Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Mondav. April 17, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. April 3, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Easement Vacation (2249 Kenwood Court) 7:15 Conditional Use Permit - Oversized Accessory Structure (2345 Maryland Avenue) Code Amendment - Accessory Structures 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business a. Noise Control Ordinance Code Amendment 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations April 10 Council Meeting:?? April 18 Special Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler and Mr. Grover April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 1 O. Staff Presentations PC/CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting? 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 3,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Oierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Oierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for March 20, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had clarifications or changes to the minutes on pages 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,17, and 18. On page 4, in the seventh paragraph, second line, first word, change the word property to properjy. On page 11, in the second paragraph, first line, change the word Iffiit to plan. On page 12, in the second paragraph, first word, change impervious to pervious. On page 12, in the third paragraph, third line, change the word pavors to pervious surfaces. In the fifth paragraph, third line, insert the word also after that would. In the seventh paragraph, third line, insert the word variance after the word setback in the second line. On page 14, in the seventh paragraph, eighth line, change the word location to intersection. On page 17, in the third paragraph, fourth line, change the word afe to area. On page 18, in the second paragraph, first line, add the word density after the word site, and change the word asFeS to units. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -2- Chairperson Fischer had clarifications or changes to the minutes on pages 4, 10, 13,20, and 21. On page 4, in the eighth paragraph, first line, last word, change the word verses to versjds. On page 10, in the ninth paragraph, first line, change the word understand to understanding. On page 13, in the first paragraph, first line, change the word verses to versJds. On page 20, third paragraph, second line, the sentence needed to be reworded: Because the Park and Recreation Department had not been in contact with city staff. staff was not sure if there would ever be a trail svstem put in or not. On page 21, in the first line, insert the word be discussed. On line 3. after the word Wisconsin, delete so thoy and add Menards. In item f., line 4, delete the word Board and add CORB member Linda Olson. In item g., in the fourth paragraph, second line, add the word i1 after the word in. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for March 20, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Yarwood Abstention - Oierich V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Alternative Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Review (7:23 - 8:36 p.m.) Dale Trippler gave a handout to the planning commission prior to the Gladstone Redevelopment discussion. Mr. Roberts said the purpose of this meeting is for the planning commission to discuss the two different Gladstone Redevelopment plans and forward a recommendation to the city council at the special Gladstone meeting on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission will need a representative to speak on behalf of the planning commission at that meeting. Commissioner Oierich asked if staff could compare the density between the Gladstone Redevelopment plan of 490 units to the number of units in the New Century development, Legacy Village development, and the future Carver Crossing development so she could get a feel for the differences in the density? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said the density in the Gladstone area varies, the highest density concentration would be around the roundabout and as it moves out towards the perimeters of Gladstone the intent is to have lower density to better transition into the single family homes that will remain. The Gladstone plan will have a range of 8 to 20 units per acre depending on where you were within in the site plan. The Carver Crossing development that the planning commission will see review soon will be at 4.1 units per acre, the New Century development is at about 5 or 5.5 units per acre over the PUO, and the Legacy Village development is an average of 14 to 15 units per acre. Chuck Ahl said on the Legacy Village plan there is a lot of open space combined in the development so you have compacted units and private streets. The Gladstone area doesn't have that many private streets so it's difficult to compare the two areas. Some of the Legacy Village units that are being built north of St. Johns Hospital is fairly intense there, if you compared apples to apples with the Gladstone plan, the Legacy Village development would be about 18 to 20 units per acre. Commissioner Oierich asked how many acres in size the Gladstone Redevelopment area was? Mr. Ahl said the entire redevelopment study area with trails, the right of way and open space comes to 195 acres. Some of the 195 acres has existing housing in the total because that includes the entire study area. Chairperson Fischer asked how close the streets in the area are to capacity or if the city is at comfortable tolerance levels? Mr. Ahl said Frost Avenue is a very wide road with four lanes of traffic. Typical traffic on a four lane roadway is 15,000 cars a day. Current traffic on Frost Avenue is about 7,000 cars a day so it is not even 50% capacity. The city did a traffic analysis assuming 1,000 new units when the original analysis was done so that does not double the traffic level. It has an increase to around 10,000 cars a day but it is not at the capacity. The roundabout would have been stressed under a doubling of the traffic of 13,000 cars a day assuming 1,000 housing units, but we are not close to that. Chairperson Fischer said she drove to the Legacy Village development to look at the box culvert under the power lines at Kennard Parkway and Legacy Parkway and she noticed a 15 mph traffic sign at the roundabout. She asked why that speed sign was posted at this roundabout and not at the other roundabout? Is this something new that the city is considering posting elsewhere? Mr. Ahl said the speed signs at the roundabout at Kennard Parkway and Legacy Parkway are advisory. The city advises people that 15 mph is the appropriate speed. 15 - 20 mph is what the city designs a roundabout for. At 25 mph your driving starts to feel uncomfortable and anything above that you are starting to exceed a safe operation. The 15 mph is an advised speed while driving around the roundabout. Chairperson Fischer asked if the reason there wasn't a speed sign posted at the roundabout at Frost Avenue was because it's a County Road? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -4- Mr. Ahl said no. The roundabout at Frost Avenue is larger and can handle slightly faster speeds. One thing the city learned was there were too many signs posted there and people couldn't figure out which sign to follow. Chairperson Fischer asked if the narrow stretches or the more broad areas were higher accident rate areas? Mr. Ahl said no these areas are not higher accident rate areas until Highway 61 and Frost Avenue. At East Shore Drive the city sees as a potential problem because of the sight differences. There was a problem at Frost Avenue and English Street but that has been taken care of after the roundabout was added. Commissioner Oierich said even if you take 700 units for the 195 acres for the Gladstone Redevelopment site, that puts the units at 2.8 units per acre. If we have a new development the Met Council has something to say about low density. She asked if the Met Council has anything to say about redevelopment? Mr. Ahl said yes the Met Council has something to say about density. The lower density plan of 490 units is something the city will have a very difficult time getting any grants for. The Met Council does not come back and say you must have a certain number of density. But they do provide financial incentives and the city would like to get Livable Community grants for projects like this but with the low unit count of 490 the city will have a very difficult time applying for grants. With the 800 unit density the city will have a much easier time applying for and getting grants. That is the type of competition the city would in for redevelopment grants. The Met Council would be supportive of the 490 units since that is a higher density than what is currently there, but the Met Council would not be "financially" supportive of the 490 units with grant money. Commissioner Oierich said it doesn't seem very fair that the rest of Maplewood would have to have a higher density than what the Gladstone area would be required to have. Not everyone is going to benefit from this redevelopment and if the city has to put tax dollars into this development it is going to come out of the Maplewood resident's pockets. She knows these decisions are all political, but why can this area push so hard to have a lesser density when the city knows they can develop a nicer development with more units and make this work for everybody. Commissioner Yarwood said it's his understanding that this area is revenue neutral and he isn't sure tax wise if this redevelopment is a tax burden on the rest of the city. Mr. Ahl said you are correct. Both plans for the 490 units and 800 units are feasible and are theoretically self supporting without city tax dollars. Commissioner Oierich said this area is a gateway to our community in Maplewood. The Gladstone area bumps up against two very nice areas. She said she is willing to support the higher density plan because it is one of the gateways to Maplewood and she thinks the city wants to put their best foot forward. If we get chinchy or cut costs on the infrastructure and amenities, we are not putting our best foot forward and we are not improving the neighborhood in the best way possible. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -5- Commissioner Oierich said when this process began she thought differently but has since changed her mind and prefers the higher density plan for the amenities and the look of the plan. Chairperson Fischer said when the final decision is made for the Gladstone area it will be a decision to weigh density and amenities and whether to have build bebo or a box culvert. There are many conclusions to add up before deciding what is best for the area. Mr. Ahl said these are all value decisions. That's another reason staff provided everyone with the Gladstone questionnaire so people would have a way to measure these factors. Commissioner Oierich said she's aware nobody "wants" development in their backyard but doesn't everyone in the city have a say in what happens here? We all have density in our backyards in the twin cities. If we as a city are putting in street infrastructure she thinks the residents of Maplewood should have a say regarding this area. Commissioner Grover said excluding the St. Paul Tourist Cabins, how many units does this plan bring the number of units down to? "He said he knows both plans already include the St. Paul Tourist Cabins in the total number of units. Mr. Ahl said yes both plans include 150 units for the St. Paul Tourist Cabins. Plan A(800 units) minus 150 units equals 650 housing units and Plan B(490 units) minus 150 units equals 340 housing units. Commissioner Grover said he knows there's a developer who has shown interest in the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. When he looks at the total number of units he purposely excludes the St. Paul Tourist Cabins from the total. He asked how many manufactured homes are currently on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site? Melinda Coleman said about 50 manufactured homes, give or take a few. Commissioner Grover said one of the things he doesn't like about this is that there are only two plans to choose from. To him that is like having a yes plan or a no plan and personally he likes certain things from both plans. Chairperson Fischer said at the joint CORB and HRA meeting she understood that the 490 unit plan is a riskier plan compared to the 800 unit plan which is not as risky? She also understood if people didn't care for the 490 plan but thought somewhere between the 490 unit count and the 800 unit count would be better than that is what we could recommend to the city council. Possibly as a minority decision. Mr. Ahl said that is correct. City staff provided a lower unit plan and a higher unit plan. For example, if you as a commission chose 620 units and you want certain amenities in the plan and it costs $14 million dollars in order to do that plan, then you could recommend that to the city council. It's all up to the commission and boards what they want to recommend to the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -6- Commissioner Grover asked staff to provide more detail such as the risk analysis between going with the 490 units compared to the 800 units? Mr. Ahl said the risk to the city for the 800 unit plan is small. In around 3 to 5 years that plan could be implemented as proposed. The 490 unit plan comes with more of a significant risk, it will be harder to implement, it will take longer and could take 8 to 10 years to develop as funds become available, it would be more difficult to redevelop certain sites because the city doesn't have the funds available to work with developers, and it may not be as attractive for developers to move on the property. The city may have to wait for certain things such as blight to occur. You have a very good opportunity to get grant funds with the 800 unit plan and with the 490 units your risk is greater that the city wouldn't get any grant money. Ms. Coleman said the city made a submittal for Livable Community funds this year with 500 units with Mr. McLaughlin's plan and the city was turned down. There are more requests for grant money than there are funds, but part of the reason Mr. McLaughlin's plan was turned down was because it didn't have near enough density to qualify for their programs. Regarding the risk assessment, if you go with the 490 plan, the easier parcels will probably develop such as Johnson Boatworks, the storage yard, those will go because there are no structures on them and will happen easily. The difficulty will be where there are businesses that are ready to go and they have indicated to the city that they either want to reinvest in their business or relocate. The city is not going to be able to help those businesses because there is no money put in the 490 unit plan to provide financial assistance to those businesses. Then there is the cost of demolition, contamination clean up, relocation and all ofthose things cost so much that it isn't going to happen. Commissioner Trippler said he has spent over a year serving on the Gladstone Task Force and he would strongly recommend that the planning commission pick one plan or the other. If you start cutting corners and nickel and dime things, this plan will never be finalized because we will be going back and forth. The task force sat down and tried to figure out what they wanted the Gladstone area to look like. If you look at the Gladstone plan dated November 14, 2005, on page 3-1 through 3-2, it talks about the vision the task force had, the guiding principles and the look of the neighborhood and they used this vision to get a better handle on what amenities the task force would like to see and how to make this vision happen. Plan B or the Bartol plan set the number of units and then took a look at the amenities and started cutting amenities until they got down to the dollar amount that fit with the number of units. To him that doesn't include a vision, doesn't have principles and is a backwards way of planning. The task force paired down the amenities from $24 million to $18 million and then they said if you start pairing down anything more from this plan it's either not going to be any different than what exists or it will be so poorly done that it won't be attractive. If the area is not attractive you won't sell the units and if you don't sell the units, the area is going to fail. One example is whether to build the bebo versus the box culvert. When the Gladstone task force looked at the bowling alley property they thought those units would be attractive to senior citizens. The Savanna could be a good way to draw people to the area but it can only be attractive to people if they can get to and utilize the Savanna. If you have ever been through a box culvert, it is very restrictive and it is not very attractive. He would not want to go through the box culvert unless he was on a 10 speed bike. If you put in a box culvert, it won't be attractive to families with young children or to senior citizens. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -7- If you don't have paved trails on the Savanna, and you use wood chips to save money, older people will not be able to use the trails which won't be an attractive feature in order to draw people to live here and it will lose its appeal. Commissioner Trippler asked if he should read his comment sheet that he provided the commission with aloud so they would be included in the minutes for the record. Ms. Coleman said those comments could be included in the minutes so everyone would have the comments available to them. The recording secretary inserted the comments in the minutes below. Date: April 3, 2006 To: Maplewood Planning Commission From: Dale Trippler, Planning Commissioner Subject: Alternative Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Pian Review I respectfully submit the following reasons why the Alternative Plan should not be recommended to the city council. I find the Alternative Plan deficient in the areas: 1. It has eliminated commercial space for the bowling alley, liquor store, Laundromat, Mike's LP, the pet groomer shop, boat works, Moose Lodge, Hmong Funeral Home, and several other viable businesses in the Gladstone area. One of the universal elements sited by citizens and the Task Force was to provide for existing businesses that wanted to remain in the area. Except for Richard's, the bakery, and the barbershop, that seems to be a huge missing piece. In addition, the alternative plan does not provide space for any new businesses to move in like restaurants, a coffee shop, etc. 2. It has cut the street budget to the paint of not making enough improvements to make any real difference. The changes will not significantly change the look of Gladstone as it appears today. 3. The budget for improving the Savanna and building trails and pathways is reduced to the point where elderly people may not be able to use most of the amenities. The box tunnel, instead of the Bebo, would be far less attractive to the elderly and to families out for a walk. The savanna and trails are viewed as one of the major reasons why elderly people might be interested in buying and living in the units north of Frost and east of English. If the elderly can't get to the Savanna and can't use the trails, a significant selling point is lost. 4. The alternative plan as I view it paCks so many srnall units into the available space that the oneness of the Master Plan is gone. By limiting the height of buildings to no more than 2 stories, the housing in the Maplewood Bowl area and along English Street is completely crammed. There is almost no room for yards, play areas, or commons. The Alternative Plan may achieve its goal of limiting the number of units, but it does so at the expense of packing housing into a small area. This is exactly what many people in the Gladstone area said they DID NOT WANT. 5. Unlike the Task Force Master Plan, which is fully documented and spelled out in detail, I have very little idea about most of what the Alternative Plan is purposing, so it is impossible to fully and completely evaluate it. From the "Plan B" drawing in our packet, I don't like any of it. In my opinion, moving ahead with the Alternative Plan would be worse than doing nothing at all because I believe the Alternative Plan is doomed to fail before it even begins. And I would not want to see anyone invest $11 million on a failure. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -8- 6. The Master Plan is based on guiding principals, goals and objectives that ALL 20 members of the Gladstone Task Force agreed to (see pages 3-1 through 3-2 in the Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated November 14, 2005. The Master Plan is the plan the Task Force members felt had the best chance of fulfilling our goals and objectives for what we think Gladstone should look like when the plan is fully implemented. The Altemative Plan is based on a set number of units and everything else is modified to achieve that goal. Most members of the Task Force think the Altemative Plan will result in Gladstone looking pretty much like it does now with very little chance of success. Commissioner Trippler said I think you should know at the last Gladstone Task Force meeting rejected the Alternative/Bartol Plan. The Task Force members overwhelmingly support the Master Plan. In my opinion the Alternative/Bartol Plan was thrown together by one (or more likely a few individuals) who are catering to their own special interest group, and does NOT represent the best interests of the City of Maplewood. Sincerely, Dale Trippler, Planning Commission Commissioner Trippler said he wanted everyone to know that the task force overwhelmingly supported the Master Plan twice. Even though the city council never looked at the Master Plan because the Bartol plan took precedence over it, at the end of March, the majority of the task force members overwhelmingly accepted the Master Plan (800 units) and the majority declined the Alternative Plan (490 units). There were two people on the task force that voted for the Alternative Plan (490 units). He said the city did a very good job ensuring that the Gladstone Task Force was a balance of people. Those people on the task force included residents from the Gladstone area, people throughout the city, from the Gladstone Coalition, people representing boards and commissions, and business members and property owners, so the task force represented a good cross section of the community on this redevelopment plan that took place over 18 months. Community Yarwood said even though the city provided the worksheet, at this stage he does not feel qualified to make even small changes to the plan because there are people that have a lot more invested in this and have a lot deeper understanding of the issues of the area. It's important to pick one plan or the other. He doesn't want to see a half baked plan go through. This is a chance for Maplewood to make a statement. To him that means recommending the Master Plan (800 units) to the city council. There has been some discussion regarding the misconception that higher density means higher crime. That is a red herring, statistics stand behind that. There is an important fact in doing research and that is correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This is particularly true for the high density idea correlating with crime. That has more to do with price point and the types of development that we are looking at which will attract and create the type of community that will be healthy, low crime and will look very nice. He strongly supports the Master Plan (800 units) and he hopes the planning commission speaks in a unanimous voice to make this heard to the city council. This is very important to him. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Ahl if he could go through some of the cost reductions that could be made if the commission were to decide to go with a number of units somewhere between the 490 unit count and the 800 unit count? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -9- Mr. Ahl said shortening the length of the area to be redeveloped can be a cost reduction. Instead of extending the improvements on Frost Avenue all the way to Hazelwood Street you could stop at Ide Street. Improvements on English Street could not go as far to the south so the improvements would be reduced significantly. Originally there was a street extended between Clarence Street and English Street near the Bruce Vento trail south and that street is no longer in the improvement plan and in fact that area is not in the 490 unit plan any longer. Mr. Ahl said there are areas in the 800 unit plan that is not identified in the 490 unit plan. Those are single family homes that were identified as possibly being redeveloped. The other improvements related to scale are streetscape improvements rated 1 through 4. The higher the rating the more extreme the streetscape improvements are and the lower the rating is for the very basic improvements. In the Park and Recreation improvements there would be a savings of $1.6 million between choosing to build the bebo versus the box culvert. There was a $750,000 reduction in the overall park improvements to the Savanna, reduction in grading, removal of a plaza and park area and reduced grading at Flicek Park. Commissioner Trippler said he would like the record to reflect that when he was campaigning for city council, people said the 800 unit plan would have way to much concentration. He would like the commissioners to take a look at the diagram in the packet in pencil. If you compare the two and look at the area that is north of the Savanna and look at the housing that is packed in there because the housing height is limited to no more than two stories. Compare that to the openness the task force tried to maintain with buildings more than two stories in height to allow for more green space or open space for people to enjoy. The density may be higher and the height of the buildings may be taller but it gives the feeling for more space for people to enjoy. The Bartol plan or the Alternative plan with 490 units shows everything at two stories or less and everything is packed in tightly and there is very little green space. That is exactly what people said they did not want when he spoke to them while campaigning. People said they wanted the existing businesses to stay if they wanted to. Neither plan A nor plan B is going to force any business out. The Bartol plan only shows 10,000 square feet for commercial space. That would only allow for Richard's Market, the barbershop and the Maplewood Bakery. There is nothing provided in the plan for the other Gladstone businesses. Commissioner Grover asked if it was fair to compare the two schematic drawings? He also asked if the Bartol plan limits the height of the buildings to two stories? Mr. Ahl said yes the Bartol plan has a height limit of the buildings. There were a few units that could go to three stories in order to achieve the density, but the intent was for the fewest number of units possible. Plan B (490 units) started to get into site planning, how many units, the height of the units and the layout of the site. Plan A (800 units) was clearly a concept of potential. Staff is suggesting for us to make a recommendation one way or the other. It is time to make a final decision so people can move on and move forward with things. The public hearing will be on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Grover said given that information, can a plan such as this specify heights of buildings and other site plan issues since the planning commission will be dealing with zoning changes? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -10- Mr. Ahl said the city is going to be involved significantly with either one of these plans. However, the city involvement will be less with the 490 unit plan. With the 490 unit plan it will difficult to control things with zoning rules and zoning controls, it is much easier to control things when there is a financial stake. When the city is involved financially you can specifically control what happens on a property. With a higher unit count such as the 800 unit plan, you can haye more financial control and can control what types of commercial businesses are put in. Where it is going to be difficult is trying to put full zoning controls on to get the building quality and zoning types and uses you want. Commissioner Grover said he thought the city couldn't force builders to stay to a certain unit count. Mr. Ahl said the intent "is" to control the unit count. To find a way to put some type of zoning controls on the properties and make sure that exists. Mr. Ahl said a three story building is all that is allowed by code without a conditional use permit (CUP). Mr. Roberts said correct. The city envisions the city council approve a plan, assuming they pick either plan A or plan B; the city would then have to look at putting together new land use controls or zoning standards such as what happened with the Hillcrest area. It may become an overlay district. The city would set design standards, set height limits and set architectural standards for that area to make sure the plan gets implemented as envisioned. So that will take more work. Hopefully some of what was adopted in the Hillcrest area could translate to this area, but not necessarily all of it. What ever master plan is adopted, the city can make it work and have the controls set so everyone that would come in would know these are the rules you have to follow in this Gladstone area. Commissioner Oierich said in thinking about the Alternative Plan (490 units) those homes are going to be smaller and will be less in value compared to other developments in the city that have been built. To her that represents a certain type of person that may not be able to afford a nicer place to live and maybe won't have the money to maintain their property. Are those the type of people you want to draw to this area as your neighbors? Holding the quality and the property value will happen with the 800 unit plan. In today's market you can't build a big house well because you can't have a lot of square footage and still stay under $200,000. It's not possible anymore. By going with condominiums or town homes, you can raise the quality of the construction and the type of home and it can still be affordable. Affordable, at least according to the Met Council's standards. Density doesn't necessarily equal ugly, or not livable. She said she was just down in Savannah, Georgia, where there housing is very dense and basically feels like one house is right on top of the other because the houses are so close together. Charleston, South Carolina, has the same type of housing. These areas are two of the most charming cities she has ever seen in her life. So if you have a good plan with high density it can be a very nice development. Everything is a process. There will be a process for the new Carver Crossing are in south Maplewood. There was a process with Legacy Village and the New Century development and now there will be a process with the Gladstone area. The process is to get feedback from everybody and the city has gotten wonderful feedback for this development plan over the past 18 months. This has been as much open government as you can get and many people participated in this process. The planning commission should give a recommendation based on what we know and see in front of us. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -11- Commissioner Hess said he likes the idea of having a unit count somewhere between 490 and 800 units. He said according to the results of the Gladstone public meeting it appears the public prefers the lower unit count. He thinks it would be nicer to have more commercial business in the plan to help with the tax base to generate more revenue. Commissioner Grover said he has had a problem with the plan all along and doesn't necessarily agree with one plan or the other. Overall the Gladstone Task Force, the consultants and the city did a fine job putting the plans together but that doesn't mean he has to like one plan orthe other. He likes things from both plans. You can still have an opinion that certain things are not a good use of public money or where the city should be using their time. He agrees with Commissioner Trippler that we need to move on with this. It has been a long time coming and people want to move on with their lives. He likes a longer list of things to pick and choose from. He agrees whatever comes from this plan, whether or not he agrees to vote "with" it or "against" it. He thinks there are certain things like the streetscape that do not need to extend this far. There are things like building the bebo versus building the box culvert, to him that is a no brainer decision. He personally doesn't want to walk through a box culvert. There is a wise investment to be made regarding that. Anything to do with the park, Savanna and the trails, which are the amenities to that area are very important decisions to make. The park and the trails are the amenities so if we are to focus any of the public dollars they should be focused on these amenities. If we aren't going to focus on those amenities they aren't going to attract developers to build a nice development. He doesn't think we should extend the streetscape this far but there are some things that he would agree that the city would be selling themselves short on for things such as a box culvert or other things like that which are problematic to him. Chairperson Fischer said she would disagree. If a box culvert is good enough for the Legacy Village development why isn't it good enough to build in the Gladstone area? She thought she understood the planning commission could have a first choice and a second choice regarding the plans. Mr. Ahl and Ms. Coleman said that the planning commission can recommend what ever the commission wanted and it will be passed onto the city council. Commissioner Grover asked Mr. Ahl what connects to the other side of the box culvert at the Legacy Village development? In this area we would be connecting a major regional park trail to the Savanna which is a pretty large open space. This is the area we want the center of the neighborhood to be. Mr. Ahl said the box culvert in Legacy Village connects to the Lakes Link trail up to the Bruce Vento trail and will eventually go over to Century Avenue and up around White Bear Lake. Ms. Coleman said the box culvert and that connection was made almost at the completion of the zoning and land use approvals. It was an after thought and during the park planning process the city renegotiated, splitting the cost with the developer over some park land and other things that weren't part of the first planning process and came as an after thought. The city learned as the city went along. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 .12- Mr. Ahl said the box culvert in Legacy Village is under a much narrower street and is about 60 feet long. The box culvert for the Gladstone area would be around 120 feet long. If you've ever been to the Shoreview Community Center and driven down the five lanes oftraffic on Highway 96 there is a box culvert underneath Highway 96 which is the same size as this box culvert would be. It meets the industry standards and is very acceptable. These amenities are all value decisions that will be decided by the city council after the groups make their recommendations. Mr. Ahl said he heard someone say they weren't sure they wanted to take their family through a box culvert; that is a value decision that the city staff can't make. The city would make sure there is enough light inside. If you ask the question will the bebo be a nicer structure and would it cost more money; absolutely. Commissioner Trippler asked if the length of a box culvert make it acceptable or not acceptable? The longer the box culvert, the more enclosed it feels, the shorter it is the more comfortable you feel being inside a box culvert. Mr. Ahl said when you have a box culyert 100 feet in length you don't haye enough natural light from end to end so you have to bring in artificial light to the center of the box culvert. If you have a shorter box culvert such as 60 foot culvert there is usually enough natural light. Commissioner Trippler said there are many businesses and people within the Gladstone area who would really like the city to make a decision and get moving on this so these businesses can decide if they are going to stay, go or redevelop or not. One of the problems he sees with recommending three or four different options to the city council is that it will prolong the process. Although he said he believes the city council already knows how they are going to vote anyway. The planning commission should make a decision and send it to the city council and let the city council make the final decision. Let's not drag this out any longer for the people in the Gladstone area. Commissioner Oierich said this process is like building a house. The task force has decided the essential things, the city has put a price tag on those things, once people have committed to this and someone changes things, you start the process all over again. Vote yes or no, 490 or 800 units. Then if the city has to start the process over again then we start the process all over again. But let that be on the city council's shoulders to spend money doing this process all over again. The Gladstone Task Force has done their work. They started off at 1,000 units and narrowed it down to 800 units. Then a request came in from the city council to come up with for a lesser unit count (490 units) with fewer amenities to see what the cost could be reduced to. When you go through all the information, this process doesn't have to be second guessed. Chairperson Fischer asked if the city council should have to be limited to 490 units or 800 units? She doesn't think so. She thinks the 490 unit count is too risky and if the city council can't be comfortable with the 800 unit count which is less risky then she would recommend a number in between? Commissioner Dierich said the city council is going to make a decision either way regardless if you give them another option or not. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -13- Ms. Coleman said Commissioner Oierich is correct; the city council is going to make the final decision either way. At the other meetings staff has told the boards and commissions they should make a recommendation and if everyone can't agree with the decision there can be a minority report given as well. Then the information is public record and the city council can take the information and make their final decision from all the compiled information offered. Commissioner Desai said in the interest of time he won't echo all the comments that have been made. He said he is more of a visual person and after reviewing the information that was given to him he took the opportunity to go visit some of the suburbs that are doing similar type of work on the west end of town. Commissioner Desai said he had a chance to see a couple of communities outside of the twin cities area and he is convinced to the master plan (800 units) is the plan to choose. It has the amenities people are likely to look for when they are looking to purchase property. He has already seen it happening in other areas where the city went the cheaper route with the lesser amenities. The area starts off looking good and begins to look tired and old which has been happening in areas that are only two to three years old. He would prefer to have more retail space. Personally if he was looking for a home he would want retail close to him. There is going to be walking paths and sidewalks and people are going to use them to get to a coffee shop, retail store, restaurant etc. to stay in their community. But you have to have the retail present for people to walk to first. Commissioner Pearson said normally he isn't fond of high density but in this case he feels the master plan or higher density is the way to go. Plan B affords a continuation at the junction of Frost and English with the funeral home which he believes is a big detraction from getting anything moving on this development. The closest thing to this plan is the St Louis Park development called Excelsior on Grand. They have an intersection like this roundabout that is proposed, which is the anchor to the area, and they have three story buildings. You need the higher investment that you would have with the 800 units to be sure you get the appropriate control and that you are able to buyout the businesses. This is not going to be an eminent domain project no matter what has been reported. It will probably be more expensive to obtain properties than what has been allocated. This area will have to have the utilities buried and the farther you do that along Frost Avenue the more attractive the development will be. The addition of the trees and landscaping will add a lot to the area. When you picture a park for example, before the trees are planted and in bloom, think of how plain it looks. Once the trees are matured and developed, it will really add to the development. He is less concerned about whether a bebo or a box culvert is built. Neither the bebo or the box culvert will be lit very well from natural light and that is a necessity. He would prefer to have around 600 units but he believes you have to go with the master plan with the higher density numberto make sure you have the necessary public funds to make this area successful. He also believes the roundabout at Frost Avenue and English will have to be the anchor of this whole area. Commissioner Kaczrowski said he prefers the master plan (800 units), he believes you need to revitalize the area and the amenities are necessary to make this area look nice. He agrees the utilities need to be buried and he doesn't want to see corners cut to make this a nice development. He pretty much agrees with the other comments that were made by everybody else. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was a motion that carried could we add a minority report? Ms. Coleman said yes. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -14- Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend to the city council approval of the Master Plan (800 unit plan) for the Gladstone Redevelopment area put forth by the Gladstone Task Force. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Oierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner Grover and Commissioner Hess would like it noted for the record that they are not in favor of plan B (490 unit) plan but would be agreeable to looking at an alternative unit count somewhere between 490 and 800 units (such as a 600 unit plan) along with a little more flexibility with the amenities. They represent the minority report. Commissioner Grover moved to appoint Commissioner Trippler to be the planning commission representative at the April 18, 2006, city council meeting. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Oierich Commissioner Oierich said she would recommend there be more than one person as the representative. The city council should hear from a more neutral voice, there is enough tension around this plan and she believes someone else should be represent the minority report at the April 18, 2006, city council meeting. Ms. Coleman said this will be a public meeting and everyone from the planning commission as well as the other groups of people are welcome to give their opinion. Commissioner Grover said he would be happy to present the minority report at the April 18, 2006, city council meeting. The motion passed. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Grover was the planning commission representative at the March 27, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss included the second reading of the Nonconforming Use Ordinance Amendment and Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive for a conditional use permit revision and the Code Amendment for Nonconforming Uses which was passed by the city council along with the recommendation by the CORB for a rainwater garden. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-06 -15- b. Mr. Yarwood was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the April 10,2006, city council meeting, however, there are no planning commission items to discuss. c. Tuesday, April 18, 2006, is the special city council meeting to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. Dale Trippler will be the Planning Commission Representative reporting to the city council, and Michael Grover will present the minority report. d. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the April 24, 2006, city council meeting. At this time staff is unsure if there will be any planning commission items to discuss. Commissioner Oierich commended Chuck Ahl and Melinda Coleman and city staff for the hard work and efforts made during the past 18 months for the Gladstone Redevelopment plan. Commissioner Oierich thanked Chuck Ahl and Ken Roberts for attending the neighborhood meeting for the future Carver Crossing development in south Maplewood. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts reported to the planning commission that staff recently received the application and plans for the Carver Crossing development. This item will be discussed during the PC meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday, May 1, 2006. This will also be a public hearing. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Easement Vacation 2249 Kenwood Court March 30, 2006 INTRODUCTION Mr. James Tschida, the owner of the property 2249 Kenwood Court, is proposing that the city vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement. This easement is along the west property line of his lot. Mr. Tschida wants the city to vacate this easement area to provide him space to build an addition onto his existing garage. (Please see the applicant's statement on page three and the maps and plans on pages four through eight.) BACKGROUND On September 25, 1989, the city council approved the final plat for the Pare Addition. (This plat created all the properties on Kenwood Court). DISCUSSION The city acquired the easement in question in 1989, when the developer of the Pare Addition (the plat) recorded the final plat with Ramsey County. Mr. Tschida is requesting the vacation because his proposed garage addition would encroach about 2.6 feet into the five-foot-wide easement. (See the site plan and survey on page six). The city engineering department stated that the city does not have a need for the existing easement. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build any utilities in this location. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use the existing easement for utilities and the city does not need it for any utilities. However, the engineering department noted that the city needs a legal way to access the drainage and utility easement across the northem part of the property. In trade for the city vacating the existing easement, city staff is requesting that the property owner grant to the city an additional five-foot-wide easement near the east property line of the lot. Such an easement over the property will to allow the city access to the drainage area to the north and would provide more space to install underground utilities if the city decides that there is a need for such improvements. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page nine. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the drainage and utility easement on the west side of the property at 2249 Kenwood Court. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the existing easement for utility purposes. 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage. This vacation is subject to the property owner: 1. Granting to the city an additional five-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the east part of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. Maintaining the drainage on the west side of their house and garage on their property and within the five-foot-wide easement on the adjacent property. REFERENCE INFORMATION Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this request on March 15, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by May 12, 2006. P:\sec8\easement vacation - 2006 Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant's statement Location Map Address Map Site Plan and Survey Floor Plan Proposed House Elevation Vacation Resolution 2 Attachment 1 UNDUE HARDSHIP STATEMENT Strict enforcement of the five-foot set back requirement on the West property line of2249 Kenwood Court North would result in undue hardship for the property owners for the following reasons: Reasonable Use - The only site on the property that a third car stall can be located is adjacent to the existing double attached garage. Unique Circumstances - Due to the extreme topography of the lot, the initial builder/developer located the dwelling in the extreme southwest comer of the lot. Essential Character - Two of the six homes on the cul-de-sac have third-stall garages that encroach on the five-foot set back requirement. Spirit and Intent - Adequate spacing for utilities, drainage and the maintenance of general aesthetics will not be materially impaired because at its narrowest point more than 18 feet will remain between the front of the proposed garage addition and the existing garage on the adjacent property. {'r0!-- fjdul2 ~ Beth Tschida d(.),/(Of.p Date MAR f 5 2006 RECEIVED APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 3 ,~~~~:r":'" -- ~....... II ,.~ " I I II l-i ~ Q ~ U ~ II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 1.1 II I I I I I I I -------'- l Attachma.nt 2 LITTLE CANADA " ~--~--.-- --~ -" --- ~-"--" VIKING:- -DR:- Ii II II II II II II II II I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ,i '..; J I 'I i II II II II II II II II II Jill ____J 1E==___COtlN.rr:ROAD.:B:,--.' --- ~_. : ( III 'I ~ ,\ m Q ~ II II II II II II II I' " II II " II I' II II II II II 'II ,'I -'~---- I -l--~-~l ! I' II II )".'.'.' , .' " -' I ~ // .11 II II II~~-- ---\(~- -----:c'i. II . \ I I , irTTI::IJ " I , LOCATION MAP 4 ~--- -.,........,:,:;:;,.:..... ..:...'''.-...,.t..,'....... i<.';~';~j;:i;/$;:;;,r,~:,' 'j,';.;'}:',.'.'!" I I I , I I I I .,'-' /~ I . _,' ~~~ " " ,,,'" ~ -- \ ,/:' 11 N Attachment 3 _____ __ _____ ______ -______ ____ -VlKlNG---DR--- -- ------- -- --- -- --- -- --- -------------- ------- ---" co ..q- CD I"- L:J~c;JCiJ ..q- -- E[1 0 , I"- 2@J11 0 0 0 0 I 22~ SITE D 22~ I) ~ q w 22 tLJ 0 ----~-~ ~ ..----~~~"" w z >- 228 0: i /",4\ , j I 2229/ \515 I ! 3 22~ I I I I I ! 0 I 05 ! I ~ 21B 0 I Q Grs .- ," 21~ ------------------- -,-_____/// 7;}f\ [ ~s CD 21~ ~ ~o"'/\ 101 ~'\// ADDRESS MAP 'J 5 N A" , , " y " < " @ 2006 John Oliver & Ass " / <. ,. >. -- L./ >> }, '" 00 ~ ';0""0 \\ ~V\ ~t'):.g "'-'" t.nw,i"I< U"l~ljl:o'> 0,,", (') cz.c>> )>-1::::1=1 '" ....0 t'T\ -:;2. .." '0 1'\ .." -< \ \ , , , lJ\ \ ?> .I \ ~ ! \ CD , \ ~.' \ ~~. / " CCn~, "- "'0 " i~ " , , " " ~../ L/ ~ , ..., ., , I II/ , , " ,', >, , S89020'11"W (-- I .... '2,~ VI 0,-< - .... <IlZ '0""' ~~ ~ .... '" I EDGE OF--- I WATER , ' I I", ~ _-DRAINAGE'" UTILITY EASEMENT -- .. I I ,\ I \ I \ U " " v- , , ' , , " , ' -' " , '-' , , r'" "'~ " -"-- , , -> , , , " , ' -' , . , \..... lJ) <0 Q ..... ~ CD , !T\ (' -MWD ffNC[ 0'\ r . IJ>', , " \(, PROPOSED DRAINAGE '" - - - UTILITY EASE:MENT / AREA= 400 SOUARE: FEET o , U' , " , " ~ .,". """" " SOUTHWEST , . CORNER OF ----.- LOT 16. ~ I C.,I I '" . i'\1:~# --'"''' , ~~O 00 ",5,'j0. t> 1'-'" 16 KENWOOD COURT NORTH ~ ~ ~ /" SITE PLAN 3-/S-~ 6 ". ,-, , " -- 11 N I I I I I +--~-l I 1 I I 'I~---- Attachment 5 . - :'t\ ~ , ....... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <(z~ "l a ~ -J a ot~ ~ -:J"' r:.: ~ Iol.() ?E uUz ~ ...n OJ",:;;: "'" t- 0 ~ 2 IO . ~ t- ~ '" "< [ - we g q ';> C1l " " '" " ...... O/JCJ)- ::2: 'q" g. ~~~ :3 ::t ~ ".:i ~ -::t:r <.). "'. C;)~ (l. ,------ / / I / / 1- - ~ 1/ tIJ I 1 ~ I I <:0:: I 1 <;t. \!J" I I ~ - - - - ~ - ~ ~- -I~ - - -I "-,,- ~N I I "-,,- ~ I I "-,,-~ I I "-,,- I I ~ ~ 2 <;>(. ~~~~-- -\ ~ t: / / / / / ,., .0-.9 / / / / "- "- , ---r . " . I I f--- I I I I I I w {l 0<: t/. a:~ ~: ~~ ....- <:: ,,9 ~fl 6-,6 \- -r Ii O O. '2:. ::>~ <r;:<b ...J " ,,9~llhl. z 0- " " .9~!,; ~ l- ~ L___~_______~~___~_____~__~ FLOOR PLAN 7 I o I : l I I I I I I _J I I I , . I I I I Attachment 6 DODD DODD DODD I DODD DDDD DDDD DDDD DDDD 8 <tJ \~ .-s ~ ~ \\.! ~ ~ G -::, .<::'.j 'vi VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. James Tschida, the property owner, applied for the vacation of the following: Part of the five-foot-wide drainage easement that is along the west property line of the property at 2249 Kenwood Court described as follows: A five-foot-wide strip of land over, under and across, that part of the existing drainage and utility easement as platted and dedicated in Lot 16, Block 1, Pare Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, the westerly line of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 16; thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 16, a distance of 27.00 feet to a point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue northerly along said west line, a distance of 47.00 feet and said line there terminating. All in Maplewood, Ramsey County, in Section 8, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On April 17, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding 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. 2. On May 8, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public fee title interest in the property will go to the following described properties: 1. Lot 16, Block 1, Pare Addition (2249 Kenwood Court) (PIN 08-29-22-44-0045) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the existing easement for utility purposes. 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage. 9 This vacation is subject to the property owner. 1. Granting to the city an additional five-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the east part of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. Maintaining the drainage on the west side of their house and garage on their property and within the five-foot-wide easement on the adjacent property. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on May ,2006. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Noise-Control Ordinance Amendment April 10, 2006 INTRODUCTION On February 6, 2006, the planning commission discussed the city's Noise-Control Ordinance and directed staff to review the ordinance for possible changes. Mayor Longrie also requested that the city attorney be present at the planning commission for this discussion. Planning Commission's Comments The following is a summary of the points made or questions raised by the planning commission on February 6: . Noise limitations should be placed on Saturdays when people sleep in and wish to be outside. . What has the city's experience been with handling noise complaints? Are neighbors satisfied? · Police have stated that they cannot enforce noise limits between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. · It appears that noise can only be regulated between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday- Saturday and all day Sunday. Not any other time. · There is a problem with daytime noise that the pOlice do not regulate. In this example, it was a neighbor playing drums. . There needs to be a clarification as to when the noise ordinance can be enforced. The commission should get the city attomey's perspective on the noise ordinance for clarity for everyone involved. · Would the use of power tools by a neighbor be regulated by our code? . On weekends, when people want to get their outside projects done, they might be working until dark which could be 9 to 10 at night. This is later than the 7 p.m. deadline. . Does the noise ordinance apply to those operating a snow blower before 7 a.m. which could easily happen? . The ordinance should be written to be enforceable at any time. . The police chief should comment on the ordinance since they are the enforcers. · Perhaps the ordinance should differentiate between continual noise that may go on for weeks or that of snow plowing or lawn mowing. · A problem these days, as opposed to when the code was first written, is that there are more "common noises" now. For example, power tools, chain saws, snow blowers, leaf blowers. . . . Perhaps the concem should be more about activities like tree trimming, backhoes, dump trucks, etc. These should wait until 8 a.m. or later. SUMMARY OF CURRENT NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 18-111 of the city code, the noise-control ordinance, addresses noise issues in two ways. Refer to the attached ordinance. In summary, it states: Paragraph (a) . No person shall make disturbing noises that annoy others. This is always in force. . Exemption: City sponsored activities (for example, the Fourth of July fireworks) or activities where the city has issued a permit. . Noise is specifically prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday- Saturday and all day Sunday. These are considered to be times of particular concem for noise control. Paragraph (b) . The city manager may waive the requirement of noise limitations where a noisy activity would not cause a nuisance and where this activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use. . The manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. . A waiver to be allowed to make noise closer than 350 feet to residential uses must be approved by the city council. Staff must notify these residential neighbors of the city council meeting. 2 DISCUSSION Enforcement Staff asked Police Chief Dave Thomalla for his comments regarding the current ordinance. Chief Thomalla said the following: The biggest issue is the vague language about annoying or disturbing noises and how that relates to the language about hourly restrictions. Many of our officers believe the noise ordinance is ONL Y in effect from 7 p.rn. to 7 a.m. It becomes somewhat ambiguous as to what is meant by annoying. What annoys one person may not annoy another. The Current Ordinance The biggest problem with the current ordinance is its lack of clarity. The code addresses the important aspects of noise control, but it was written in an unclear fashion and is confusing and hard to interpret. The noise-control ordinance should: . Prohibit disturbing noises at any time of the day or night. . Provide a clear means for enforcement. . Allow nonmal and commonly-accepted necessary noise-making activities such as snow blowing, lawn mowing and the use of power tools. In general, it must not be so prohibitive that a homeowner cannot maintain their home and property because of the need for necessary machinery. For example, persons must also be allowed to use lawn equipment in the daylight evening hours since that may be the only time available for a homeowner who works during the day. . Regulate the hours of work and disturbance caused by construction activities. The current code does most of these things, but staff has proposed some changes for the planning commission's consideration and comment. Proposed Revisions Staffs proposed changes do the following: . Clarify that the excessive noise can be enforced anytime, not just during prohibited hours. · Necessary maintenance equipment (lawn mowers, power equipment and snow blowers) are recognized as necessary and are largely exempted. · Snow plowing or snow blowing is a necessity and may occur during evening hours. 3 RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed changes to the noise-control ordinance or give staff suggestions for revision. p:com_dvpt\ord\noise ord 4 06 #4 Attachments: Noise-Control Ordinance Amendment 4 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NOISE-CONTROL REQUIREMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: DIVISION 3. NOSE CONTROL Section 1. Section 18-111. Prohibition generally; exception. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (a) At no time shall anv No person 5AaII make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes such person's enjoyment of property or affects such person's property values. If there is an tAe event or activity that is sponsored by the city or. a partv has a is autherizee ane Ras a permit for such activity issued by the city, this prohibition does not apply. The +Ri5-general noise prohibition stated above shall alwavs be in effect. however. anv excessive noise durino the followino heurs of noise prohibition shall be strictlv enforced. is net limitee by the spesifis restrictien at subsectien (1:1) at this sectien. There shall be no excessive noise or disturbance Any '/ielatien et this ~eneral pr.ehibilien between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday is a !'ler Ee vielatien ef this eivisien. These hours of noise prohibition applv to construction. business. institutional and residential activities. (b) Exceptions. This ordinance allows the followino types of noise-oeneratina activities that are necessary and tvpicallv occur in all parts ot the citv durino davlioht hours. but not before 7 a.m.: lawn mowino. the use of landscape- maintenance eauipment. power tools. etc. All forms of snow clearino mav be permitted anytime due to necessity. (c) Repetitive or continual noises. that mav not be audiblv loud. mav be eauallv disturbina. Such noises shall also be prohibited. (d) The city manager may waive the requirement in subsection (a) of this section where the activity would not cause a nuisance and where the proposed activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use. The city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. /\ '.':aiver withiA ~5g feet at a r-esieeAtial use mUlll be a!'lpr-ovee by tRe sity seuncil. If an appeal is filed. the +Ae property owners within 350 feet of the proposed activity shall be notified of the waiver request at least ten days before the council meeting. A list of the properly owners, certified by an abstract company or the county abstract office, shall be submitted with the waiver request. 5 Section 2. Section 18-112. Construction activities. All construction activities, including the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas-powered machine or other equipment, shall be subject to this division. A copy of this division shall be attached to each construction permit issued by the city. The applicant for the permit shall be required to sign the copy, acknowledging that he has read and understood it, before a permit can be released. Section 3. Section 18-113. Enforcement. (a) Police department authority. The police department shall enforce this division. The police department may inspect private premises other than private residences and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent violations of this division. (b) Civil remedies. This division may be enforced by injunction, action for abatement or other appropriate civil remedy. (c) Noise impact statements. The council may require any person applying for a change in zoning classification or a permit or license for any structure, operation, process, installation or alteration or project that may be considered a potential noise source to submit a noise impact statement on a form prescribed by the council. It shall evaluate each such statement and take the evaluation into account in approving or disapproving the license or permit applied for or the zoning change requested. (d) Criminal penalties. Every person who violates any section of this division is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be in accordance with section 1-15. Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2006. Attest: Mayor City Clerk 6 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit and Code Amendment John Wykoff 2345 Maryland Avenue ApIi112,2006 Project Description John Wykoff is requesting that the city approve a conditional use penmit (CUP) for his property at 2345 Maryland Avenue. He would like to add a 36-foot by 56-foot detached garage to his property north of his existing accessory buildings. Mr. Wykoff wants this new garage to house a 45-foot-long motor coach. He purchased this motor coach with his father to convert into a recreational vehicle. The proposed garage would be centered between his side property lines and have approximately 19 to 20 feet of setback from each adjacent property. The proposed garage would be 20 feet tall measured to the mid-point of the roof. Refer to the applicant's statement and the maps. Requests Applicant's Reauests To construct the proposed garage, Mr. Wykoff is requesting that the city council approve: . A CUP to build a 2,016-square-foot garage. The ordinance, however, limits the maximum size of an accessory building by the CUP process. In this case, based on Mr. Wykoff's lot size, the largest garage he could build by CUP is 1,250 square feet. To go any larger than 1,250 square feet would require a variance or a code amendment. . Mr. Wykoff also needs a CUP for the proposed garage to exceed a height of 16 feet. Staff's Reauest-Gode Amendment Staff is proposing that the ordinance be revised to delete the maximum size limit on accessory buildings. A maximum limit of 1,250 square feet is too limiting in situations where a resident has the lot area to support a larger building and where there is support for it in the neighborhood. Staff, therefore, is proposing that the city council amend the ordinance to eliminate the maximum square footage allowed by CUP. BACKGROUND On August 13, 1990, the city council approved a home occupation license for Mr. Wykoff to run an art studio and sign painting business from this property. This approval was subject to the follOWing conditions: . Show proof of ownership of the property. . Comply with the city's home occupation licensing requirements. . Do not store flammable liquids in the basement. . Waste materials must be stored in tight-fitting containers. . There must be smoke detectors on each level of the home. . There must be one fire extinguisher in the work area. On February 9, 1998, the city council approved two CUPs for Mr. Wykoff for this property. The first CUP allowed Mr. Wykoff to construct an oversized accessory structure on the property to increase his total garage square footage to approximately 1,500 square feet (a proposed 1, 152-square-foot garage plus an existing 336-square-foot shed equaling 1,488 square feet). This penmit was subject to the following conditions: . The garage shall not exceed 1,500 square feet in size. . The garage shall be started within one year. However, the council may extend this for one year. . The owner shall not use the garage for repairing others' vehicles or other business activities. . The brown storage shed must be removed after completing construction of this building. . The city council shall review this penmit if a problem develops. The second CUP approved by the council allowed Mr. Wykoff to store and park a heavy commercial vehicle (a one-ton pick-up truck) on his property. This penmit was subject to the following conditions: . The owner must park this vehicle on his property within one year of this approval. . This vehicle must be for personal use only. . The city council shall review this permit only if a problem develops. Existing Garages/Accessory Buildings Mr. Wykoff presently has the following garages or accessory buildings: Attached garage Storage building Garage/shop Total 12' x 24' 14' x 24 24' x 48' 288 square feet 336 square feet 1.152 SQuare feet 1,776 square feet DISCUSSION Proposed Garage The accessory-building ordinance does not allow Mr. Wykoff to build a garage as large as he wishes by the CUP procedure. He must, in fact, apply for a variance to go larger than 1,250 square feet. Staff sees no reason, under the findings for approval by state statute, to grant a variance, and I informed Mr. Wykoff that, if approved, a CUP would only allow him to build a new garage up to 1,250 square feet in area. To give him the building length he would need to park the bus, the garage would have to be reduced to a width of 22.3 feet by 56 feet. Requests such as this concem staff from the standpoints of aesthetics and the potential of such a large amount of garage space to be an attraction for illegal commercial usage. Garage structures like the applicant's would be desirable for auto mechanics, for example, to operate from the home once Mr. Wykoff sells his property. 2 Department Comments Buildino Inspections . The owner or contractor must build the structure in accordance with the 2000 IRe. . No plumbing is permitted in the garage, including floor drains, sinks or bath facilities. . Soils must be shown to be suitable for construction. Police Department (Lt. Michael Shortreed) . The garage should have sufficient insulation and noise barriers to assure that the noises associated with the restoration of the bus do not interfere with the day-to-day activities of the neighborhood. . There should be adequate lighting and security mechanisms on the garage to prevent thefts from or burglaries of the facility. Citv Enoineer Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer 1 with the City of Maplewood, submitted the enclosed report of his review of Mr. Wykoff's proposal. Mr. Jarosch has the following recommendations: . Mr. Wykoff should install a rainwater garden on the west side of his property to catch the runoff from the proposed building as well as from the existing garage. This is needed because the property is near the 30 percent impervious-surface area maximum allowed within the Beaver Lake Shoreland Overlay District. With the additional garage it would increase to 35 percent. . The gravel driveway on the west side of the house is eroding. This driveway should be graded to divert any silt-laden runoff into the boulevard and prevent it from entering Maryland Avenue. A rainwater garden would also be beneficial in this area. Shore land Overlay District Requirements As stated by Mr. Jarosch, the applicant's property is located within the Beaver Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Within this overlay district, the maximum impervious surface coverage area allowed is 30 percent-50 percent with an impervious-surface coverage bonus. The applicant's proposed detached accessory structure would bring the total building area on his property to about 35 percent, therefore requiring on-site water-quality control measures. In this case, the installation of rainwater gardens would serve this purpose. Neighborhood Comments Of the five neighbors that replied to our survey regarding this proposal, four were in favor and one questioned what the future use of such a large accessory building may be. Staff shares this concem but wonders if it would be a disservice to the neighbors if Mr. Wykoff worked on his bus conversion and repairs outdoors in view by some neighbors and passersby. 3 Garage Height The maximum garage height allowed by ordinance is 16 feet. City ordinance states that a building's height is measured to the mid-point of the roof. This is because the mass of a structure diminishes as a building goes up to its peak. The proposed garage would be 20 feet to the midpoint, therefore requiring a CUP for height. Staff does not object to this additional height since it does not substantially affect the mass of the proposed building. The proposed height is a result of the needed wall height in order to get the bus within the building. The 4/12-pitch roof is also a relatively low pitch which would keep the profile of the building lower than it would be with a steeper pitch. Design/Screening The proposed garage would have beige vinyl siding. This would match the applicant's other accessory buildings. When staff visited the site, I saw that the proposed structure would be screened quite well from many of the surrounding neighbors. The most impact on neighbors, though, would be the view from the two homes to the east. The northerly of these has a six-foot-tall, solid wood fence around their yard which provides lower screening. The southerly of these two neighbors' homes would not be well screened. One option to help soften the appearance of the proposed garage would be the planting of trees along the easterly lot line. The neighbors on this side did not request any. However, staff sees a benefit for the future to provide a visual screen for the applicant's neighbors. Code Amendment The applicant's proposed garage exceeds the maximum size and height allowed by CUP. Furthenmore, there is no basis to allow a variance for this larger/taller garage. Staff feels that the ordinance should be revised to allow property owners in the city the opportunity to build a larger garage in situations where they have the land area to support it and where there is neighbor support. Garaae Area Staff recommends amending the ordinance to delete the maximum area on larger garage sizes by CUP. We would strike the language stating "however, the maximum area of anyone building shall not exceed the maximum area allowed for an attached garage in subsection (a) of this section." The reason for this Change is that there may be basis for a property owner to have a larger garage than the limit stated by the ordinance. Garaae Heiaht Staff also recommends that the ordinance be revised to strike the language stating that, "the height shall not exceed the height of the house.' The goal here is to keep accessory buildings in a proper scale as compared to the dwelling. In other words, to keep the house as the primary building on the site and not subordinate to the garage. 4 This makes sense at first consideration, but it is not realistic from the viewpoint that many pole-barn type structures built in rural areas may certainly exceed the house height. Garage or accessory building height should be regulated, but should be done so as part of the CUP review, not simply by an arbitrary maximum. One additional problem with how garage height is regulated is that the ordinance states that "oaraoe heiaht shall not exceed 16 feet in heioht as viewed from the street." Staff feels that this should be revised to say "shall not exceed 16 feet from grade." In Mr. Wykoff's case, his lot is substantially higher than the street. Depending on which street you view his lot from, it is about 15 feet higher than street grade. Measuring building height from the street may only allow him a garage that is five feet tall. Staff feels that these code changes should be made regardless of what the planning commission and city council decide about Mr. Wykoff's request. SUMMARY Staff has misgivings about this request. Building such a large storage garage would be a temptation for illegal commercial usage in the future after Mr. Wykoff sells. A building of this nature would easily be a temptation for a future homeowner to operate an auto-repair garage from this residential lot. It is true that the city has regulations against such occurrences, but these violations are difficult to regulate when they happen. Why create a problem? Another problem is the sheer size and mass of the proposed garage. The proposed building would be very large and visually very noticeable and overwhelming for neighbors. Options . The city council could hold the applicant to a maximum of 1,250 square feet by CUP. This would narrow the applicant's proposed garage to 22.3 feet in width. It would still need to be 56 feet long to fit the motor coach inside. . Deny the request entirely. The applicant would not be able to build a garage for his motor coach and he would have to work on it outdoors. This would be a problem for him and for the neighbors. Based on the size limitations in the city ordinance, the applicant could still have 134 square feet of additional garage space. This certainly is of no benefit to the applicant for his bus- storage needs. . Amend the ordinance as described above to allow the proposed 2,016-square-foot garage by CUP. This option would require the council actions of revising the ordinance and granting a CUP based on these new (proposed) requirements. Conclusion Staff does not feel that approving such a large garage on residential property is a good idea. As noted above, it opens the door for code violations to occur in the future. The garage would also be visually overwhelming. The applicant already has an over-size garage for his home occupation. Staff feels that the proposed structure exceeds the regulations of the city code far too much. The only plus staff sees is that there weren't any abutting neighbors that voiced any concern about this 5 proposal. Of the five persons that replied to our questionnaire, four supported this request and felt it was better to keep the bus-repair activity out of view in the proposed garage. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Deny the proposed conditional use permit requested by John Wykoff, of 2345 Maryland Avenue, for the construction of a 36- by 56-foot, 2,016-square-foot, 20-foot-tall garage on his property for the storage and repair of a motor coach. Denial is based on the following reasons: 1. The proposed garage would exceed the amount of garage space allowable by conditional use permit by 766 square feet. 2. The proposed garage, in addition to the applicant's previous large garage, would be overwhelming visually on this residential property. 3. There is too much risk for abuse of zoning requirements by permitting such a large garage on residential property. The city often gets requests for non-conforming businesses on properties when there are large out buildings. Examples of these businesses are: auto repair, landscaping businesses and contractors with commercial vehicles to store. B. If the city council wishes to approve this conditional use permit, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a larger and taller garage than allowed by ordinance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The city council must first amend the Accessory Buildings Ordinance to permit a garage larger than 1,250 square feet in area and taller than 16 feet. 2. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city date-stamped March 24, 2006. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant must present a grading and drainage plan to the city's engineering department for approval of an on-site stormwater management system. Mr. Wykoff shall install a rainwater garden on the west side of his property to catch the runoff from the proposed building as well as from the existing garage. This is needed because the property is near the 30 percent impervious-surface area maximum currently required within the Beaver Lake Shoreland Overlay District. With the additional garage, it would increase to 35 percent. 6. The gravel driveway on the west side of the house is eroding. This driveway shall be graded to divert any silt-laden runoff into the boulevard and prevent it from entering Maryland Avenue. This driveway shall be paved from the property line a distance of 20 feet into the property. A rainwater garden would also be beneficial in this area and may be required. 6 7. The applicant shall comply with any additional requirements of the engineering department based on the plan to be submitted by the applicant. 8. Mr. Wykoff shall submit a landscaping plan for the area east of the proposed garage to provide screening for the two neighbors to the east. This plan shall provide at least eight trees, four for screening for each neighbor. The applicant shall work with staff to determine placement and the type of trees. Evergreens shall be at least eight feet tall and deciduous trees shall be at least 2 Y. inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. 9. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements. There shall be no plumbing in the garage including floor drains, sinks or bath facilities. 10. The garage shall have sufficient insulation and noise barriers to assure that the noises associated with the restoration of the bus do not interfere with the day to day activities of the neighborhood. 11. There shall be adequate lighting and security mechanisms on the garage to prevent thefts from or burglaries of the facility. 12. The applicant shall provide escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of planting the trees and providing the required paving and stormwater-control elements prior to getting his building permit. 13. The use of the proposed garage shall be limited to the applicant's residential needs and the storage and repair of his motor coach. Any commercial use of this building is prohibited. 14. There shall be no excessive noise allowed anytime. Noise is especially prohibited by ordinance between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. 15. Staff may approve minor changes to these conditions. C. If the city council approves Recommendation B, they should also approve the attached code amendment for accessory buildings. This ordinance would allow garages to be larger and taller than the limits expressed by ordinance by conditional use permit with no required maximum. Maximum sizes would be determined by the city council based on each individual proposal. 7 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 42 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of Mr. Wykoff's property. Of the five replies, four were in favor and one was opposed to this proposal. In Favor 1. I approve of Mr. Wykoff's building. (Evelyn Salkowicz, 1240 McKnight Road) 2. It would be my recommendation that this project be allowed to proceed. Once the garage was erected and sided, it appears that it would blend with his other garage. I have walked by on Maryland and driven by viewing from the north end. I visualize a finished product that would not be out of character with the surroundings. I would prefer to see the garage rather than a bus parked outside. (Gary Salkowicz, 2299 Maryland Avenue) 3. OK by me, but concems would be noise, appearance, work hours, odors to homes at 1225, 1235 Lakewood Drive. (Manager, Beaver Lake Estates Manufactured Home Park) 4. I don't have any problem with it. It's no big deal to me. (Boe, 2262 Tilsen Court) Opposed 1. I am against this garage proposal. What will it be used for in the future? (Batterson, 2321 Tilsen Avenue) 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 35,325 square feet Single Family House and accessory structures SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Single-family homes and Lakewood Drive Maryland Avenue and Ramsey County open space Single-family homes Single-family homes PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: R2 (double dwelling residential) R2 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Accessory Buildings Section 44-114(c) states that the city council may approve an increase in height or area by CUP. However, the maximum area of anyone building shall not exceed the maximum area allowed for an attached garage in subsection (a) of this section (or 1,250 square feet) and the height shall not exceed the height of the house. Subsection (d) states that detached garages shall not include living space. No commercial use of a garage shall occur unless authorized by the city council. Subsection (b) states that a private garage shall not exceed 16 feet in height as viewed from the street. Conditional Use Permits Section 44-1097 states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the attached resolution. APPLICATION DATE/APPROVAL DEADLINE The city received the application for the land use proposals on March 24,2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by May 23, 2006. 9 Attachments: p: sec24-29\Wkoff CUP 4 06 te 1. Address/Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Enlarged Site Plan 4. Applicant's Statement 5. Photo of Motor Coach 6. Building Elevations 7. Engineer's Report dated April 10, 2006 8. CUP Resolution g. Code Amendment 10 Attachment 1 -' => <( Q. I- Z :a III ( . ' o \\/" 0 ~~ ~~. "~--~-~-~---_:_-~---- '\> ~/ /----B:ti~~t-.h~---- ~>;;/~\\\J VaR\1a\l,;i~~o. 0 I ,9 "{l'?lonaS]' \1dJ1 'sf:] 21 : :, '" ()"~..J'c,j IJ I,J U lJ l,J. i~d (l~ I -------.~---~--- ..j. o !~[uJfr[~t-~~~~~~: I ~ 11' \1 ~~ ~ ~ .;.' i~ . ~ .,0 . t ,'I ~!S-~_~~__ll____~_~_~_jJ~~ o~i~~~:~-r[~\~:[': \i~ ,~~i, rU ~'~\I~ '\18 ~aDj!~ ';:.;: EjI\.CiNl)R:.---=--=--=--=--=-=-=--=--:-: :~ .,.. \'. 11 f'\ 1\ ~ \l [\' I n 0) \,\ D" ~ ~ l1 'JD1J-' \J~I l ~~ \(.',7\\\1 IQ'. Ii ~\1 <\~ ~ '\~ \. A\..." .', I~" v """:;5 \ . '-l ' -\-Jr, \f:~~]\IJ8HHAlxnr::~:~- \v(;!/d~~o t'r \}, ~.o \1 ~Jt:C;:S ~ / \.:to 8 i1~% a&'il --" ~rY'\~ . .. ~. [llJ IC-_" "~~.-".A't~?_-~_-_-____-.' 1'2\ v~[F : 10 ~\Ol 1[30 v I i c <( o 0::' I- :J: CJ 1240 Z :.:: u :lE o CJ Q lJ o Cl ODD ~QQ'" ~ ~ ~ N BEAVER LAKE -~-~---~---~-------------~- (- I I , i I 1200 I I : I UJ ! ',>, _I 0::' Qi C o o ;: I1J :.:: 5 ~. !J \0 o ~ ~6 c~ ADDRESS MAP 11 N 11 N ~ D II MARYLAND AVENUE ~ PROPERTY OF: JOHN G. WYKOFF 2345 MARYLAND AVE. E. MAPLEWOOD, MN. 55119 (650 773-5086 -'sS:::T. Z4TO'M-J.Z':I RAN6E' Z2. -IN I!:> I--o-E; 4+0 PT i $OO'1'H 5""3 . 4.2"\'2.2.33- 0011 ~+. ~~ 00 ~ <>~ %- @ @ . I I 'iI225 I I a ~ o ~--., s."",", 2355 SITE PLAN RECEIVED MAP. 2 4 2006 Attachment 2 \ \ \ \[ N 12 j N+ N+ ; I ~ -- U!I\m lliCWIP. - · PROPOSED 8UILDI""G. .PROPOseo SITe:. - --.- - - -, , >>W1HICliIm! Attachment 3 ~~~~ RECEIVED SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) 1) IN MAR 2 4 2006 13 Attachment 4 RECREATIONAL STORAGE BUILDING My father and myself have purchased a 1989 Prevost Motor Coach to convert it into a motor home. Complete disassembly will be required to make repairs, updates, modifications and RV accessories to be installed into coach. Having this vehicle inside will make it easier to work on and to perform constant maintained for road safety for others and us on road. We need room inside building to do disassembly of large assemblies that weight a lot and must be kept out of the weather. This motor coach must be stored inside because of its value and the adverse weather deterioration of the tires, window glass and animals eating wiring making nests in vital areas of working assemblies. Storage inside building will protect brakes, steering, lights, lenses and vandalism on parts that may not be replaceable and very expensive to replace. Please consider our request for this important request for my dad and me to build this building. Sincerely yours, John Wykoff Sr. and John Wykoff Jr.3/22/2006 PROPERTY OF: JOHN G. WYKOFF 2345 MARYLAND AVE. E. MAPLEWOOD, MN. 55119 (612) 773-5086 MAR 2 4 2006 RECEIVED APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 14 Attachment 5 <," .151, " 'f' .... NO'Uli~ ON51~ OF BL-PG I SA\lVI G' $lI7(NG P6 AwNr. ~rL..ON6. R 5'A1<. VI8..tJ Nqz:rn .5i CE' , c::F BU:::~), WODO 1'R\..!~ (ZOOP, Attachment 6 JOH-N \"uYI<OPF C051- 77.3 - S08 to I 11u ~J 1 -4- / \ Z- Prrut- ~ooF .-:: RECEIVED MAR 2 ~ 2u06 ~ - = - = - = ~ 14'X\4'O.H. S(bC~ I N5.UlMl f::;./:> Doov<. BGt$ VINYL.. ? 'sIDING '\'LX:? VVl~ o TIt6=!<.. I3I...PGS I ".s Icel.... 42-'1 DOdC.. W/-Sl'==<--L ~S I BUILDING ELEVATIONS ;1 " 2.4 )(f8 ViNYL sw fN6 otl'r (NSuL. W \ N C\1t{) , 16 Attachment 7 From: Jon Jarosch Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 4:04 PM To: Ken Roberts; Tom Ekstrand Cc: Erin Laberee; Jon Jarosch Subject: 2345 Maryland Avenue Comments Hello, I apologize for taking so long to get these to you. I will do my best in the future to respond at a faster pace. I contacted the applicant, John Wykoff, last Friday to discuss the lack of any grading plan or elevations on his submittal. He informed me that he would get me, at a minimum, a finished slab elevation by the end of the day (4- 1 0-2006). Regardless of the finished slab elevation, the property is near the 30% impervious requirement as is. With the addition of the proposed garage building, the properties impervious surface is increased to approximately 35% impervious. To allow this percentage he MUST install measures to reduce the runoff from the property. I am suggesting the installation of a rain-water garden on the west-side of his property to catch the runoff from the proposed building, as well as the existing garage. After visiting the property today, it was also noted that the runoff from the property is pulling gravel and silt from the westerly driveway and sending it down Maryland Avenue. This is not acceptable and must be corrected. I am suggesting that a bituminous or concrete driveway be extended from Maryland Avenue to the north for a minimum of 20 feet. This portion should be graded to divert any siUladen runoff into the boulevard and prevent it from entering Maryland Avenue. A rain-water garden would also be beneficial in this area. Requirements: 1. Install rainwater garden to capture runoff from proposed and existing garages. 2. Install bituminous or concrete for 20 feet on westerly driveway and grade appropriately. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jon JonJarosch (:i\"i! Fn,\.!.LI1LTf I (:iIY of ,\bpln'\"IHxl 1 (JII.2 Cl lunt\" RI ),lll B Ea'ir \[arle\\"nod. \1N .1.1WlJ Phllllt:': ((J.:il) 2-l')-2-+il.1 Fax: (6111 2-+1)-2-+1 Iii Inn.j;u-n..;chfficl.l1l.aple,,"){ )eI.mo. us file:lIP:\SEC24-29\Wykoff engineering report 4 10 06.htm 4/11/2006 17 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. John Wykoff, the property owner, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 36- by 56-foot garage on his property. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property at 2345 Maryland Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: The West 75 feet of the East 440 feet of the South 503 11/12 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 24-29-22-33-0011) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 17, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council the conditional use permit. 2. On ,2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council conditional use permit, because: the above-described 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. 18 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The city council must first amend the Accessory Buildings Ordinance to permit a garage larger than 1,250 square feet in area and taller than 16 feet. 2. All constnuction shall follow the plans approved by the city date-stamped March 24, 2006. The director of community development may approved minor changes. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant must present a grading and drainage plan to the city's engineering department for approval of an on-site stormwater management system. Mr. Wykoff shall install a rainwater garden on the west side of his property to catch the runoff from the proposed building as well as from the existing garage. This is needed because the properly is near the 30 percent impervious-surface area maximum currently required within the Beaver Lake Shoreland Overlay District. With the additional garage, it would increase to 35 percent. 6. The gravel driveway on the west side of the house is eroding. This driveway shall be graded to divert any silt-laden runoff into the boulevard and prevent it from entering Maryland Avenue. This driveway shall be paved from the properly line a distance of 20 feet into the properly. A rainwater garden would also be beneficial in this area and may be required. 7. The applicant shall comply with any additional requirements of the engineering department based on the plan to be submitted by the applicant. 8. Mr. Wykoff shall submit a landscaping plan for the area east of the proposed garage to provide screening for the two neighbors to the east. This plan shall provide at least eight trees, four for screening for each neighbor. The applicant shall work with staff to determine placement and the type of trees. Evergreens shall be at least eight feet tall and deciduous trees shall be at least 2 Y. inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. 9. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements. There shall be no plumbing in the garage including floor drains, sinks or bath facilities. 10. The garage shall have sufficient insulation and noise barriers to assure that the noises associated with the restoration of the bus do not interfere with the day-to-day activities of the neighborhood. 11. There shall be adequate lighting and security mechanisms on the garage to prevent thefts from or burglaries of the facility. 19 12. The applicant shall provide escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of planting the trees and providing the required paving and stormwater-control elements prior to getting his building permit. 13. The use of the proposed garage shall be limited to the applicant's residential needs and the storage and repair of his motor coach. Any commercial use of this building is prohibited. 14. There shall be no excessive noise allowed anytime. Noise is especially prohibited by ordinance between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. 15. Staff may approve minor changes to these conditions. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2006. 20 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment 9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ACCESSORY-BUILDING REQUIREMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. Section 44-114. Accessory Buildings. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (a) The areas of accessory buildings on a lot in an R-1 residence district shall be limited to the areas in the following table: Lot Areas (sq. ft.) Detached Buildings Without an Attached Garage Attached Garages Without Detached Garage Buildings Under 8,000 8,000-11,999 12,000-15,999 16,000-20,999 21,000-41,999 42,000+ 768 768 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,250 1,250 1,250 (garages) 1,250 1,000(all other accessory buildings) Combination of Detached and Attached Garage" Buildings 1,188 1,420 1 ,480 1,660 1,850 2,500 "The total area of all detached accessory buildings shall not exceed the areas in column ~ ill. 'The total of all attached garages shall not exceed the areas in column ~ m. (b) A private garage shall not exceed 16 feet in height as viewea freFR tAe str-eet as measured from arade. (c) The city council may approve an increase in height or area by conditional use permit. Hewe'/er, the FRaxiFRtlFR areas ef any ene 8t1i1aing shall net Ell<ceea tAe FRaxiFRtlFR area allewea fer an attachea llaFalle in sU8seclien (a) sf this sectien ana the heillht shall net exceea the heillht ef the hetlse. (d) Detached garages shall not include living space. No commercial use of a garage shall occur unless authorized by the city council. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2006. A tteSl: Mayor City Clerk 21 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Noise -Control Ordinance Amendment DATE: April 10, 2006 INTRODUCTION On February 6, 2006, the planning commission discussed the city's Noise -Control Ordinance and directed staff to review the ordinance for possible changes. Mayor Longrie also requested that the city attorney be present at the planning commission for this discussion. Planning Commission's Comments The following is a summary of the points made or questions raised by the planning commission on February 6: • Noise limitations should be placed on Saturdays when people sleep in and wish to be outside. • What has the city's experience been with handling noise complaints? Are neighbors satisfied? • Police have stated that they cannot enforce noise limits between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • It appears that noise can only be regulated between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday - Saturday and all day Sunday. Not any other time. • There is a problem with daytime noise that the police do not regulate. In this example, it was a neighbor playing drums. • There needs to be a clarification as to when the noise ordinance can be enforced. The commission should get the city attorney's perspective on the noise ordinance for clarity for everyone involved. • Would the use of power tools by a neighbor be regulated by our code? • On weekends, when people want to get their outside projects done, they might be working until dark which could be 9 to 10 at night. This is later than the 7 p.m. deadline. • Does the noise ordinance apply to those operating a snowblower before 7 a.m. which could easily happen? 0 0 The ordinance should be written to be enforceable at any time. • The police chief should comment on the ordinance since they are the enforcers. •. • Perhaps the ordinance should differentiate between continual noise that may go on for weeks or that of snow plowing or lawn mowing. • A problem these days, as opposed to when the code was first written, is that there are more "common noises" now. For example, power tools, chain saws, snow blowers, leaf blowers... • Perhaps the concern should be more about activities like tree trimming, backhoes, dump trucks, etc. These should wait until 8 a.m. or later. SUMMARY OF CURRENT NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 18-111 of the city code, the noise -control ordinance, addresses noise issues in two ways. Refer to the attached ordinance. In summary, it states: Paragraph (a) • No person shall make disturbing noises that annoy others. This is always in force. • Exemption: City sponsored activities (for example, the Fourth of July fireworks) or activities where the city has issued a permit. • Noise is specifically prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday — Saturday and all day Sunday. These are considered to be times of particular concern for noise control Paragraph (b) • The city manager may waive the requirement of noise limitations where a noisy activity would not cause a nuisance and where this activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use. • The manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. • A waiver to be allowed to make noise closer than 350 feet to residential uses must be approved by the city council. Staff must notify these residential neighbors of the city council meeting. 2 • • DISCUSSION Enforcement Staff asked Police Chief Dave Thomalla for his comments regarding the current ordinance. Chief Thomalla said the following: The biggest issue is the vague language about annoying or disturbing noises and how that relates to the language about hourly restrictions. Many of our officers believe the noise ordinance is ONLY in effect from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. It becomes somewhat ambiguous as to what is meant by annoying. What annoys one person may not annoy another. The Current Ordinance The biggest problem with the current ordinance is its lack of clarity. The code addresses the important aspects of noise control, but it was written in an unclear fashion and is confusing and hard to interpret. The noise -control ordinance should: • Prohibit disturbing noises at any time of the day or night. • Provide a clear means for enforcement. • Allow normal and commonly -accepted necessary noise -making activities such as snow blowing, lawn mowing and the use of power tools. In general, it must not be so • prohibitive that a homeowner cannot maintain their home and property because of the need for necessary machinery. For example, persons must also be allowed to use lawn equipment in the daylight evening hours since that may be the only time available for a homeowner who works during the day. • Regulate the hours of work and disturbance caused by construction activities. The current code does most of these things, but staff has proposed some changes for the planning commission's consideration and comment. Proposed Revisions Staffs proposed changes do the following: • Clarify that the excessive noise can be enforced anytime, not just during prohibited hours. • Necessary maintenance equipment (lawn mowers, power equipment and snow blowers) are recognized as necessary and are largely exempted. • Snow plowing or snow blowing is a necessity and may occur during evening hours. 0 RECOMMENDATION • Approve the proposed changes to the noise -control ordinance or give staff suggestions for revision. p:com_dvpt\ord\noise ord 4 06 #4 Attachments: Noise -Control Ordinance Amendment rd • U Attachment 1 • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NOISE -CONTROL REQUIREMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: DIVISION 3. NOSE CONTROL Section 1. Section 18-111. Prohibition generally; exception. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (a) At no time shall any iG person shall• make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes such person's enjoyment of property or affects such person's property values. If there is an the event or activity that is sponsored by the city or, a party has a .6 ached ^^'permit for such activity issued by the city, this prohibition does not apply. The TN -general noise prohibition stated above shall always be in effect, however, any excessive noise during the following hours of noise prohibition shall be strictly enforced. is not limited by the spesifiG FestriGtion ^f sahsestienn (h�his seGt There shall be no excessive noise or disturbance anyyielation of this nenerol pmhibitien between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday " . These hours of noise prohibition apply to construction, business, institutional and residential activities. (b) Exceptions. This ordinance allows the following types of noise -generating activities that are necessary and typically occur in all parts of the city during daylight hours, but not before 7 a.m.: lawn mowing, the use of landscape - maintenance equipment, power tools, etc. All forms of snow clearina may be ermitted anytime due to necessi (c) Repetitive or continual noises, that may not be audibly loud, may be equally disturbing. Such noises shall also be prohibited. (d) The city manager may waive the requirement in subsection (a) of this section where the activity would not cause a nuisance and where the proposed activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use. The city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. If an appeal is filed, the The property owners within 350 feet of the proposed activity shall be notified of the waiver request at least ten days before the council meeting. A list of the property owners, certified by an abstract company or the county abstract office, shall be submitted with the waiver request. 0 Section 2. Section 18-112. Construction activities. • All construction activities, including the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas -powered machine or other equipment, shall be subject to this division. A copy of this division shall be attached to each construction permit issued by the city. The applicant for the permit shall be required to sign the copy, acknowledging that he has read and understood it, before a permit can be released. Section 3. Section 18-113. Enforcement. (a) Police department authority. The police department shall enforce this division. The police department may inspect private premises other than private residences and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent violations of this division. (b) Civil remedies. This division may be enforced by injunction, action for abatement or other appropriate civil remedy. (c) Noise impact statements. The council may require any person applying for a change in zoning classification or a permit or license for any structure, operation, process, installation or alteration or project that may be considered a potential noise source to submit a noise impact statement on a form prescribed by the council. It shall evaluate each such statement and take the evaluation into account in approving or disapproving the license or permit applied for or the zoning change requested. (d) Criminal penalties. Every person who violates any section of this division is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be in accordance with section 1-15. Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on , 2006. Attest: City Clerk Mayor R