserve the right to enjoy the peace and quiet of living in Maplewood. Plus, I don't want to worry about the declining value of my home with commercial growing closer and closer. I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and comments. Sincerely, lames R. Anderson. 2890 Duluth Street RECEIVE d __ .. Maplewood, MN 55109 651-483-8954 JUN 4 1 2005 23 This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build aone-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing to install a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would .park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to become acar-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call meat 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Yau can also email me at tom.ekstrandt~ci.maalewood.mn us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. TOM EICSTRAND -SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Project Summary 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan-South Site 4. Site Plan-North Site 5. Landscaping Plan-South Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp Design Elevations S. Panting Ramp Perspective I have no comments: ~r u~u r~~ vuirc.ntes ruin cona,flona.~ use per+'~1~XI eJery 'i~M e So. nee a:.ppJ~e' ~S. J ~1e /le 1c,6~ laa,~cbc~ /o~°.S h ekr, -,- ~ doors S~4m 6/k".'1 or1 fire Qun~P.S~'zrs ct~F $~ f5 FEm i n ~ ltito<n~•~ u~h~ fhe 9c~'~hQ9~ ¢r-uuc ~?rnpti'<s ff,e fi'ttSti @Y19k~usxc/ Toyaht . OFFICE OFCOMMUNiTYDEVELOPMENT 65t-249-2300 FAX: 65t-249-23t9 I:ITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 COUNTY ROA^ B EAST MAPLEW000~ MN 55 i o9 ~U~r~ ~a '~~'2 L /-1-2~ ~' D p 1 T7 c~N R ~- 1 S S c~c CS TJfi~4 t /u~~=~ ; a ,3~- Rcs~~vco ~ Il'?~1ev.~ ooh jay o7`4. ~.e a~-rn J 50~~ ~ n ~ I ~ta~ W • 8 , ~ e~-ri. p-~ MuS~" ern _/ '~^ ' n ! -~ ~'~' ~( rr'1 S J~ n cam/ ~r u rG_. 7 / t7 ' 1 S~ ~~ ~as.~ J ~~om ~r ~~ ~ ~~ ~n~l~ for 2CarS ~~^ ~v~ ~ro ~ N• ~ • Y ~,9-JGe ~ J,Sd~ t n o ~ 1 ~e~S /0..nCl 2 G~r2. ~eS~~~' ~~' Nom '. 1 h~~ ~~~'~L ~~v~ l~-° 1''1~leWaao~ ~c~d¢aJ ~~o~, w• ~ , B~~-.,,~ A~~ , h/1 -~1.~~vv~ ~U7Ofia d~ ~2~ ~~ S~~ J°~, LOTS a~-QCc~'de~fs ~ nearM~'SSeSI'je,~~ C(rt~C< i -f` Go n ~ 25,/"S ~ c .~ f'.e/Se vfr e a.$ r S . 'n~~ ~ I~GI ~IOG~ ~~CI C1"oSSi~n~J ~~P~ ~~/eu~~~~ ~7 pf?~ a.~lGl (~~-l'~eTTI CU~~~'SioN , l(l~S M11~6~ock I ,Y ~r~n~" S~T~ cocf~ , I~eSf~',~~. ~~osS~,~/,~ a~ J j~~,~, ct~ ~ ~Fw y 6 J` i .~. ~{H,/~- ~~y~~~ Q~e~rre,~'Sh~,o ~C.c~/d /)v~~se ltJa('l6~ ,~-2rrn -f~ e 1 ~,M !'n~-~`~ n o ~ ~~e f r~~ y~~ r~c~ ~ ~/'uc,~si ,~ , S~~e~~ 27`L -~ /~.e4/'6 /'~SfC~en fi~l ~.ei~`r 6o~l~vacr~ j 25 Attachment 14 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2882 Duluth St Maplewood MN 55109 Development Proposal Response -Maplewood Toyota • Do not believe the ramp is necessary given the amount of space Toyota owns and the fact that the parking lot has open space every night. • Believe that Toyota should have to meet ordinances and should not be granted further variances that impact residential arias or wildlife. Aesthetics • Personally think it would look bad and according to realtors opinions (whom we have discussed this prof ect with) they believe a parking ramp would likely degrade residential property value. Has any assessment been completed to verify this? Why not put the ramp at the south comer of current property? • If approved, we are requesting Toyota to plant many more trees and/or scrubs so residential properties would not have to view the ramp. • Expect City of Maplewood to ensure, if granted, the ramp is visually appealing (end to end) and graffiti will be immediately removed. Environmental • Has an environmental impact study been completed? Highly concerned that continued pervious ratio variances would impact wildlife and residential sump systems. • Run off is also high concem, need to ensure that it flows away from residential property such that it does not create a water problem for residential property and flood wildlife that currently live between the residential property and commercial property. • Think rain gardens are a good start but, who ensures that these are maintained and functioning properly? • Who is liable if changes in pervious to impervious ratio negatively impact residential property? • Ask that if approved, City to enforce no Toyota employees to park on Beam and Duluth crossing or anywhere else on Beam/They currently parking there all day even though space is available in their lots. Safety • Will this increase car traffic on Beam for the long term? Beam & Hwy 61 already a bottleneck. High level of traffic turning onto Beam (at times) creates a bottleneck due to volume of cars in and out of current parking lot. Since the parking lot entrance is less that 1 block from a busy intersection, we are concerned that this will become anaccident-prone area. Multiple incidences ofvehicle-to-vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle close calls. More parking will logically increase incidents, please comment as to why this should not be of concern. And what measures are being taken to ensure this will not become a safety hazard. • Believe building of this size, given the limited set back, will create a blind spot for drivers at intersection of Beam & Hwy 61. Again seems like a potential safety hazard. • Traffic already an issue due to construction on Edgerton, and CNTY D. When will the project (if approved) start and end? June 1, 2005 26 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2882 Duluth St Maplewood MN 55109 Project • Expect that if approved, guidelines on time of day for construction would be reasonable. Overall Do not believe a parking ramp fits`~esthetically in this location and truly believe it will create a safety hazard. Additionally, it appears that it has a high probability of having a negative impact on wildlife & residential properties (run-off & safety). I hope the City of Maplewood will consider the input and concems of the residential population and ensure that our concerns are fully addressed if the city decides to approve this request. Tune 1, 2005 27 ' Attachment 15 ,~ ~ ~ R~E1rElVEO May 26, 2005 Together We Can JUN 0 6 2005 Michael Schenian Judi L Johnston Schenian 1221 Countryview Cir E Maplewood MN 55109 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build aone-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated level of parking-above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing to install a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to become acar-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email me at tom,ekstrandCa~ci.maplewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for yo"ur comments. I will give them careful consideration. ~~ TOM EKSTRAND -SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Project Summary. 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan~outh Site 4. Site Plan-North Site 5. Landscaping Plan-South Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp Design Elevations S. Parking Ramp Perspective I have no comments: Comments: ~t/V.1i CM .~r~ a'ue f ~s%~a.. -QiYtt~d-~,~.~RS ~1~&~,,d~Ch~t~/i L~~~- ~y~ ~a.~ /Yldllt'e~n~ `~8.~%~-tG a~v~- /~Q.O_/?lLc-z CfGr/ .C.~d'u2.Pi~T1 G~/2.(~u-~ ~. •~y,0.~fj~G-c,~'c.~e.L 9~'h-• M(~rYrfs ~il'1wa CU GZ°~y , ri(.~.1~ ~ /~~' ~ U~`~' ' OFFICE OF COMMUOONI7Y ^EVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 FAX: 681-249-2319 CITY OF MAPLEVYOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST ~ MAPLEWOODp MN 551 09 Z8 y~ S ,ems ~ sB ~ ~. ~ , .-~- ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ' ~ ~~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ "~ ~~ . ~~ s ~ ~~vn.~.-gym y . ~". ~~ ~ ~~ 29 Attachment 16 Encineerino Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Toyota PROJECT NO: 05.19 REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch DATE: June 7, 2005 Introduction Maplewood Toyota is proposing the construction of a one level parking ramp and other parking facilities on their two parcels located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Beam Avenue and highway 61. Under the proposal, the north lot would be developed as a parking facility for inventory while the ramp on the south lot is being constructed. The parking area proposed for the north lot is a combination of about 24,500 square feet of pervious pavement, and about 32,200 square feet of temporary, aggregate surface parking area. The parcels in question, and the three parcels between them (five total parcels), fall within the shoreland overlay district. The shoreland (overlay district) ordinance allows 30% impervious surface within the district, or up to 50°k if approved by the city engineer. The city purchased a drainage and ponding easement along the west side of both lots in 2004. While this acquisition reduced the area of the two parcels, it was agreed that this would not decrease the developable area on the parcels that existed prior to the acquisition. In other words, the impervious area of both the north and south parcels cannot exceed 50% of the area of the parcels prior to the city's acquisition of the drainage and ponding easement In addition, when the city counal approved the automotive uses for the five parcels, staff recommended that the northerly four parcels be evaluated under the shoreland ordinance together. Stated another way, the total impervious area allowed for the four parcels together could not exceed 50% of the total area of the four parcels together. Between that time and the present the north parcel was split, and the north portion sold to become part of the Troutland development Approximately 0.5 acres of the new Troutland parcel lies within the shoreland district. Since the four parcels were to be considered in aggregate under the shoreland ordinance, and since it was agreed that the city's acquisition of the drainage and ponding easement would not reduce the developable area of the two parcels in question, an assumption must be made on the area to consider for compliance with the shoreland ordinance. For purposes of this review, the area of the north parcel is assumed to be 8.63 acres for compliance with the shoreland ordinance. This is the combination of the present area of the four parcels (8.13 acres) and the portion of the Troutland parcel within the shoreland district (0.5 acres). Under this criteria, the total allowable impervious surface for the four parcels is 4.3 acres. There is approximately 3.5 acres of existing impervious surfaces on these parcels. This leaves about 0.80 acres of additional impervious surface that would be allowed on the north parcel. 30 South Parcel Existing parking area would be removed for construction of the parking ramp. As such, there is no increase in the impervious area on this parcel. Included in the improvements for the south parcel is the installation of a storm water treatment structure for the removal of sediment from runoff prior to discharge into the onsite storm water pond. Given the fact that there is no increase in the impervious surface, and the storm water treatment system is being improved with the addition of the treatment structure, there are no apparent issues with the proposal for the south lot_ It should be noted that this parcel is at the limit for impervious surface under the shoreland ordinance. North Parcel As noted in the introduction, the maximum additional impervious surface allowed on the north parcel is 0.80 acres. The area of the existing bituminous surface and the proposed temporary aggregate surfaced parking amounts to about 0.90 acres, or 0.10 acres more than is allowed under the shoreland ordinance. Since the pervious pavement proposed for the north parcel should have infiltration capacity equal to or better than the existing condition of the parcel, it is not ceunted as impervious surface. In order to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance, the total parking area would need to be reduced, or approximately 20 feet of the aggregate surface would need to be replaced with pervious pavement. About three quarters of the aggregate surtace drains over the pervious pavement. If aggregate material such as Gass 5 is used, runoff from this surface will cant' fines which will tend to fill the voids in the pervious pavement, reducing or eliminating its infiltration capacity. This problem could tie avoided if Gean roGc is used. The applicant has indicated that they may wish to use the temporary aggregate surface parking for up to five years. It is recommended that if the temporary facility is to be used that long, that it be constructed to city standards {concrete curb and gutter, and paved). If the applicant elects not to do this, the aggregate surtace should be removed and restored with vegetation upon completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel. The proposal for the north paroel inGudes a retaining wall that ranges in height from 2.5 to nearly 12 feet. This wall will require a certified, engineered plan and may require a special inspections schedule to be completed by the design engineer or his representative. The proximity of this retaining wall to parking on the parcel immediately to the north (Guldens) creates a safety issue that must be addressed. Finally, in initial discussions with the applicant regarding development of the north parcel as pervious parking for inventory storage, staff indicated that this was a reasonable use for this property within the shoreland Zoning area, with a provision that they also provide some low impact development improvements to the Maplewood Toyota property on the south side of Beam. These improvements do not appear as part of this proposal. 31 Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the development of the parking ramp on the south parcel as proposed as it results in no net increase in impervious surface. Staff recommends approval of the development of the north parcel with the following conditions: 1. Clean rock must be used for the temporary aggregate surface parking area. 2. The temporary aggregate surface parking area must be removed and restored with vegetation within 6 months of completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel, but no later than September 30, 2007. 3. Either decrease the aggregate surtace parking, or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance, and 4. Incorporate low impact development improvements on the parcel south of Beam Avenue by September 30, 2007. The applicant and/or his engineer should meet on site with engineering staff to discuss what options would be appropriate and effective. 5. Address the safety issues related to the retaining wall proposed along the north property line. 32 Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota, applied for a conditional use permit to construct a parking lot before constructing a building on the same lot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The legal description is: WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. The city council held a public meeting on , 2005, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city councl approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 33 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. Automotive sales- and repair facilities are accepted uses- in M1 districts subject to appropriate conditions. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped May 26, 2005 and also shall follow any conditions attached herein. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the plans. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed site-lighting plan that includes fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for community design review board approval. 5. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval providing for a visual screen that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting. This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick- crowned, over-story trees. The site shall also have an in-ground irrigation system installed when the future building is built. The landscaping plan shall also provide sod on the east, north and south sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural. 6. The design of the retaining wall shall be submitted to the community design review board along with the landscaping plan. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. The review board shall review the fence design. 7. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative affect to the Gulden's parking lot or properly due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall. 8. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 9. The applicant shall incorporate low-impact development improvements on the parcel south of Beam Avenue by September 30, 2007 as outlined in the June 7, 2005 Engineering Plan Review by the city's engineering department. The applicant and/or his engineer should meet on site with the city engineering staff to discuss what options would be appropriate and effective. 34 10. The Class-5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean aggregate may be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the Ramsey/Washington Watershed District. This gravel parking lot shall not be used longer than two construction seasons, but no later than September 30, 2007, after which time, it must be removed or replaced with a permanent surtace. At that time, if the parking lot remains in use, the parking lot must be upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance. 11. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surtace parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 12. The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent building on this site by on this site by September 30, 2007 to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal. This is because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the applicant's desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. Parking lots that are accessory to a building may be 20 feet from residential property lines. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2005. 35 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Schlomka Property -Concept Plan Update LOCATION: Carver Avenue and Henry Lane DATE: June 9, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted to the city a preliminary concept plan for a proposed senior housing development. He, in conjunction with Rottlund Homes, has prepared a preliminary site plan that shows 376 housing units (in four different types of housing) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 70 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. Refer to the applicants statement on pages six and seven and the maps on pages eight -ten. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The developer has not finalized the design of the buildings, but I expect that each town house building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have atwo-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Hansen will be requesting that the city approve: 1. The results and findings of an EAW for the project area. 2. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3(M) (medium density residential) for the site. 3. A change to the zoning map. This would be from R-1(R) (rural single dwelling residential) to R-3 (multiple dwellings) for the site. 4. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project to have a mix of housing styles, to have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have many of the units on private driveways. 5. A preliminary plat for the lots for the town houses. (See the concept site plan on page ten.) 6. The project design plans. BACKGROUND On March 14, 2005, the city council had a chance to review an earlier version of a concept plan for this property. The earlier plan showed 386 units of senior housing on the property. After some discussion by the council, the applicant asked the city to table their request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal. On May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed the latest concept plan prepared by CoPar Companies for the Schlomka property south of Carver Avenue and west Henry Lane. This plan showed 376 housing units in at least four styles of homes on about 70 acres. The council also authorized the preparation of an EAW for the development area and for some of the area along Sterling Street, south of Carver Avenue. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed development, Mr. Hansen would need the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. These changes would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R- 3(M) (medium density residential) for the land use plan and from R-1(R) (rural single dwellings) to R- 3 (multiple dwellings) for the zoning map. The city intends R-3(M) areas for up to 6 residential units per gross acre. For R-1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area while the R-1(R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on 2 acre lots. The R-3 zoning in Maplewood allows far a mix of housing styles including twin homes, town houses, condos and apartments. Preliminary Project Review Compatibility This proposal, if approved by the city, would be a large change for this area of Maplewood. It would transform asemi-rural, very low-density area (with no public utilities) into asuburban-style, medium density mixed-use residential development with public sewer and water. This proposal is a significant departure from the existing and expected land uses in the area and has raised several concerns with staff. However, it also is important to note that change is not necessarily a bad thing. The city does make changes to the land use plan and to the zoning map when it determines that such changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the city and when the changes would be, in the opinion of the city council, in the best interests of the city. A development such as this, if carefully planned and constructed, has the potential to be a great addition to the city. The challenge lies in balancing the goals and interests of the city, the residents and the developer to form a plan that works for most, if not all, of the interested parties. In Maplewood, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. An example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. In this case, the proposed town houses and condos would be near Interstate 1-494 and Carver Avenue and next to single dwellings. The developer also told staff that they would expect to build a trail system throughout the development and that it would have a community buildinglclub house with possibly a swimming pool. Dens' As proposed, the 376 units on the 70.acre site means there would be about 5.4 units per gross acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons.° The applicant would apply to the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 376-unit housing development. They would request a PUD to allow the project to have a mix of housing styles, to have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have many of the units on private driveways. The developer is proposing a small lot around each townhome unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveways, green areas and the ponding areas. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would norrnally allow. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the developmerrt as proposed (shown on page 10), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having private driveways with reduced town house setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the properly. If the applicant followed all the aty subdivision and zoning standards and used public streets, such a plan would require more tree removal and grading because of the right-of--way requirements and the larger setbacks. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Carver Avenue and at the south end of Dorland Road (Heights Avenue). The developer is proposing to extend the utilities from these locations io serve the proposed development. This will require extensive coordination with city staff and probably a new lift station near Fish Creek for the sanitary sewer. There is, however, no storm sewer in this part of Maplewood. The concept plans show new ponding areas on the site as part of the development. Managing the storm water, as with every project, also will be a critical part of the success of the development. The watershed district usually requires the grading plan to show that there will be at least five feet of free board (bounce) in the ponds from the first 10o year high water level to the lowest floor elevation of the units. Traffic Because of the limited number of streets and access points in the area, traffic is another concern of city staff and of the planning commission. Most of the proposed development would use Henry Lane as access to Carver Avenue. Henry Lane south of Fish Creek would become a long dead end that about 305 of the units would have as their only street access. The applicant has not yet done a traffic study for the area and city staff has encouraged the developer to do one. A traffic analysis also will be part of an environmental assessment wortcsheet (~rM- Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) An EAW is a preliminary environmental review of a proposal to look at how the development could potentialy affect the environment. The state has designed the EAW to gather and disclose information about potential environmental effects from a proposed project. The EAW also reviews ways or methods to avoid or minimize any environmental effects. An EAW has a list of standardized questions that cover issues such as land use and habitat, stomt water, wetlands, air emissions and pollution and traffic. As proposed, the project does not meet the minimum size thresholds (with the proposed number of units) set by state rules to mandate an EAW. However, the city can require the developer to prepare an EAW if the city decides that the project "has a potential for significant environmental effects." To this end, as Mr. Hansen noted on page sbc, he is requesting that the city order the preparation of an EAW. A preliminary fist of concerns inGudes the effects the project would have on the wetlands, slopes, utilities, storm water and drainage (including Fish Creek) and traffic in the area. In addition, the noise from 1-494 and its effects on the new residents is another matter that the Fr4W should analyze. The EAW should take about three months to prepare. After the consultant is done with the EAW, the city will have a public comment period, a review by the planning commission and then a review and action by the city council. The developer would apply to the city for the approvals of the development plan once the city and the other agencies work and review of the FAW is done. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 70 acres Existing land use: Three single dwellings and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings and Carver Avenue South Ramsey County open space West: Houses on Dorland Road and Saint Paul East: Henry Lane and 1-494 PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1(R) (rural single dwellings) Proposed Land Use: R-3(M) (medium density residential) Proposed Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwellings) and PUD Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1185 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. 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. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. p:sec 24-281Schlomka Concept review (3) - 2005.mem Attachmerrts: 1. Applicants Statement dated May 1 D, 2005 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Area Map 5. Concept Site Plan dated May 10, 2005 6. EAW Project Area Map Attachment 1 CoPAR companies Development • Finance • Investment May 10, 2005 Mr. Kenneth Roberts CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1820 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 MA Y i d 2005 RECEI vEp Re: Schlomka Property City of Maplewood, MN Dear Mr. Roberts: CoPaz Development, LLC ("CoPaz"), as developer, respectfully requests the opportunity to formally discuss our vision for development of the 70+/- acre Schlomka Property, located on Henry Lane in the southern portion of the community, with the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting on May 23, 2005. The purpose of our presentation is to introduce our Concept Plan and request the city council order an EAW. As shown in the attached, Rottlund Homes as builder, is proposing to create an Active Adult, Age Restricted (55 yeazs or older), community on the land. In addition to a Club House, the housing types and home characteristics aze proposed to include: Housing Type # Units Gardens 46 Gazden Townhomes 72 Cottage Homes 78 Senior Condominium 180 Square Footage 1,460 1,492-1,572 1,270-1,765 l,ooo-lsoo Total Housing Units 376 Gross Density 5.37 du/acre 8677 Eagle Point Blvd Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-379-0500 651-379-0412 (Fax) www.CoparCompanies.com 6 Real Estate Development, Finance & Investment Within anage-restricted adult community, there will be no school age children permanently living in the area; and, according to our traffic engineer, the vehicle trips per day will be less than a typical single family detached neighborhood developed at suburban densities. Access to the site will be via a new connection to Carver Avenue with an "emergency connection" to Heights Avenue. Within the new neighborhood access to the homes will be served by a system of public and private roadways. An additional "emergency access" is proposed to connect the single family (Cottage Homes) to the Garden Townhomes as noted on the Concept Plan. The site plan is sensitive to the physical constraints of the land by preserving the ravine and wooded slope as well as protection of the central wetland area. On March 31, 2005, representatives from CoPaz and Rottlund Homes attended a neighborhood meeting, organized by Councilman Rossbach, to present our Concept Plan to over 40 neighbors. The meeting was pleasant, informative and extremely thought provoking with traffic generation on to Carver Avenue as the recurring concern of the neighborhood. To this end, assessment of the physical impact of structures on the land, CoPaz respectfully requests the Maplewood City Council order an EAW to gather accurate baseline information so that we can advance our plan forward. If you should have any questions, or if you should require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully requested, C/ ~/~ Tom Hansen CoPaz Development, LLC cc: Bruce Pankonin, Rottlund Homes Attachment 2 NEYV PORT LOCATION MAP s N a Attachment 3 Q C I- Z Y V J Q a 2 N ~ ~- a i' try I i '~ i '~~ 1 i t~ f r{ ' ~ j - 11 ~ ,~ E I ,~~--~..~,~ ~ i ~ M P ,,ae-1...+,'' ~7 ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ,~ ( r __ ~ r ~' -~.,~ ~ ~ ~ R-~~ yl ~~ ~ f ~ ' y . 3 '_ ~ ` ~ i 'I--{ ~~ ~ ~ - ~~ IB t C. -'+, ~1~~ GranfNieyr, _ !~ ~ '' ~~ ~. ~` ~~'~~ i ~'~~, ~ ~ i ~ J f! ~ti ~ J r 1 ~ ~ "r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ! a ~ ~ ~. ( ~ i~ II i ~, ~`~ " r : ~ ~ I 1 _i .. f, , ,~ z ~,~_ CARVER AVENUE ~f ~ if = - - .,, m ~ '. r t . G~ ~ ~ -_~ y --~1 ~~ ~ r I ~ ` Q~V + i - ~ ~ ~ r _ ~ ~ G -~ ~ J r ~ u ~i ~ i y ! ~~ v,".I ' i ... i ~ i I ~ ' ~ 1 ' ~ _ . ~ ~ i 1 i r t ' ~ E ~ r~ I -~{ r~( - ~~Ir~' ~~ + ~ i ~ I , i '1 f~ f / ~ _ ~I ~, j r t--~--- ~ ~ 4 f ~~ r~~ i ~ i r i ~ _ ' ~ { ~ ~ ~' R1 r ~ ,, ~ ~/ r M i l y I it '"r ~ ~f ~ ' ~ ~ ~.: ~ f ~i f r ' I ,. -, r,`~~ a ---~ f y rt -~ ., _ ,, '~ NEWPORT m O LAND USE MAP 9 ~ J N 0 ~ 1 --, , ,, ~ ~! ~ ._. ~'~ ~I I ~~~ I ~ i®~ ~ II,~~~ ~. f ~ 1 I i ~~ ~ - 4~- _~- =c-_- -_ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~...__ ~ ~ -._- .,-_ ER i~l~ _ - - - - -~`AR~ _ _ i ~ ~ d ~- ` ~~ + ~ ~, } ~ i ~ _ I ~ ~__._ ~I4 11 --- I s ~ a i~ - .. ~ ~ I i . ,~ T •~ ~ t I ~ ~ - . '-. e _ - ~]I ~ ~._ ~~' __.--- __, QI __._._. OPEN SPACE _~ - - "~ s -aE __ QI 'n- a __ ~ ~~~ _ _ m I I~ __ ~~_`_._ f, it I ., - _ - ~ ~ t FISH CREEK ' ~, - ~ ~~ .a -~ ~~ ~ tF .~v~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~, . '+, - -~ c_' ! ~ __ _ , r J Q e a ~ •~ ~ Q I ~ ~ ~ I v SITE nc ' andviei/~ t ~~ ~ , j . , E t ® { ~ / _ - - - - - - -_ - . f r ~ '+ ' 1 J I ~ ~^^ ~ r r f r '~/ I r ! ~ ,'r ® ® r ' li r /~ I~ ~ f i v~ ' r r ~ i it i. SRE J.; 1 ' r ~' ! ! r ,' ~ ~ I LL ~ ~r ,Y ~'i. r ! i l {{ ~ri~ ! r, { r r ~ 1 t _ lit ~ ~ ! J ! ' J f/ i F1 l -- rl ! ~ l r ~ r~ S !. r Jf r .. F i rI ,{ ~ r r e ll,... ~ - _- - ~~~ ~ i + ~r ~ I i ! E rr 1 ~ ' ~ ' I I ~,e r ': ~ ~ r, i, ® r il~~ _ 6 ~ `~l~ F f ~ ~ +~ '-- --- ' ~ f ~~~~ _ ~~ I ~ f t ~ 'r ! / r ' r_~ j 1 2 , - - _ _ = . ~ r ~'~ r r -_ ---~ i ~ ~h -__ ~ r ~ ~ ,,~',r ' r~~ f r r ~ i i ~ ~r r il'' _ i I~ ~ {~.rrr' _ 'll. I !II ~I 'J __ AREA MAP io N Attachment 5 Senior Condominiums 180 Garden Homes ~6 SITE PLAN Gazdea Townhomes 72 Cottage Homes 78 11 Total Homes 376 ^4 N Attachment 6 MAR LOU GRA 242 2240002 GARRY UR ND 242822 4000 JO MI & D N A 24 8222 0 R08ERT & LUELIA WILDS 242822240010 GARY SCHLOMKA 242822310017 1 R EY COUNTY RKS de REC 10 GARY SCHLOMKA GARY SCHLOMKA 242822320001 242822310017 GARY SCHLCMK 242822310002 SHELLEY SCHLOMKA COPAR & COPAR DEVELOPMENT LLC DEVELOPMENT LLC 24282232003 PROJECT 242822320002 AREA RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS do REC 242822330001 PROJECT AREA = 73.19 ACRES SCHLOMKA PROPERTY = 60.12 ACRES OTHER PROPERTY = 9.86 ACRES RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS = 3.20 ACRES AND REC PROPERTY SCHLOMKA PROPERTY EAW PROJECT AREA MAP EXIIIBIT 1 12