Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Thursdav, July 6, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 19, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 CarMax Mogren Addition (Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) Easement Vacation Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB - Linda Olson (Chairperson - CDRB) 8. VISitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski July 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer July 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover Augusl14 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule July 17 meeting - July 18 or July 19? Annual Tour Update (July 31,2006) 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present P rese nt Present Present Present Present Present Absent Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Erin Laberee, Staff Engineer Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 7, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had changes to the minutes on pages 9, 14 & 15. On page 9, last paragraph, change 47 homes per acre to 4.1 homes per acre. On page 14, last paragraph, ninth line, change the word questions to comments. On page 15, second paragraph, lines 4-6 should read Just a few weeks ago Henry Park in Sf. Paul was purchased for $2.5 million dollars in order to save the bluff land. Commissioner Dierich had a correction on page 12, in the first paragraph, change the word interfllays to plavs out. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 7,2006, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -2- Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Trippler Abstentions - Grover & Pearson V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Liberty Classical Academy - 2696 Hazelwood Street - CUP (7:08 - 7:28 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, is proposing to open a school for grades K-12 for up to 500 students. The proposed location for this school is in the existing First Evangelical Free Church at 2696 Hazelwood Street. They will start school in this location with about 60 students in grades 6-12 in 2006-2007. To have the school in this location, the church and Ms. Smith are asking that Maplewood approve a revision to an existing conditional use permit (CUP). Specifically, they are requesting that the City Council revise the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD) at 2696 Hazelwood Street. This PUD is for a church and day-care center. This site is part of a larger PUD which includes the Hazel Ridge Seniors' Residence. The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for schools in any location. Since 2003, Liberty Classical Academy has been operating a school in the Phalen Lake Church at 1717 English Street. Commissioner Desai asked staff to explain how they came up with 1,000 vehicle trips a day because he comes up with another calculation and asked if staff considered students driving their own vehicles to school as well. Mr. Roberts said staff did an estimation of vehicle trips based on the future potential of the school having 500 students. If in fact there would even be that many students in the future there could be the potential for bussing which would eliminate a concern regarding the number of vehicle trips a day. Staff did not consider students driving their own vehicles in the calculation. Commissioner Dierich said on page 3, number 3. it states the council shall review this permit revision in one year. She asked if the city council would review the school and not review the church as well? Mr. Robert said the review is only for Liberty Classical Academy. Commissioner Hess said when he drove to the site he noticed the parking lot looked very warn, he asked if the parking lot would be resurfaced, especially because of the increased traffic in and out of the site? Mr. Roberts said staff has not heard anything regarding the parking lot being resurfaced but staff recommended sweeping and restriping the parking lot which is shown in condition 5. We could ask the applicant that question. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -3- Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, 1964 Price Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said in the recommendations shown on page 3, number 1. it states all construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city and the school shall follow the floor plans dated May 24, 2006. She asked if that was supposed to read May 24, 1995, or was there a new plan? Mr. Roberts said May 24, 2006, is the date Liberty Classical Academy submitted the floor plans for this application. He said he used that wording to try to tie that to the use of certain rooms for this request but if you or the commission have a different idea we can discuss that. Ms. Smith asked if in the future Liberty Classical Academy required the use of more rooms what would we do for that? Mr. Roberts said the staff report says the Director of Community Development may approve minor changes but if the request was large enough it would have to go back to the city council for a revision. Ms. Smith said she believed the 500 student number would have expanded the use outside the 7 classrooms and she was only concerned all the bases would be covered. Mr. Roberts said staff could change the wording to accommodate that in recommendation 1. a. to be changed to and the school shall follow the floor plans submitted to the city. Ms. Smith said Liberty Classical Academy would really appreciate the support to honor this request. The school has been doing well and has 82 students not 60 as she had originally indicated to staff. Commissioner Hess asked if she could address the question regarding the resurfacing of the parking lot? Ms. Smith said she was not aware of the need to resurface the parking lot and deferred the question to her colleague. Commissioner Hess asked if they planned on submitting new plans to the fire marshal regarding the fire safety? Mr. Roberts said it's the intent of the fire marshal to do an inspection before any plans are necessary to submit for fire safety. If the fire marshal finds a need for plans to be submitted then the applicant will be required to provide that. Butch Gervais the fire marshal has been in the building in the past and thought everything was up to code by memory but wanted to double check the building upon doing another walk through inspection. Ms. Rebecca Hagstrom, Director at Liberty Classical Academy, 13 Dellwood, White Bear Lake, addressed the commission. Ms. Hagstrom said her children attend Liberty Classical Academy and they are thrilled with the education the children are receiving. Students are coming from all over the metro area and some are from Maplewood and they appreciate the education they are receiving. The businesses in the Maplewood area are also frequented by the families as a result of their children attending Liberty Classical Academy. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -4- Ms. Hagstrom said the growth of the school is good for Liberty Classical Academy and good for the City of Maplewood and the surrounding businesses. They would appreciate receiving approval for this proposal. She hadn't noticed that the parking lot needed to be resurfaced. They have been more focused on the building itself and had not focused their attention on the parking lot. They believe it's up to the church and not up to Liberty Classical Academy to decide if the parking lot needs upgrading or not. Ms. Hagstrom said prior to applying for the permit they checked the rooms to make sure they were all sprinklered and they were which was a real plus. Liberty Classical Academy is very reliable and when the city requires them to upgrade something or make certain changes we have been very cooperative with the City of Maplewood regarding the requirements. Commissioner Hess asked if the exiting requirements have all been taken care of especially for the lower level? Ms. Hagstrom said until the fire marshal makes his inspection she is not aware of any concerns but her understanding is that the church would prefer that the school use the exit where there is a circle to the entrance. There is a ramp and a set of wide steps that go to the lower level and she think it's more than enough room to get in and out of but she believes there are two sets of double doors to exit. Commissioner Hess said he believed it was a state requirement to have for two exits depending on the distance between doors. Ms. Hagstrom said that may be. Ms. Hagstrom said she wanted to pass that along to the pastor, associate pastor and the chair of the board that unfortunately were all out of town this evening. There was supposed to be a letter to give to the city and she wasn't sure if that had been sent or not. The church staff are very much in favor of this plan and they would have been here this evening if they could have been here. They will bring the letters to the July 10,2006, city council meeting and hopefully someone from the pastoral staff can be present that evening for the meeting. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution starting on page 21 of the staff report. This resolution revises and extends the time for the conditional use permit for the planned unit development 2696 - 2730 Hazelwood Street. The revision adds a school to the approved uses (the church and the day care). Maplewood bases this permit revision on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (new words are underlined and deleted words are crossed out): .1. All construction shall follow the plans that the city stamped May 24, 1995, subject to the following conditions: a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city and the school shall follow the floor plans submitted to the city. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The city council may approve major changes. b. Dropping the two parking spaces along the south property line at the east end of the parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -5- 2,. The proposed school use on the propertv parking let expansion cone:trllstieR must be started within one year after the council approves this revised permit or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. ;1. The council shall review this permit revision in one year. 4. The school shall have no more than 500 students. ~. The propertv owner or manaaer shall sweep and restripe the parkina lot before the school occupies their space. This shall include havina the reauired handicapped parkina spaces in the parkina area near the buildina entrance. 6. The school. the church. the fire marshal and the citv buildina official shall aaree on a plan for the school and the church to make anv necessarv or reauired life safety and buildina improvements to the buildina. This plan shall include the installation and maintenance of: a. The reauired fire protection (sprinkler) svstems. b. An earlv warnina fire protection svstem (smoke detection and monitorina). c. Additional emeraencv lights and exit sians (if necessary). d. Updated doors and hardware (if necessarv). e. A proper address on the buildina. f. Anv other chanaes the fire marshal or the buildina official deem necessarv. Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 10, 2006. b. Legacy Village Townhomes (County Road D and Kennard Street) (7:28 - 8:08 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group, the master developer of Legacy Village, is proposing to develop the final segment of town homes at Legacy Village. The application is for 119 townhomes which would be located on the south side of County Road 0 between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets. This portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) was previously approved for 96 town house units and an office building on a 1 Yo -acre site at the southwest corner of Kennard Street and County Road D. The applicant is not asking for an amendment to the approved PUD (planned unit development) to build town homes on this office site as part of their town house development. Commissioner Pearson asked if there have been any soil borings taken on the site? Mr. Ekstrand said he believed so but he doesn't have a copy of the soils report. The bad soils on the site should be denoted in a report. He said Mr. Frank Janes can speak further on the soils. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -6- Commissioner Pearson said he isn't comfortable looking at changing the zoning for an area where the city does not know if the soils can hold the buildings they are proposing to build. He asked if the parking had been resolved regarding where the additional parking was going to come from since the applicant had 9-foot wide parking spaces on the plan when the code is 9% feet wide for parking spaces? Mr. Ekstrand said there is room on the site plan to construct 9% feet wide parking spaces and the applicant stated the problem has been addressed on the plan. Commissioner Trippler was wondering how the people that would live there would get to the trail system because he didn't see any crosswalks, tunnels, or bridges on the plan and he is concerned about the traffic there. Mr. Ekstrand said staff thought the sidewalk system was complete and the people living there would have no problem gaining access to the trail system. The major trails and sidewalks are along the south side of the property and along Hazelwood and Kennard Street. Commissioner Trippler said he was talking about the trail underneath the power line and he was concerned how people would get across Village Trail East. Mr. Ekstrand said he assumed people would just walk across it. Commissioner Trippler asked if there would be a four way stop or crosswalk there because he is concerned about the safety of small children crossing Village Trail East to get to the tot lot which is to the south. Mr. Ekstrand said Erin Laberee can comment on that. Ms. Laberee said there could be a striped crosswalk there to designate the crossing, and the city could look into a requirement for stop signs if warranted to stop or slow down the traffic. Commissioner Trippler said he would guess there will be a few hundred people living there and there needs to be a safe mechanism for people to get back and forth from the northern quadrant to the recreational facilities. So far this plan does not do show that. Mr. Ekstrand said the city could require the applicant to submit a plan for crosswalk locations. Commissioner Trippler said thank you. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed the commission. He said Village Trail East is going to be a private street with minimal traffic and they don't see a problem crossing there. They will certainly look into and speak to staff about providing a crosswalk if that is required. Commissioner Trippler said when he visited Finland he noticed something interesting they do there which is provide a striped crosswalk and then put a speed bump on each side of the crosswalk to ensure the cars slow down. He said that may be something to consider. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -7- Commissioner Pearson asked about the soil borings and if there was a report available? Mr. Janes said they have taken extensive soil borings from the site. They have engineers on their staff that has looked at this site. The northeast quadrant of the site has good soils. However, the western portion of the site is going to require soil corrections and they know any building pads will have to comply with the good building practices. Commissioner Pearson asked how many soil borings were taken? Mr. Janes said he didn't know how many soil borings were taken but it was somewhere in the dozens range and they are well aware of the soil conditions. Commissioner Pearson asked what depth the soil borings went to and what level they found ground water at while taking the soil borings? Mr. Janes said he didn't have that information in front of him but they would not prepare any building sites that have not been fully corrected and overseen by a professional engineering firm. He said the Hartford Group has a lot of experience and are well versed in these types of soil situations. Commissioner Pearson asked if the soil borings report had been submitted to city staff yet? Mr. Janes said the report has not been submitted. He said it's not a requirement at this point and if there were any requirements from the building official when the building permit was pulled they would be happy to share the soils information and the work that they are going to do with the engineering staff. Mr. Roberts said Erin Laberee said she would prefer to get the soils report sooner rather than later so engineering has time to review the soil information. Mr. Janes said okay. Commissioner Pearson asked where the additional parking would go to accommodate the 9% foot wide parking spaces? Mr. Janes said there is room on the overall site to provide bump outs there and to provide for the additional footage necessary. The landscape architects looked at this. This is something they do all the time to expand the parking and address the site plan. Commissioner Pearson said the site looks pretty tight to him. Mr. Janes said the site is tight but they will make it work and they will show it to staff to ensure everything works well. Commissioner Trippler said there was an error in the letter dated May 11, 2006, from the Hartford Group to the city naming the new library as the Anoka County Library when it should be the new "Ramsey" County Library. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -8- Mr. Janes said that was an error on their part and it should be corrected as the Ramsey County Library. Commissioner Trippler said on page 25 and 26 of the staff report, the Hartford Group lists planned unit development revisions along with nine criteria and he was assuming those are supposed to be justifications. He thinks they are statements that were made without any way, shape or form of providing any proof whatsoever that any of these things do or don't exist. Doesn't the city require the applicant to provide reasonable justification as to why these criteria will or won't be a problem and if so, is this all the applicant has to do to fill that criteria? Mr. Roberts said in cases like this the city requires some type of justification from an applicant. What is reasonable justification varies from project to project. The Hartford Group did not elaborate on any of the criteria items listed. Staff doesn't disagree with any of the criteria listed, although the Hartford Group doesn't provide much documentation of what they say is true. The question is the planning commission comfortable with the findings as the staff is. If the planning commission expects more then they should let staff know. Staff understands the project and is comfortable with the findings but clearly the Hartford Group could sell the project to the city better than they have. The change is mainly focused on removing the plan to have an office complex and change the plan to residential. The rest of the PUD is about reducing the number of units, revising the site plan and eliminating the office complex from the plan. Mr. Ekstrand said if you take the 1 % acre parcel for an office site and convert that to high density residential, the density that could be allowed per the comprehensive plan is 15 units but the Hartford Group is only proposing 2 additional units. There are 119 units proposed here and 132 units could be on the site. (Mr. Ekstrand reviewed the plan on page 18 of the staff report that represented the approved PUD for the development concept plan for July 14, 2003, when Town & Country planned to build both sites.) Now the Hartford Group is proposing to build 119 units for Lot 1, Block 1. Commissioner Trippler said when the planning commission originally reviewed this plan he liked the fact that there would be an office planned for this area and thought it would be a nice selling point for people that worked in the office complex who may live in this area and could walk to work which would eliminate some of the traffic flow. Now as this development precedes the office space is being replaced by homes and that means the concept of working and living in the same area is gone. If this would have been brought to the planning commission as all residential, the commission may have had a different focus on this. Commissioner Grover asked how much of the office space was just for the rental office and how much was for the additional office space? Mr. Ekstrand said this office building was mostly for additional office space. A very small percentage of the space would've been for the rental office space. However, it wasn't really clearly defined on the plan but typically rental offices do not take up that much space. Commissioner Grover asked if there were other parts of Legacy Village where the developer has removed office space from the plan or is this the only time? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -9- Mr. Ekstrand said the site where the new Ramsey County Library site is being built had been approved as restaurant space and could have been office space so that was a conversion to something other than what was originally approved. Commissioner Grover asked how much office space are we losing in comparison to the whole Legacy Village development site? Mr. Ekstrand said this is a 1 % acre parcel in an 85 acre development for Legacy Village. Commissioner Trippler said he thought the anchor of this Legacy Village development was a large office complex at Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway? Mr. Ekstrand said on the northeast corner of Kennard Street and the Legacy Parkway half of the six-acre site which is nearing completion. This developer also has plans to do a building just like this next door. Commissioner Trippler said he thought that was going to be a multi-story building. Mr. Ekstrand said it was labeled on the plan as a corporate commercial office site. There is no one user defined for this property. The current first phase will be used by Health East who would occupy the entire first floor of the complex. The applicant is talking about building the second building ahead of schedule as they are nearing completion of the first phase. There will also be a proposal for a senior building coming in soon for this area. Commissioner Dierich said it appears the developer wants to make changes to the wetland and the ponding areas and she didn't see that addressed in the application. Many of the neighbors were upset about the loss of the big trees and she asked about the tree replacement plan because there is no information in the packet about it and the plans are very incomplete. This would help inform the neighbors in the area. Mr. Ekstrand said the trees and wetlands go hand in hand. There are a lot of trees being lost which is the sad part of this development but that fact was known from the beginning. The developer will be preserving trees around the wetlands and will be maintaining the wetlands. Ms. Laberee said there is a wetland in the eastern portion of the site that is proposed to be filled in and that has been mitigated on the south side of the new County Road 0 between Hazelwood and Highway 61. Mr. Tom Gelman, President of Cardinal Point, addressed the commission. He said he represents 160 seniors at Cardinal Point and their concern is the safety of the senior citizens that live there. The traffic flow along County Road 0 and Hazelwood Street will increase considerably when County Road 0 opens up. They are concerned what measures will be taken with traffic control at Hazelwood Street and County Road D. The people that live in Cardinal Point are interested in walking but are concerned about their safety with the increased traffic. Commissioner Pearson asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the soils report when staff receives it? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -10- Mr. Ekstrand said due to the concern of the planning commission regarding the crosswalk, a condition could be added this evening by the planning commission or it could be added to the conditions for the community design review board. Commissioner Grover moved to adopt the resolution approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) for a 1% -acre parcel previously planned for an office building in Legacy Village. Approval of this change is because town homes would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent town home development than the previously approved commercial building and because the proposed density of this site would be 13 units less than it potentially could be. Commissioner Grover moved to adopt the resolution approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously approved rental-town homes and executive-office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer's report dated June 1,2006. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. 6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: Rental Townhomes OREl Office.'Clubhollse: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans date-stamped Mav 11. 2006, fFem HOrtfeFEl Grelll3 Elatos €l/2.'Oa in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions. b. I'. siElewolk will be I3r-ovidod oentinuollsly on tl:1e north er wost side of Str-oet .^. Betwoon KonnaF8 Street ana Hozel....'ooEl Ori'le, incluaing the segment between tho offioe.'cluBl:1ellse parl'.ing lot and tov:nhouse Bllildings 11 oAa 12. c. Siaewall< oonneotions will be aaaed cenAecting tl:1e pewer line tr-ail to the curb ef Street ^ Ofll3esite townheme builaings €l ana B; d. Tho siaewolks serving the fr:ents ofto'llnhome Bllilaings 13, 1€l, 17, 1B, 19 ana 20 will bo omendea soutl:1 to connect 'Nitl:1 the 130wer Iino tr-ail. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -11- e. Street BaRd Streot C serving tAe tewnhomos will be constl'llsted in their ontir-ety with the town homes, re!jardless of the status ef the multi family and commeFGial pureels to tAe ~ f. Parking spaces "...i11l3e pmvided at the eRds of tho driveways at tAe rear of l311ildings 1, 2, :3 ana 4, 15/16, 19/20,21122 and 2ai26 and siaewalks '.viII Be pm'tided fr-em those parkiRg spm;es conneGtiRg to tAe front sidewalks of eaGA of those l3uildings. g. TAe infiltr-atien trenSAes on the seuth sides ef bllildiR!jS 1:m 4, 15.'16 and 19.'20 will be medifiee te aSGommodate a re'Jisee alignmeRt for the !'lowor liRe trail, pr-evieee that r-easoRal3le grades are pFOvided fur the trail aRd any sieewalks, sORRecting te it, and appr-oval of tAe Gity en!jineer conserning the e:ize and fllRGtion of tAe trenches. h. Po six fuet wide sidm...alk shellld be pFOvided if at all possil3le on the south side ef County Roaa D for tAe entire len!jth of the flroject fr-em Hazelweea Drive to SOllthlawn Dri'Je, thFOllgh ceRtinued disGllSsion l3etween the Git)' and Harlfor-d, feGllSing on exast e:idewalk width, 10catioR and right of way Reeds fur tllrn laRes and other features of tho County Read 0 pr-oject. i. Po sidov:alk v:i11l3e pr-oOtided on the south side ef COllRty Road DaRe sidm'.'alks will be pr-ovided Ollt to that siaowalk from the nertA side of 13",i1dings 1, 4,21,22,2:3,24 and 25 as well as to the Gllll3house front entry aRd the Glllbhouse parking lot. j. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. k. Overstery trees will be plaRtee along 130th sides of Street.'\ at an a'/erage of JO' to 40' OR senter iRstead of tAe CI'/eFage 70' spaGing shown OR the plans. I. Overstery treos will be plaRted along 130th sides of Str-eet Band eR the west side of Street C at an avernge of JO' to 40' eR Genter iRstead of the sometiFRes 100' flpaGiRg ShOWR en the plans, SUGh additioRal tree islaRds to be Goordinatee with modified parking baYfl tAat FRight l3e Clddod te this street. m. Ovorstory treos '",ill be plaRted aloRg both sioefl ef Kennar-d Str-eet iR fr-oRt of tho towRheFRes at an averngo of JO' te 40' eR Genter iRstead of the avernge 50' to 80' spacing shewn OR the plans. n. The curve in Villaae Trail East Street /'. e!'lPoflite l311ildings 10 and 12 will shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight alare on aimed into the front of the units. o. All setbacks are approved as shown barrina anv construction reauirements reaardinQ the power line easement to the south from Xcel. Front l311ilding setl3acks (Gllll3house aRd buildings 1, 4,5, 14, 15,21,22, 2J, 24,25 and 2€1) to Hazelwood Dri..'e, Kennard Street Clnd COllnty ReCIO 0 tAat are less thaR reEJllired l3y the ;wRing Gede are SfleGifically approved within this pun as shown OR the site plan, dewR te a FRiniFRllFR of 5' fer the clubhellse aRd 15' fer the tevmhoFRe l3uildiRgs in or-der to oRhance the urbaR GharaGtor of the streets and iRtorSeGtiens. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -12- p. Side yarD building sotbacks for all buildings that ar-e 1066 than required by the zoning sese are specifically appr-o'led within this PUD a6 6hO'.vn on the 6ite plan. q. Visitor-parking spaces for the rental town homes will be added or modified as follows: 1) Parking 6flases l;villl3e asses se tt-lere is a total of at least 4!l spases eR tt-le 'Nest side of KeARard aRd at lea€t 51 €pace€ on the eae:t €ide of KennarD, such tAat tAe fr-ont door of no unit is more than 200 feet fr-om a gr-oup of at loa6t 5 6pace6. The applicant shall provide visitor-parkina spaces at the minimum auantitv of one-half space per town home unit. This works out to a minimum of 60 visitor parkina spaces reauired. Furthermore. the visitor-parkina spaces must be placed such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a aroup of at least five spaces. 2) Street.r." will be widened to 26' curb to curb aRs eR str-eet flarallel flarkiR!j willl3e added along tho Rerth ans west siEles of the Eltreet except for within 100' of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. 3) The I3rivate Elrive immediately south of buildings 2 anEl d willl3e v:iEleReEl te 26' sllrl3 to cllrb and on stroet par-allell3arkiRg willl3e aElEleEl along the north side of the drive. 4) Parking areas will be added l3ehiRd l311ildiRgs 1 and 4 where the dri'/eway abuts tho l3eRding area, consi6tont with the r-eseFRmenElatieR ef the city engineer on providing adequate grading and funstieRiR!j ef the flond. 5) Parking areas willl3e added behind buildings 15/16. 1 9!20, 21!22 aRd 25!26 te FRoet the l3arking and diEltanco criteria cited horo. 6) Street B will be widened to 26' curb to cllrl3 aRd l3ar-allell3arkiRg willl3e adEled aleng tho north and west sides ef tt-le 6treet, or additional angled parking will bo added to moot tt-le Griteria fer l3arkiRg spaces cited here. r. The parking lot for the cllll3t-lellse!ef:fiGe l311ilEling will be modified to add "proof of parking" 6pac06 in tt-le !jr-eeR ar-ea north and east of the swimming pool, for a tetal ef 91 spaces l3essil3le iR tt-le lot. Such spaces will only be SeREltrllGted if tt-le e'IJRer l3elieves they are needed, or if they ar-e Reeded iR tt-le flJture to address parking pr-obloms at tho buildiRg iR tt-le epinion of the community develel3meRt dir-estor, wt-lo GaR erDer the spaces to be construsted. SIlGt-l 6paces will maintain a sidowalk sORnection between the swimmiRg l3eel aRd slubhouse building in an island in the middle ef tt-le l3arkiRg bays as sho'Nn on the I3laRs. s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the preliminary plat for Legacy Village townhomes, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city's engineering report dated June 1, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -13- 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 10, 2006. c. 5-8 Club Parking Lot Expansion (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) (8:08 - 9:01 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said the owners ofthe 5-8 Tavern and Grill located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue have purchased the single family house located to the east of their existing property (2303 Minnehaha Avenue). Jill Skogheim of JBJ Dining, Inc., representing the 5-8 Tavern and Grill is proposing to demolish the single family house for the expansion of the restaurant's parking lot. Commissioner Trippler said in looking at the plans he appears half of the parking spaces are 15% feet in length and others are at 17% feet in length but if the stalls are altered to be 18 feet in length which is what the city code states, how does that reconfigure the parking lot? Mr. Roberts said any parking space that overhangs in the parking lot or landscape strip can be at 15% feet in length allowing for vehicle overhang not into a drive aisle. The ones most affected by this are the spaces along the center. Staff's recommendation was for the spaces to be 18 feet long but make it be one-way traffic circulating through the site. Staff is confident it can all be worked out. Commissioner Trippler said it was his understanding the applicant was proposing to build a fence along the north and east edge of the parking lot. Mr. Roberts said the fence would be located along the north property line. There have been conversations regarding moving the fence in 5 to 10 feet from the east property line which is something the CDRB will be looking at during their review. Commissioner Trippler said when he paced off 45 feet that took him to a manhole cover on the site so if the plan was to move the driveway over 45 feet from the existing driveway you will run into the storm sewer so you may have to go over 47 to 50 feet to miss the manhole on the boulevard. Ms. Laberee said she thought staff's intention was to move the drive entrance over so it lines up with the next westerly drive aisle. She sees where the manhole cover is on the plan and doesn't think the drive aisle would be over that far. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -14- Commissioner Trippler said he now sees what Ms. Laberee was referring to. Commissioner Dierich said Mr. Beardsley's letter makes reference to the rental property not being taken care of along with issues of the condition of the fence on the property. She asked if staff had any information from the police department or from the city regarding the rental property and past problems with the property and how those issues were responded to if anything. Mr. Roberts said he wasn't aware of the complaints or if they were made to the city or directly to the 5-8 Club. However, now that the 5-8 Club knows about the issues if they want to have their parking lot expansion they should make sure they are good neighbors. Commissioner Hess asked about the metal light fixtures shown on the plan that would go in on the site. Mr. Roberts said the lighting is something the CDRB reviews and staff has not looked that closely at the plans to answer that question. Commissioner Hess said he's just curious how those lights would impact the neighbor to the east. Mr. Roberts said the lighting code requires no light spillage over the property line. The light has to only shine into the commercial property and the applicant would have to provide a detailed lighting plan as to how that will work. Commissioner Pearson said he wondered if there was a possibility of moving the fence in and planting some evergreen trees on the east side for a noise barrier and separation. There was a study done about four or five years ago regarding creeping commercialism and this is an example of that. This is an area where you want to see the business get the additional parking needed to get the cars off the street and to make the neighbors happy. But there is a serious concern for the resident who has to live next door to a restaurant and bar with the late hours, lights shining at all hours of the night, doors slamming, cars driving in and out of the parking lot, people talking and yelling, customers who drank too much walking around etc. The businesses across McKnight Road have talked about damage they have incurred to their property along with the fact that the fence was not greatly maintained. The CDRB should look at a berm with a fence on itorthe fence moved along with pine trees to separate and soften this area. He would hope that the CDRB looks at the needs of the resident who lives next door who has a considerable investment in his property. Mr. Roberts said he will make sure Ms. Finwall is aware of these concerns. Commissioner Dierich said she is a frequent customer of the 5-8 Club and she knows the tavern itself is very small and she wanted to make sure the restaurant wasn't expanding with this proposal and that the proposal was only for the parking lot expansion? Mr. Roberts said the building will not be expanding; this is a request to only expand the parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -15- Commissioner Dierich said the reason she asked is because the first page of the staff report it states in number 3. a conditional use permit (CUP to exoand the restaurant and a nonconforming parking lot) when really it should only be CUP to expand a nonconforming parking lot. If you move the driveway, is there a way that when the restaurant closes for the evening you can add a condition to have that part of the parking lot closed so the noise is reduced throughout the evening hours for the residents who live close to the 5-8 Club? Mr. Roberts said he isn't sure of a practical way to do that. Commissioner Dierich said you could put chains up to close the driveway area. Chairperson Fischer said if a customer drives into the parking lot early and stays late then the car could get locked behind the chains. Mr. Roberts said the employees' usually park the furthest away from the door in order to keep the parking spaces open closest to the door for the customers. Commissioner Dierich asked if there was a way to add that condition to help protect the neighbors? Mr. Roberts said that may be a question for the applicant and if there were a lot of problems with noise that could be something staff could look at in a year or so. Commissioner Hess asked what the distance was between the new parking area and the existing fence? Mr. Roberts said the distance is proposed at 20 feet but there has been talk of putting the fence somewhere in between that to allow some room for snow storage off the commercial parking lot but allowing the fence to be away from the property line to better accommodate the plantings the adjacent resident has. The code doesn't say the fence has to be along the property line. Staff doesn't want the fence on the edge of the parking lot because we know snow is going to damage the fence and we want room for cars to overhang but there is clearly room to make the fence meet both the needs of the parking lot and for the neighbor to the east. The CDRB will have to look at this issue closely because of all the issues here. Commissioner Hess said he was wondering if there could be a berm there, how much space is required and how high of a berm could there be? Mr. Roberts said the problem with a berm is the drainage issues. When you start building up the land there will be more water running to the east and the neighbor doesn't need more drainage onto his site so you don't want to increase the off-site runoff by building the berm. You want the water to run towards the 5-8 Club parking lot. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -16- Ms. Jill Skogheim, Director of Operations, JBJ Dining, Inc. speaking for the 5-8 Tavern & Grill, 2289 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. They are dealing with the parking issues and the issues of the fence and landscaping and are open to discussions. The neighbor to the east said evergreens were not desirable to him because of the sun and amount of daylight issues for his landscaping and plantings that he has invested in on his property. They want to stay within the code to have the buffer area between the commercial property and the residential homes. The parking lot has become inadequate to service the needs of the customers and it has had adverse affects on Minnehaha Avenue as well as with the flow of the parking lot itself and that is the reason for this request. In January 2005 the 5-8 Club purchased the residential home with the hope to resolve the parking issue in the near future. Ms. Skogheim said in March 2006 the 5-8 Club was prepared to move forward with this plan and met with the neighbors to discuss their concerns and made changes to the proposal based on the neighbor's comments. They are adding 20 parking spaces which mean they would be 13 parking spaces over the required number of parking spaces which will hopefUlly resolve the problems for the foreseeable future. The resulting improvements from this plan involve the water draining to the south eliminating runoff on the northeastern corner and they will be able to have adequate surface water storage with the expansion of the rainwater gardens on the south of the property. They will be able to add a snow storage area where they will be able to pile the snow so they don't have the issues with the fence being knocked over like they had in the past. As well as the eastern access will help with the internal circulation and the parking lot as well as the car movement on Minnehaha Avenue. This way there will not be cars making a left hand turn across the right hand turn lane. The landscaping is designed to enhance and improve the property as well as provide a buffer that is desirable for the neighbors' concerns of blocking the view of garages and allowing for sunlight for peoples gardens etc. She said they are willing to work with the city and the neighbors regarding the issues at hand. Mr. Gary Johnson, Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC, 13605 151 Avenue North, Suite 100, Plymouth, addressed the commission. He said they recently made changes to the project plans that will enable them to meet the city requirement to infiltrate 1 inch of water from the parking lot surface and reduce the water runoff by 70% by running the drainage from the newly created impervious surface down to the south and into the proposed rainwater gardens. They are also adding some structures with sediment traps in them to the old structure to allow things to function better. From an engineering standpoint, they have addressed most of the staff concerns. Commissioner Trippler said he discussed this with Shann Finwall and asked if he is correct that they are looking at using a pervious surface versus an impervious surface for the expansion of the new parking lot? Mr. Johnson said at Shann Finwall's suggestion they discussed and investigated that. At first there was a concern whether they would have enough room for a conventional type infiltration trench and rainwater garden, then they looked at pervious pavers as well as pervious asphalt but didn't go that route. They decided it made more sense to expand on the southern end of the site which is a rock infiltration trench with a rainwater garden above it since there was one existing already. Commissioner Dierich said with homes you can only have a certain percentage of a pervious surface and a certain percentage that has to be impervious and she asked if there was a restriction like that for commercial properties? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -17- Mr. Roberts said that requirement is only applicable if the property is in a shoreland district. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. James Beardsley, 2311 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He stated in his letter that he sent to the city that he is opposed to this proposal because of creeping commercialism. This is a serviceable single family house, at a reasonable price, and the 5-8 Club is bulldozing the house to build a parking lot. He said he doesn't find that to be philosophically or environmentally correct. Knowing this is probably going to take place anyway, he would like to see the fence moved away from the lot line at least 10 feet. The reason for this is he has an extensive garden that runs from the front of the yard 300 feet to the back of the yard and 150 feet of this would be affected at a cost to him of $4,000-$5,000 just in plant materials not including labor. He believes the 10-foot setback for the fence would allow good air circulation and good light so that the plants that are photosensitive would grow. He said he would have less of a problem with diseases on some of the very sensitive plants he has in that area. Even though he would accept the 10 foot fence setback he still opposes this project. Ms. Kathy Sorenson, 2302 Stillwater Road, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said the way the land lays the runoff runs down into her yard and she is concerned about this. She wondered if that area could be leveled out so she doesn't get all the runoff onto her property. The fence that is there now has not been maintained and she has doubts that the 5-8 Club will maintain the new fence either. Trucks have already gone through the fence. This proposal will affect her gardens as well but nothing like this will affect Jim Beardsley's gardens. Right now she has an existing chain link fence and her understanding is the 5-8 Club plans to match the fence up to what is there already which puts that less than 2 feet away. She is not sure how this is going to be done with her fence there or if the 5-8 Club plans on taking her fence down. There are also trees along that back line that have never been cut down all the way. Her main concerns are the 5-8 Club maintaining the rear property, the fence and the water runoff onto her property. Ms. Skogheim said they are amenable to moving the fence 10 feet but the trade off is what they can do with the landscaping. They are willing to do what ever the city feels is best for the 5-8 Club to do. Regarding the chain link fence, they are willing to work those details out with the neighbors. Commissioner Pearson asked if the planned to put up a new fence? Ms. Skogheim said they are going to put up a completely new fence. She is working with two fence companies for the possibility of a PVC fence or a chain link fence that is 90% opaque. Commissioner Pearson asked if they would be amenable to loading snow up and removing it off the site after heavy snowfalls because trying to push a large area of snow from the parking lot into a small area isn't going to work. Ms. Skogheim said the other place for the snow to go is in the 10 feet between the fence to the east and their property. Commissioner Pearson said if you start piling the snow up against the fence you are going to have the same problem the neighbors are complaining about now and the 5-8 Club's track record of maintaining the fence has not been good. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -18- Ms. Skogheim said she is aware of one concern regarding the fence which they did respond to as a local small business. They want to fit into the community and want to work to resolve the concerns of the neighbors and their desires as well as the desires of the 5-8 Club. The 5-8 Club wants to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Grover asked if the runoff would be improved or not that goes onto the neighbors' property to the north? Ms. Laberee said currently the drainage flows to the northeast corner of the residential property where the parking lot is proposed. The parking lot will have curb and gutters so the runoff will stay within the parking lot and the off-site drainage will be considerably reduced from what it is now. The water from the parking lot will drain into the rainwater gardens. Commissioner Dierich said this building is not the most attractive and now they are adding this really large parking lot which has no greenery. She asked if any thought had been given to planting landscaping in the dead spaces such as in parking spaces 33 & 34 and in the median between spaces 36 & 35, and possibly planting trees at the end of spaces 67 & 54 where the lights are to break up the expanse of the asphalt? Mr. Roberts said in looking at attachment 7, page 15 in the staff report, it shows landscaping planned for the site. He thinks the two striped areas on the corners of the plan are intended for snow storage and those areas would not have to be paved but he wouldn't want to plant landscaping there and have it get buried by the snow but that could be an opportunity for additional greenery on the site. He will pass that information onto Shann Finwall but that is something the CDRB will be reviewing as well. Commissioner Dierich said if the fence is going to be moved there should be a condition added to ensure the rear area of the property is addressed and that it doesn't become a dead zone where nobody takes responsibility for it. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson asked Ms. Laberee if she felt comfortable allowing the applicant to have snow piled up on the site by the fence or should a condition be added requiring the snow to be loaded and hauled away? Ms. Laberee said if the snow is pushed up against the fence it's going to be a problem because when the snow melts it will run onto the neighbor's property causing more problems. The snow needs to be contained in the parking lot. Commissioner Pearson said if the drive aisles are going to be narrower would it make any sense to angle the parking spaces? Mr. Roberts said the project engineer can take a look at that but you tend to lose spaces when you angle the parking spaces. Commissioner Pearson said if the parking spaces are too narrow it makes it difficult to back out. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -19- Ms. Laberee said she and Shann Finwall looked into that and found the parking stalls were adequate to back into. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the comprehensive land use plan amendment resolution attached in the staff report. This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC-M) for the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill parking lot onto an existing single-family lot at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. The city is making this change because: a. The expansion of the parking lot will supply adequate off-street parking and loading facilities for the site. b. The parking lot will be designed in the best manner to avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas including locating the parking lot 20 feet from the residential property to the east and installing a 6-foot high privacy fence along all shared residential property lines. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the rezoning resolution in the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC-M) for the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill parking lot onto an existing single-family lot at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. The city is making this change because: a. The change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences ofthe community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The proposed change is supported by a majority of the neighbors surveyed. f. The applicant is proposing to use the property in question for a commercial parking lot and not for residential purposes. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the conditional use permit resolution in the staff report. This resolution approves two conditional use permits for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill at 2289 and 2303 Minnehaha Avenue including: a. A conditional use permit to allow the expansion of a restaurant within the business commercial (modified) (BC-M) zoning district. b. A conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming parking lot (20-foot setback from residential property required, 5-foot setback proposed). Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -20- Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following: (added conditions are underlined.) a. Construction of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill and parking lot shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. b. The parking lot expansion shall comply with all city engineering requirements as defined in the June 9, 2006, engineering review. c. The proposed parking lot expansion must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. d. The city council shall review this permit in one year. e. Snow shall be removed from the parkina lot and hauled off site as necessarv. f. The east fence shall be moved in 10 feet from the propertv line. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson Abstention - Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 10, 2006. Commissioner Pearson strongly recommends that the CDRB take a look at the east wall and sufficient screening for some type of treatment for noise reduction in consideration of the single family homes in the area. Commissioner Trippler abstained due to a possible conflict of interest as he is serving on the Environmental Committee with James Beardsley, 2311 Minnehaha Avenue, the neighbor who spoke against this proposal. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-06 -21- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Oierich was the planning commission representative at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting held at the Carver Elementary School on Upper Afton Road. The city council discussed the EAW for Carver Crossing of Maplewood which was tabled after a 2 hour discussion. The city council also discussed Comforts of Home assisted living facility at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a CUP and PUD which was passed by the city council. She mentioned there was a tour with the Parks Department this evening that she believed the planning commission would have enjoyed participating in. b. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the June 26, 2006, city council meeting. The city council will be discussing the Eldridge Fields Right-of-Way vacation and preliminary plat (west of Prosperity Avenue) for five single-family homes. They will also be discussing the noise concerns for the Pioneer Press building at 1616 Gervais Avenue. c. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. The city council will be discussing Liberty Classical Academy, 2696 Hazelwood Street, for the CUP Revision, Legacy Village Townhomes, County Road 0 and Kennard Street for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Revision, and Preliminary Plat, the 5-8 Club Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue forthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Change and the CUP revision. d. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the July 24, 2006, city council meeting. It is unknown at this time what items will be discussed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS The Planning Commission voted and decided to reschedule the Monday, July 3, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting to Thursday, July 6, 2006. Annual Tour Update (Monday, July 31, 2006) Mr. Roberts asked the planning commission who would be attending the annual tour and everyone in attendance said they would be coming. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner CarMaxlMogren Addition Highway 61 and Beam Avenue June 28, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Chris Crowe, of CarMax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren have applied for various approvals to develop the fonner Country View Golf Course property at the northeast comer of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. CarMax would occupy a site at the northeast comer of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. There would also be three future developments that would occur on the remainder of the golf course property. These future uses are shown as a retail strip center with gasoline sales, a medical officelretail building and a large warehouse building with gasoline sales. Maplewood owns most of the land north of the proposed CarMax site for regional ponding purposes. CarMax The proposed CarMax used-car dealership would indude two buildings. The first would be a 40,796-square-foot building for sales, service and display. The second would be an 11,533-square-foot building for automobile cosmetics services and a car wash. There would be 3.99 acres of parking containing 568 parking spaces for sales inventory. There would also be 2.77 acres of parking with 292 parking spaces for customer/employee parking and a 2.86-acre "work-in-progress" area that would be behind a six-foot-tall concrete-block screening wall. The proposed buildings would be built of concrete block. Future DeveloDments As stated above, the plans show site plans for three future developments: . A multi-tenant retail center with gasoline sales along Highway 61 north of the proposed CarMax. There may also be a liquor store proposed in this center. . A medicaVretail building on the southeast comer of County Road D and the proposed street . A warehouse building with gasoline sales on the north side of Beam Avenue west of CarMax. Reaional Pondina The proposed north central lot is utilized for ponding which would serve the proposed PUD as well as the surrounding area. Proposal As stated in the applicants' narrative, they are requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the entire development at this time, even though developers for the "future" sites are not known. Requests The applicants are requesting the following approvals: 1. A CUP for a PUD to attain site plan and use approvals for the entire CarMaxlMogren Addition. This includes the CarMax plans and the future sites as well. 2. The vacation of unneeded utility and drainage easements on the property. 3. A preliminary plat for the CarMaxlMogren Addition. 4. Architectural, site and landscaping approvals for CarMax and site/landscaping plans for the remaining "future" sites. Refer to the attached maps, narrative and enclosed plans. BACKGROUND This site has been operated as the Country View Golf Course for many years. It ceased operation by Mr. Mogren two years ago when the County Road D Extension project began. As part of land negotiations for the acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of Venburg Tire, the city acquired the area (shown as Outlot A on the plans) for ponding. On June 12, 2006, the city council ordered the preparation of the feasibility study to construct the proposed public street in this development. DISCUSSION Planned Unit Development The proposed PUD would be for the entire development comprised of CarMax and the three remaining developable sites. Being that the applicant does not have specific users for these sites, staff views these site plans as conceptual and we do not feel the city council should grant any approvals for them at this time. The city should act based on specific plans. Staff, furthermore, does not think it is prudent to be approving uses such as gasoline sales without a specific proposal to consider on these sites. Fuel sales are allowed by conditional use permit which should be applied for at the time of those specific development requests. 2 With this in mind, the proposed PUD should be narrowed in scope to only include the proposed CarMax site while the balance of the site should be considered to be nothing but "expansion areas" for future development within this PUD. This means that there would be no approvals given for the three future development sites at this time. CarMax Site Considerations Parking Stall Widths The applicant has requested a deviation from the code as part of this PUD request. They request that CarMax be allowed to have 9-foot by 17-foot parking stalls in their "inventory parking' area. Staff sees no problem with this. These smaller spaces merely create lighter parking stalls for the CarMax vehicle inventory. Auto dealers typically provide smaller spaces for their vehicle inventory. The applicant is also asking for approval to provide 9-foot-wide spaces for customers and employee parking. City code allowed 9-foot-wide employee parking stalls, but customer parking is required to be 9 % feet wide. Staff feels that it is a reasonable request to have 9-foot-wide spaces as requested. Maplewood's code is rather conservative by still requiring 9 % to 10-foot-wide spaces in most parking situations. The standard in most cities is for nine-foot-wide spaces. Staff sees no problem with allowing the proposed 9-foot-wide parking spaces for CarMax customer and employee parking. A more important consideration with parking is that there should be a sufficient number of customer and employee parking spaces available for use. Often, we see that other auto dealers do not have enough customer and employee parking available. If approved, there should be conditions to require clearly accessible, available and signed parking areas for customers and employees. Car Storage for Older Vehicles The applicant is proposing to build a six-foot-tall concrete block screening wall surrounding their ''work-in-progress'' area. This is a parking lot/storage yard for cars not yet ready for display in the sales lot or, perhaps, for those that will be sold to other dealers. This wall would surround a 2.86-acre vehicle storage area. It is proposed to be built of plain concrete block. Staff feels that the design of this wall must be greatly improved. The proposed wall will be very long and quite an imposing feature of the site. It must be designed with attractive materials. Plain concrete block is not an attractive material. Shore/and Ordinance Considerations The southwest comer of the CarMax site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland Boundary Area. This means that the applicant cannot develop more than 60 percent of the site with impervious paving. Forty percent must be "pervious' and be able to absorb rain water. The city engineer reviewed this matter and informed the applicant that they must revise the plans to provide an alternative paving method that will allow water absorption, such as a pervious-paver system as was required for Maplewood Toyota across Highway 61 3 for a portion of their parking lot. The applicant has verbally agreed to this but has not submitted revised plans. If this PUD is approved, staff recommends that the council require that the applicant revise the site/drainage plan to meet the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and requirements of the city engineer. This revised plan should be approved before the city issues a grading permit. Traffic Impact Staff has met with representatives of MnDOT and with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer to discuss what impact this proposal would have on traffic. In regard to the CarMax site, all representatives of the above agencies agreed that the proposed westerly CarMax curb cut along Beam Avenue would be too close to the intersection and would conflict with traffic movement near the intersection of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Staff, therefore, recommends that this curb cut not be allowed. The city has done extensive traffic analysis for this area because of several studies. These are the Maplewood Mall-Area traffic study, the Legacy Village AUAR (Altemative Urban Area Wide Review) and the County Road D Extension study of traffic impacts. These studies were done in consideration of the golf course site being fully developed under the current land use plan guidelines. Uses, like the ones proposed, were considered when these prior studies were conducted. Additional Traffic Studv The city engineer has directed the consulting firm of Kimley Horn and Associates to do a traffic study to analyze the impact of the proposed highway curb cut on the future site north of CarMax. Representatives of MnDOT want to prohibit any direct access to the highway. Jon Hom, of Kimley Hom, will be looking into whether there is a way to regulate traffic at the Beam/61 intersection that could enable the placement of this access to the highway. This data will be available for presentation to the planning commission. It is still being evaluated at this time. It must be noted, however, that this matter affects the future retail site north of CarMax and does not affect the CarMax site. PUD Summary Staff feels that the PUD should be approved for the CarMax site only since it is the only site proposed at this time. The city council should not approve the future sites without first reviewing specific proposals for those developments. Preliminary Plat The proposed preliminary plat creates four developable sites and the 10.07-acre ponding site. The ponding site and the two northerly "future" sites have been denoted as "outlots: These should be relabeled with lot numbers. The city code does not allow development on oullots without the developer first obtaining a CUP or a replat to delete the outlot classification. Classification as outIots would create a need for additional and unnecessary reviews. 4 The CarMax site abuts the ponding site with an irregularly-shaped common boundary line. This is because the ponding site has already been graded in this configuration for the holding ponds. The CarMax site has been designed in consideration of those grades. City staff engineer, Michael Thompson, and city consultant Ron Leaf, of SEH, have reviewed the plans. Their comments are enclosed. As a condition of the plat approval, the city council should require compliance with the condition requiring that the developer enter into a development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. The proposed street has not been named. The name of this public street should be subject to staff approval to determine a suitable name and to determine if it should relate to its alignment with existing city streets. Easement Vacations The applicants are requesting that the city vacate an existing drainage/utility easement over proposed Lot 1. This easement currently has twin, 48-inch stormwater pipes within it. These will be abandoned and the new pipes rerouted. The city engineering staff has no objection to this since all utilities and drainage facilities will be new and designed specifically for this development. Design Review (CarMax Site Only) Architectural The proposed design of both CarMax buildings would be somewhat lacking in terms of both material selection and design. The city has not been allowing plain or smooth-face concrete block as a primary building material since the early 1970s. The split-face concrete block material has been allowed, but primarily for the parts of buildings that are not within prominent views of the street. As examples, some of the buildings of the newer auto dealerships along Highway 61 have used decorative concrete block on their service areas. These are typically on the rear of the building, however, and not in front view. The front of these buildings, which are the showrooms, are typically designed with more architectural appeal and better materials. The proposed CarMax showroom is certainly the better view of the main building. The trouble is, however, that this building would have four highly-visible views. The primary building material in each of these views would be a combination of smooth and split-face block. The buildings themselves are rather boxy in design as well. Staff does not feel that the design and materials are acceptable as proposed. The applicant should give some consideration to a more decorative building exterior by using attractive architectural detailing to add character to the buildings. Smooth-face block should be specifically denied. Setbacks The proposed building and parking-lot setbacks would meet code requirements. 5 Parkina Parking is provided in sufficient numbers. The applicant must make sure to designate a proper number of parking spaces for employees to cover shift changes. They must also provide an adequate amount of parking for customers. The applicant should provide justification to staff for this amount. Both employee and customer parking areas should be signed as such for clear use of these spaces. As stated above, staff does not have a problem with the applicant providing nine-foot- wide spaces as part of this PUD. Access The westerly curb cut along Beam Avenue should not be allowed. This view is shared by the city engineer, by Dan Solar, traffic engineer with Ramsey County and by traffic engineers of MnDOT. Refer to Mr. Solar's letter (attached). LoadinalUnloadina A recurring problem with auto dealers is the use of public right-of-way for unloading vehicle transports. The city should require that such activity is prohibited as a condition of the PUD. Shoreland-Boundarv Area Pavina The drainage plan is not approved as proposed. The applicant must provide details for the construction of a pervious-paver parking lot system in 40 percent of the area denoted as Shoreland Overlay District on the site plan. This plan must be found to be acceptable by the city engineer. The city should not issue a grading permit until the city engineer has approved this plan. Landscapina The landscaping plan is woefully inadequate. The applicant is proposing a tree every 380 feet along the Highway 61 frontage, a tree spacing along Beam Avenue of approximately the same (with the exception of trees flanking the driveways) and a hedge of global arborvitae. The majority of the landscaping is within the site. Spreading Yews would be planted on the south and east sides of the proposed six-foot-tall screening wall. Turf areas on the majority of the site would be seeded. Staff does not recommend approval of this plan. It should be further developed to provide considerably more trees along Highway 61, Beam A venue and the proposed street Site Liahts The lighting plan indicates a heavily-lit site. There are no nearby homes that would limit light intensity (.4 footcandles of light intensity at a residential lot line) but staff is concemed about the orientation of site lights. Care should be taken so that site lights, either building mounted or pole mounted, do not shine outward. It is still nuisance causing if the light source can be seen by drivers and by neighbors at a distance. The 6 fixture plan has not been submitted. The applicant should submit a detailed light-fixture plan for staff approval showing the styles of wall and ground lights proposed. The style of these fixtures must be designed so not to shine outward into the distance beyond the site boundaries. Tree RemovaVReolacement This site is very sparsely treed. There are only five large trees to be removed from the CarMax site. Under the current landscape plan, the applicants propose to plant 99 new trees. This more than satisfies the tree-replacement guidelines in the city code of a tree- for-tree replacement up to a maximum of 10 trees per acre. As noted above, however, staff is recommending that the applicants resubmit their landscaping plan to improve the planting plan on the three street sides. Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Dan Solar, traffic engineer with Ramsey County, reviewed this proposal (report attached). In summary, Mr. Solar has these comments: . The county has been working with the City of Maplewood for several years on development and redevelopment in the Maplewood Mall area. As part of this redevelopment of the Country View Golf Course, the developer will be required to reconstruct Beam Avenue between Highway 61 and the railroad bridge. Kimley Hom and Associates are analyzing this as part of their traffic study. . CarMax will be allowed to have one right-inlright-out driveway opening between Highway 61 and the proposed public street and one right-inlright-out opening between the new public street and the railroad bridge. . The opening closest to Highway 61 on Beam Avenue will not be allowed. RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before starting construction. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had these comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. . A separate building permit is required for each building. . All exiting must go to a public way. . Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. . The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered.a 7 . I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor. the project manager and the city building inspection department. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had these comments/requirements: . Need 20-foot emergency access road at all times. . Fire protection system per codes and monitored. . Fire alarm system per code and monitored. . Fire department lockbox required. Get the paperwork from the fire marshal. . There must be proper protection for any tanks stored above ground. . The applicant must get proper permits for any tanks installed above or below ground. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett has reviewed the plans and has the following comments: "I have reviewed the attached plans and have one significant public safety concem. The west entrance to the dealership off of Beam Avenue appears to be too close to Highway 61. When the golf course/driving range was in operation, its access was in a similar location. Drivers that were east bound on Beam from 61 who wanted to enter the business had difficulty getting across the west bound lanes. This was exacerbated during the rush hours and resulted in several traffIC backups and crashes. I would recommend elimination of that access. The access that is farther east should suffice when coupled with the access off the new north/south road between Beam and the new County Road D: Engineering Comments Maplewood Engineer, Michael Thompson, reviewed the plans along with one of the city's consultant engineers from Short Elliot Hendrickson, Ron Leaf. Mr. Thompson submitted his report along with comments from Mr. Leaf. Refer to the attached report. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Leaf have noted many points of additional data needed or plan revisions required. In addition to those, the applicants should be required to: . Sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. . The developer shall enter into a developer agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. 8 . The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Citizen Comments One resident responded to our survey for comments about this proposal. That person opposed the project and felt that another car lot was an eyesore and a detriment to the area. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use penn it for a planned unit development for the CarMaxlMogren Addition development. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 30, 2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the pennit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This approval penn its the development of the CarMax site only subject to the conditions of the city council. The future sites are not approved at this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications and materials for the proper evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance. 5. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the engineer's report dated June 26, 2006. 6. The PUD allows the applicants to provide 9- by 17-foot wide spaces for vehicle- inventory parking and 9-foot-wide parking spaces for customer and employee parking. The applicants shall submit justification to staff for the number of such parking stalls to be provided. Customer and employee parking spaces shall be signed as such. 7. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The concrete-block screening wall design is not allowed as proposed. The design of this smooth-faced concrete block wall must be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. 8. The city shall not issue a grading pennit for CarMax until the applicants have submitted, and received approval of, the pervious-paver system for that part of the site within the shoreland boundary area. 9. The applicants shall revise the site plan for staff approval to eliminate the westerly driveway proposed along Beam Avenue. 9 10. The highway access to the parcel north of CarMax is not allowed at this time and is subject to further traffic analysis. 11. This approval shall prohibit any use of public right-of-way for vehicle loading or unloading. 12. The applicants shall provide the following before the city will issue a grading permit: . A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. . A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. B. Approve the preliminary plat for the CarMaxlMogren Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signing of the following agreements with the city: . A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. . A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. 2. Revising the plat to rename all outlots with lot numbers. 3. The applicants shall dedicate any easements that the city may require for drainage and utility purposes. 4. The name of the street shall be subject to the approval of the city's public safety staff and city engineer. 5. The applicants shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 10 C. Adopt the resolution vacating a drainage/utility easement within the proposed CarMax site. This easement vacation is approved based on the finding that it would selVe no public purpose since the stormwater pipes within the easement are not needed for the proposed CarMax development. This vacation is subject to the developer rededicating any easements that the city's engineering department may require for CarMax. D. Approve the plans date-stamped May 30, 2006, for the proposed CarMax Automobile Superstore. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. This approval is good for two years. After two years, the design-review process shall be repeated if the developer has not begun construction. 2. The plans for the parcels referred to as ''future lots' in this report are not approved. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the planned unit development and a final plat for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 5. The applicants shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and Ramsey County. 6. The building elevations shall be revised and resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. The proposed buildings shall not have smooth-face concrete block. The applicants shall utilize more decorative materials and apply decorative architectural features to improve the appearance of both buildings. 7. The design of the six-toot-tall, smooth-face concrete block screening wall is not approved. This design must be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. 8. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted providing for more extensive landscaping along all right-of-way frontages. The plan, as currently proposed, offers very sparse landscaping in these areas. 9. The site plan shall be revised for staff approval omitting the westerly driveway along Beam Avenue. 10. The applicants shall submit a revised drainage plan providing for a pelVious- paver system, subject to the approval of the city engineer, prior to getting a grading permit. 11. The applicants shall submit lighting-fixture details for all ground and wall- mounted lights. These must be designed to prevent light spillover beyond the CarMax property lines. They shall be of a design so that the lenses and bulbs do not shine outward into drivers' eyes or onto surrounding properties. 11 12. The customer and employee parking spaces shall be signed as such. The applicants shall propose the number of parking spaces they feel are needed for both employees and customers, subject to staff approval, and show these on a revised site plan. 13. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 14. The applicants shall comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Engineering Report from Michael Thompson dated June 26, 2006. 15. The applicants shall: . Install reflectorized stop signs at the proposed exits onto Beam Avenue and the proposed new public street. . Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 16. The applicants shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 17. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 18. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building. 12 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 17 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. One was opposed and two offered comments. Opposed . I can't believe that you would even consider a massive used car lot with all the car lots on Highway 61. You don't owe CarMax anything. You owe your residents protection against blight. I pay taxes to live in a nice area and used cars don't bring nice neighbors. Please no more used cars in Maplewood or Highway 61. Please notify members of city council that we don't like it. No votes for a city council if approved. (from a Maplewood resident) Other Comments . The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority has no comment on the CarMax site plan, but does have an interest in the development of the property to the east of CarMax. The Rail Authority owns a portion of the abandoned rail line to the east of the larger development area and may purchase from Maplewood additional abandoned rail property along the same corridor. This rail line is reserved for future rail transit, and our department has much interest in the future development, site plan and other issues that may impact our property and plans. (Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority) . The city should be aware of traffic concems with the proposed driveway connections to Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The proposed westerly curb cut on Beam Avenue is very dangerous being so dose to the intersection. The driveway connection to Highway 61, likewise may be hazardous. (Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota) 13 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Use: 50 acres The former Country View Golf Course with clubhouse and two single dwellings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D Extension and Lexus of Maplewood South: Beam Avenue and wetlands East: Abandoned railroad right-of-way (the Vento Trail) West: Highway 61, Maplewood Toyota and LaMettry Collision PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Findings for PUD Approval City code requires that, to approve a planned unit development, the city council must base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the attached resolution. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on May 30, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 29, 2006. 14 p:sec 3\CarMax 6 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning and Land Use Map 3. Entire-Project Site Plan 4. SitelLandscaping Plan (CarMax) 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Building Elevations (CarMax) 7. Applicant's Narrative dated May 17, 2006 8. Engineering Report from Michael Thompson dated June 26, 2006 9. Ramsey County Comments from Dan Solar, County Traffic Engineer dated June 26, 2006 10. CUPIPUD Resolution 11. Easement Vacation Resolution 12. Plans date-stamped May 30, 2006 (separate attachments) 15 " - d b . << . .J a . $> .~ ) Keller CoIf CrMse t "" , <l <:) PROPOSED SITE . " , ... 1-694 BEAM AVENUE -:~ = HIGHWAY 36 fl . (f o 4 1.0\. ~ "'U D LOCATION MAP - p- '''a 1 Attachment 1 ~ o o ~ . !!"4lit'4"'.~....'.(""'!.'...!.'... ~~'M. % " e::' 2';".( : Q -2 --....-~""'\ rrfJie.:&AJ.,.~ := .~ o .'. " 'il 16 Attachment 2 -,.. .~ , :.... , \ , ~. :\ . !.'~.._........ '. __.J.__,_,/ _ ___--...,- , _~: ._- I f_., o ,\,._> r1 ~ to ~ I 30 {) . ~ ZONING AND LAND USE MAP v 17 '. , " ". , " " "- '---, -, " \ \ I 1 1 i i i i i i 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i ~~~ li!UIHlll jll" hh, I I I I - ., H~i~~~; L ~:mmm '''f, ~. ,'Co;, I~~~!~ i '- . o 01 ~~. em.,! . . 'Il-li il.! " .", ~l'l 11 11:. ; i!ljl~l:i~ ~ I . '., 1\H i 'l'lI!!11ihMi ~ t I llfl!hhhh I ! ~ i ~,,,(,8,_; i ""',"oj,',., "I' I I ~;i I' , I \~~; . ' I ~!1' ! i :'!l!II' ! ill! II ':H I I.',!, i!,~-'--I-l-'-I-'-i !I,:ijl",' 111.11 '.'+.'-1--1-1-1- I;I-I,--,-,i~+ I I: " tWi "1i.".'.M3"1<lJViI'~ "';:>i '~,~j 3'd(;.L:; - xeWHY:J I ; ;, .r,..' : ,r: ; ~: ~ " s~~ ! ~!ll I I I ~ ~ 5 > > , q . . . -- ~ ~ 'id I 5 > ~ .' , LH ~ ;1 ~; i>ol ,~ ?, g i~ :~ ~ ., " ,- I~I'~~~-=--='I : u l. ',::: ';E:!i~- !i, ~ 'I ). -_~"",;;I ~ I Cl~,[ ,-=-,I',~ f; ,'i'1J!1ji'""""'---'J: ""':'_'._-,...:_~ ~ -- ~ " !it i:~ i,l,t ~ ~ ~!; ., ,~ :i f5 i;~ ~~ ;;~ ~\ """,'''", r'~[;i 1 (\ '::I,D D '; 8 (I ~~O o 18 ~ oc) t~ ~ii ''aO ~o. ;: 'II! i'l" ;~llj :(lil, ;, Iii '~: E! ' Elill' ;'l;ll!' "..", t , \ ~ vi: o . ' 8 I J Or') 8 ) (I I, o ' ~-Il !"~ ij....~ ~ t ~9~' , - --':) c? ~ 9 === ",-~,.= , i I n _" = ,;::::> <=, r""""""'-_j Qq'l ]~L"I 'A (;l ~ ~ \)), .. 'ttb.. ~iO . ,~~~~i _~ d l)~ _",il 6~ ~. .-~~ ~~ !J1rlI ~~ I ~ Attachment 3 111~!I!1 I" i ii, 1111 ~I~ ~I !~ J '~I '~I .~ Ii I' ~ ! .... o w ..,z Oc( D:...J D.D. WW D:I- -- ....0 Z W 18 ~I '1 . "1,IIII'l' 11','11,',1 , Illla"i " I I I ~ o o 0, ~~. it! < . , , 1'1 i -~ II , ;Ii ! ," '"' ~ ~ , . , , ;;~ . o't:, , '-'>,.; ~:I m , ~'" m~ 'c" c',.,: .iJiiiii!i!iliiiitii,lli! I rl!!i!ml'iWil!!!lJ!!!!!!" i r ( ~;i"" 1I,h"ill~"!" , ~ i l;~"i'~',J, ; , '; ;~'i~; ,!"" itil' il;t' : It!:' I ;:11'1: "j:,'I'1 l!:<: i ;~jl : L,':,.~ ',,- " i,- '.- 1,."1,-",,- !",,!,. ''','',''''<~131''~' , , 11!,~lll 1',1' ',' 'i' """','1,'",,'" , , I " II " 1',,:l:l:ti - Xiiwuw III' ! ";:,,,1 II . ":':1 ! ,! ! ! , !. , , , ' "'.' lib: "I ", I~i, ~~~;;~ 1,~;~l;~i, ,,1 !, Hi" '_',,'" ". ,I ,! " [" " ;.;: , ! ;', , 'I'mi.' ';1;1 ili1,1 ; [,111 h ;.., .' ; ii' H ; I!; ,,~ 'I!!" I ~c. i ;"' ~ _ , 1 . , I " . i:;li, !;'" ~ ; , i ~I ~' ~ ;z~d tH) 11:';' II" 0 . II!' 0 . il . i, , ,) ,.;. '- " " , il " '; c o. o . '0 ,,; ;;~1 ~., ".' ::", ".-. c. t ' , i "i, ~; 1,:;; ~" 1 , . " " ;: \:' H -, o :1"~lj~ ~. 0 ~ .. tttt I t t I lL ~. W '~I ~:;; ~\ ;;: ,ill L 'Lit lL~ "0 'filii ~;f,' ,"',,',,'r: m ~~ Q) :~~:' --.--- :i:;S:;~.c..... , '~;'I"~"S"..6~ ""'r.:',.,'.~ ",:: fI' ^, ~, '''I. "ill, fl. fl ~:l~! ,~j ~ 1iJ' ~- Q' H:; ~o: ~~ $', :; ~~ 0' A, ~, ;;'i ;:' Z c( ...J D. C) "Z - D. .!~ c Z c( ...J Attachment 4 " ,'c<:, ~~' r,~ ~ I ~ I t ! t w .... - en ~ ::IE a:: ca:: (.) - w .... - tn 19 ~~ t!i j l~l! lj!lll !lli'llll'1 I , Q Q o! ~.. CB. ! L ~ % ,i,ii!:!;i;I;!:IWJi:iI!! l;!ml~,l~IIlhHiHi!ilH i! ,~!mihh!i ;mull'"", , I ! ' ., I' 1!'l'1 "1'~")N\=1<f"~W 'il 1'" '~""ltl+I':' ,. .. '.. ; ::':1" ' ,Ii I , I ' I ' """".w."' "" "II 1'1" iJilt ' :; 11,1; ----- I'll II' , 1,"1'1"1'1"', ~WUY:JJ "" I ,C. ',',1'1'+' AIIIlOiP ~ ~ I ; I ,! ! : ~ il..,.'" I . ~ ~ ffi 'i ~ ~ ~ . '" I ~ ~ ~ I' ~\ . f~ , . I r.{i ~ .. 0 'i ~ '" " ~ ~ Q g ~ , .' , , ~ . ~ ~ . ~ 8- "., . ~ ~ ,. ~ c' . '." "0 ~ . " ~ ;;: ~'t " ffi <. ~ '. 0 Q < ". , ~ . ~ . 'c I': ': . , . ! L ffi . Q . < Q " W . " @ -~ ~ ~ '. "' .....""'::.::::::~::-,::-------_.__._. " " " ................ i -................ I., " !~ ". "'.,., ", " " " " " " " ........" " " ". \ \ I i i i i i i i i i i I I i i i i i i i i I i i i I Ii i' fi il j/ ~ ~ ...... Ci ~ ~ c.:I ~ ~ < U u 13 g o ~ N 13 ..J ~ .,:,. ::::':"'::l::! -:,l:;;~," ..., 13 g o "' 13 ..J .... ::> o - .... o ..J ------ "',.,..- ~~~::~-~.-.. --, I " ,. I ,i I ~,,'" Attachment 5 'fii'!liJ! I';,"""" lal"' " iLO , 1;,(.) I ,'" I I "I' II I ~ I ~I~ .iJ1 ,; " o~ . =;j ~Ir ~j!'l ~Iwm! 51511 IIII 1'1' , , f-t-...---_. I"~ 'I' ; :'1, , I, " . I \ ... III( ..J c.. ~ III( z - :& - ..J W D:: c.. ~. , '1 I I, , ~ " 20 ; ? 1 j , i ~ , , ,l ~ , ~ ~ i..,l ;; ~. ! { ; 1 , ; , 1 ~ j , ~ , < j " t . " T ~ , , , 1 ? , en z o ~ > W ..J W C) Z - C ..J - :) m ; 21 Attachment 7 RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2006 CarMtJ:J(j9dogren ;f.tfdition :Mapfewooa, :Minnesota APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL May 17, 2006 Prepared By: ~~t~ ~ LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS. PHOENIX 22 ,!t~~ mr- LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren AddiUon MI NN I.~O~". ~ ~o INlll May 17. 2006 INTRODUCTION We respectfully request approval of a Preliminary Plat. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Vacation of a drainage and utility easement and Community Design Review Board approval for redevelopment of the former Country View Golf Course located at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. The property is currently zoned M-1, Light Manufacturing, and is guided the same. The total site is 57.1 acres in size. Currently, the only known tenant is CarMax (proposed to occupy Lot 1). The development team is continuing to work to finalize tenants for Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C. No development is planned for Outlot A as it contains existing municipal stormwater ponds. Architectural details for the buildings on Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C, will not be finalized until the tenants are chosen; therefore, we are requesting approval of the PUD/CUP for the site plan and uses for the entire development, with the knowledge that building elevations and sign plans will need to be submitted for review and approval by the Community Design Review Board prior to final plat approval of Lot 2, Outiot B, and Outlot C. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat contains 2 lots and 3 outlots. Only two of the three outlots (B & C) are for future development, the third (Outlot A) contains existing municipal stormwater ponds. Lot 1 is the only lot proposed for development at this time. However, the remaining lot is intended to be mass-graded and ponding constructed as needed in preparation of future development. Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C will likely be developed independently of each other sometime in the future. VACATION There are three storm water pipes that run north-south through Lot 1: two 48-inch pipes and a 3D-inch perforated pipe. The applicant is requesting to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement over the twin 48-inch stormwater pipes. (There is no easement over the 3D-inch pipe.) The applicant is proposing to re-route all three of these pipes. The overflow from the northern existing stormwater pond will be re-routed to the western portion of Lot 1, and the twin 48" pipes will be re-routed east toward the new right of way, then follow that right of way south before re-entering Lot 1 and connecting back to the existing 48" pipes. A new drainage and utility easement will be dedicated over all three of the stormwater lines in their new location. CUP FOR PUD The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development. The PUD is requested to allow the mix of commercial uses on the site, including auto sales, retail, office and gas/convenience, and to allow the comprehensive calculation of impervious surface area for the entire Page 1 23 J~~~ ma LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition fill ~H 1"'~DL'" ~HO'H"I May 17, 2006 development. The retail sites may include uses with liquor sales, but those uses would comply with all city liquor licensing requirements and would be sited to meet the required 350-foot setback from residential properties. There is a small portion of Kohlman Lake's shoreiand area located in the southwest corner of Lot 1. Kohlman Lake is a Class IV water body. The site meets all of the prerequisites to reduce the standards by one classification as described in Section 44-1242(b)(1)a of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the development has been designed to meet the impervious area requirements of a Class III, non-water frontage lot, with an "impervious surface area bonus." The bonus Is based upon the design of the on-site stormwater management system that Is identified in Section 1242(b)(1)d of the Zoning Ordinance. Stormwater treatment for the overall development will be accomplished through the implementation of traditional wet ponds. underground storage, and rain gardens. The stormwater management techniques proposed are intended to encourage infiltration, meet the enhanced stormwater practices outlined in Appendix D of the City's Stormwater and Wetiands Plan, and meet the requirements of the impervious surface area bonus. All of the proposed uses are permitted by right in the M-1 zoning district, except for the following uses, which require a conditional use permit: . The CarMax used car sales lot and its accessory uses . The gasoline station, which is proposed as an accessory use to the warehouse retail use on Lot 2. The project meets the Conditional Use Permit standards in Section 44-1097 of the City Code as follows: 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. All of the above uses will conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The request would allow redevelopment of the site to provide needed retail and service uses to the community. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The proposed uses are typical for this area and would not alter the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The proposed uses are all allowed in the M-1 zoning districts permitted or conditional uses. Page 2 24 .l~~ m'.... LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition May 17, 2006 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The uses will not depreciate property values. All of the abutting parcels are also zoned and guided M-1 and the uses will provide additional services and conveniences to the surrounding neighborhoods. 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The proposed uses will not invoive any dangerous, hazardous, detrimental or disturbing activity. 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. The traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any local streets. The site as been designed in accordance with the City's transportation plans. which include construction of a new public road to serve this development and contribute to Improved overall circulation of the area, has been proposed. Therefore, this new public road will alleviate any additional traffic congestion created by this project. 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. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed uses: . The redevelopment of the site will not burden the existing police and fire protection services. . The existing schools and parks are adequate to serve the commercial development, which will contribute to the overall tax base while having no impact on the schools and limited impact on the park system. . There are existing water, sanitary and storm sewer systems in the area which currently serve the site and any proposed infrastructure improvements will be paid for and constructed by the developer. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Page 3 25 .I~~ m--. LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition M'NN'~"DLU.""O'''I. May 17. 2006 The proposed infrastructure within Lot 1, Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C will be paid for and constructed by the developers; therefore, the proposed uses will not create excess additional costs for public facilities. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Because the site is developed as a golf courseldriving range, there are very few natural features to be preserved. However, the developers will continue to analyze each site as the individual tenants for Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C are finalized. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. The uses will not cause any adverse environmental effects. The project also meets the PUD criteria in Section 44-1093 of the City Code as follows: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. The site is consists largely of hydric soils. The master planning of the entire parcel is necessary to correct the soils for development and provide the enhanced stormwater management system being proposed by the developer. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The proposed development would be consistent with preserving the health, safety, and welfare of the public and all other purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, if not better. 3. The PUD would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to this chapter. The proposed development will be at least of equal quality to that which would result from adherence to the Zoning Ordinance. Page 4 26 '!l~~ ~ LANDFORM CarMax/Mogren Addition 1\!1"NI"'~OU" ~"OI"'lI May 17. 2006 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the properly values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The proposed development will not constitute any threat to the property values, safety, health or generai welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. In fact, the proposed development may increase adjacent property values. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. The only deviation from the City Code being requested with this PUD is the slight decrease in the dimensions of the parking spaces within the CarMax (Lol1) portion of the project. The Applicant is requesting approval to use 9' x 1 T stalls in the "vehicle inventory/display" area west of the main CarMax building. and 9' x 20' stalls in the "customer/employee" area south and east of the main building. The Applicant is requesting these modest deviations from City Code to accommodate an efficient site design that allows for proper placement of the wet pond and the infiltration basin. By comparison, the 9' x 20' stalls contain 9 additional square feet of stall areas versus 9.5' x 18' stalls. Additionally, these stalls will be used for low-turnover traffic (Le. employees and customers of a car dealership), so safely should Iikeiy not be an issue. This modest PUD flexibility is requested to allow for reasonable and practicable commercial development of the master-planned site. CARMAX SITE PLAN (LOT 1) The Applicant is seeking approval to use Lot 1 of the subdivision for the construction of a used car sales facility. This facility will include a sales area, a carwash (for use by the used car facility only), and a motor vehicie maintenance area. In the M-1 district, the sale of used motor vehicies, carwashes, and motor vehicle maintenance garages each require a conditional use permit (CUP). Thus, the Applicant has submitted a CUP application for all aspects of the facility to be constructed on Lot 1, which application will be discussed in more length below. The used motor vehicle facility to be constructed upon the Property wiil be owned and operated by CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. ("CarMax"). CarMax, a publicly-traded, Fortune 500 company and one of the Fortune 2006 "100 Best Companies to Work For," is the nation's leading retailer of used cars. CarMax currently operates seventy used car superstores in thirty-three markets nationwide. CarMax has achieved great success by offering its customers no-haggle pricing on a vast inventory of late-model vehicles. CarMax seeks to now offer its services to Maplewood and the surrounding areas. Page 5 27 JII~ ma LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition .,N.....~'..,.. ~HD'" IX May 17. 2006 As shown on the plans submitted in connection with this application, CarMax proposes to construct two buildings upon its site. The principal building is 40,796 square feet in size and contains the dealership's sales, service. and presentation areas. The second building is 11,533 square feet in size and contains the dealership's cosmetic services area, including a carwash. Applicant has submitted building elevations for each of these buildings with its appiications. The site aiso includes a sales inventory parking area (3.99 acres in size and containing 568 parking spaces), a customer/employee parking area (2.77 acres in size and containing 292 parking spaces), and a 2.86 acre work-in-process area that is protected and screened by a six-foot CMU wall. Lot 1 of the subdivision, in addition to being currently zoned M-1, is designated in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for development under the M-1 zoning designation. Thus, a used car sales facility upon Lot 1 is consistent with the City's plans for this area. Furthermore. the use of Lot 1 as a used car dealership is consistent with the current uses in the area, as there are other car sales facilities located to the north, east, southwest. and south of the Property. As the City notes in its Comprehensive Land Use Pian, the "area along Highway 61, north of Highway 36 to White Bear Lake, is known for its car dealerships and auto service facilities." Accordingly, CarMax's used car sales facility would fit into and enhance an already well-established pattern of land use in the area. Because CarMax's use of Lot 1 is entirely consistent with the current use of surrounding parcels, it will not have an adverse effect upon the value or uses of surrounding properties. To the contrary, the distinctively attractive visuai appearance of CarMax's facilities will be a pleasant addition to the Highway 61 corridor. There are no residential properties within 350 feet from the site that would be adversely affected by CarMax's use of the site. The level of noise generated by CarMax's use of Lot 1 will be consistent with the other uses in the area, and perhaps less because CarMax will not use an outdoor loudspeaker system on the site. Additionally, CarMax's hours of operation will be similar to the hours of operation of the other car dealerships along the Highway 61 corridor. In short, CarMax's planned use of Lot 1 will blend nicely with the surrounding area. As required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, all service and maintenance activities performed as part of CarMax's operations will occur within the buildings located on the site. The carwash within the cosmetic building wiil have its own drainage system, which will not drain onto a public street or access. Further. CarMax's site will be well landscaped, as shown on the landscape plan submitted in connection with the applications. Finally, after completing engineering analyses, the Applicant believes that the City's existing public services and facilities, such as streets, water and sewer systems, and police and fire protection, are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Page 6 28 .!e~~ ma LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition M'HI.....~O~U. ~..O.,otll May 17, 2006 CarMax's facility will also not generate excessive vehicular traffic on local streets. To the contrary, the traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any iocal streets. Instead, traffic will only be able to enter and exit CarMax's site from Beam Avenue on the south (which is designated as a Minor Arterial roadway in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan) and the future collector street on the east that connects Beam Avenue and future County Road D to the north, which is to be constructed as part of Applicant's PUD. Thus, the Applicant believes there will not be any traffic problems created by CarMax's use of Lot 1. SUMMARY We are requesting approval of the Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development, Easement Vacation and Community Design Review to all redevelopment of this site as a commercial development. We hope to be abie to present our request at the following meetings: June 13, 2006 Community Design Review Board June 19, 2006 Planning Commission July 10, 2006 City Council. Any additional questions in regards to this development can be directed to Daniel Hughes with Landform at dhuQhes@landformmsP.com or 612.638.0254. Page 7 29 ~~Jl'lill'I' ~'" I~J 11'111 l'IJ1IIJII I I . o o! '.<\'>_. C!:!> "I ~. < . i'ii" ,"'" ~ :,,~ . , ' ::l: :' !!ii jl.i:m. ;11:!lH !'-~~". 1-"jji.i'Piij'l ! ! ~!~mllihg . I 'I ,,' I ' ' 'II ' P'WX"'...Hm 1~!. _ I, iT-----i--,Ti ,.~ __,,'__ ::~.i I, ! III1II1 '. '. I ,"" ,.,11....' ,." "I 'I ~~ II Ii:! III:" ~~Itl-i-I~:l'l'" iiiiiillw:! :i! i I ;1' L;'! i; I. i,,,,;),'i ',.".;"",,--, I I m , i (.; ~! " L " ~ ~ i' ~ , .. ~ . ~ . ~ . le e: ~ , u . ~ ~ ~ '.'< ~; 0 . ~ ~ , ~ ;: ~. .. 0 ; 0 ~ _0' ~~j . ! '0 " [ . . ! 0 . < , " ID ~ @ .-- """'=:.:::::~::::--._._-_._--_.- ", , " -................ I -'-........ !~ ........ r .... ....., ~ .... E-< .... Cl Cl <: ~ o o u " u 15 g o ~ -........., " .........., " " ". '-........... '.... ....., , \ \ I i i i I i i i i i I ~ i i i i i i N 3 \ , I: I", ", ':1, ,'I I j': I' ;',1 ':1 :1': ':1 _. < ~ o ), j i i i i - .. o .... '" ; -'1-- j...,i,...,.,i!...j! .iI, ' ,/..' ,/// " -- -~",.~~~;-- ~'- ~-----, ........----- t . , !2 ~ t. . ~, 0' 0' < 0' ~ ;; ",,"; ~ ",' c'; . .- p m U.ii",. ''''"''' !Ilfi ~ IIII ~ II r~ ~Ir~ . E~ ll!' ~;ll ~l!l31' Illl II ' 'it \ ~..: 0..: ~i.._ ;1,1 ~ ~ '. :~ ~~ " 30 Attachment 8 Page 1 of6 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: CarMax/Mogren Addition PROJECT NO: 06-14 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: June 26, 2006 Chris Crowe of CarMa x and the property owner, Bruce Mogren, have submitted project plans, a wetland report, and storm water calculations for the proposed development located within the 57.1 acres that was once a golf course/driving range located on the northeast comer ofT.H.6l and Beam Avenue. CarMax is currently the only known tenant. The developer or project engineer shall make the changes to the project plans and development site as noted and shall address the concerns listed. A public street is also being proposed through the development to connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. A feasibility report and traffic analysis is being prepared by the city's engineering consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, for the new public roadway. Drainage & Treatment 1. The geotechnical report performed by Braun Intertec on January 17, 2006 recommends surcharging a portion of the CarMax development site (installing vertical drains to draw out water so soils may be compressed). The project engineer shall provide information on the project plans for areas to be surcharged, the process to be used and any other soil correction processes that may be utilized. 2. The 1" infiltration is being met by utilizing rainwater gardens and infiltration basin. The site also utilizes a wet detention water quality basin that provides total phosphorous and total suspended solids removal that exceeds the standard requirements. 3. A copy of the project plans and drainage calculations has been sent to Ron Leaf at SEH to ensure this development site meets the runoff constraints set forth in the Storm Water and Wetlands Plan for the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements report. The developer shall address the recommendations of Ron Leaf at SEH. 4. The rainwater gardens, treatment pond, and infiltration basin shall have emergency overflow swales lined with a permanent erosion control blanket (Enkamat, NAG350, or equal) extending to the downstream receiving waters/drainage structure. The emergency overflow elevation and path shall be marked on the plans. The normal and high water levels need to be shown for the rainwater gardens and infiltration basin. The EOF elevations at the pond and infiltration basin on the plans do not coincide With the proposed contours or the drainage calculations and shall be revised. 5. Due to questionable soils on the development site, drain tile systems shall be installed for the rainwater gardens and infiltration basin. This will prevent possible stagnant water 31 Page 2 of6 and provide an outlet at the base of the filtration bedding material in case soils do not perform as expected. 6. Provide a detail on the plans for rainwater garden and infiltration basin construction. The gardens and basin should include rock sumps, see Maplewood standard plate 115. It is important that rainwater garden construction is phased into the project schedule appropriately. Often times the gardens are constructed too early and need to be completely reconstructed at the end of the project. Ideally, the rough grading of the garden is done with the mass grading. Then gardens may be used as sedimentation basins. Once adjacent construction is complete (right before sod is placed) the accumulated sediment should be removed, the rock sumps constructed, the bottom area scarified and the final grading completed. Appropriate phasing shall be noted on the project plans for the construction of the gardens. 7. The project engineer shall revise all catch basins upstream of the proposed pond to include 3' sumps in order to capture sediment and debris. 8. The dual 48-inch drainage pipes are proposed to be re-routed. A drainage manhole must be placed at all bends. The project engineer shall show a manhole at the 22.5 degree bend near the proposed pond. Ultimately, the Watershed District shall dictate the requirements for the dual 48-inch drainage pipes since they are owned by the district. 9. Show the existing storm sewer that is to remain in place, specifically in the ditch area on sheet C3.2A. 10. A portion of the development lies with the shoreland overlay district for Kohlman Lake. The developer shall provide a pervious pavement for the entire area within the shoreland district. Details of how the pervious surface is to be constructed shall be shown on the plans. II. The developer and engineer shall coordinate drainage improvements with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and Ramsey County. 12. The engineer shall provide details of the environmental manhole to be used at the fueling station for the city engineer's approval. 13. The drainage calculations show that the proposed rate of flow to the ditch along Beam Avenue is nearly double the existing rate. The developer shall control the rate of flow off of the site to the existing conditions. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Special attention shall be given to the existing wetland mitigation area as developed for the MMATI Storm Water and Wetlands Plan. The project engineer shall show double silt fencing at the buffer limits which shall be installed prior to any grading of the 32 Page 3 of 6 proposed development site. A 50' buffer must be kept from this mitigation area at all times. 2. The project engineer shall detail a street-sweeping on the project plans for to address any tracking that may occur from the proposed development area. Also on the project plans, include a note that states watering of the site must occur regularly to keep dust to a minimum. 3. The project engineer shall clearly state on the plans that the contractor shall install inlet protection devices such as filter bags or WIMCO devices on all existing and proposed drainage inlet structures in order to prevent sediment from entering the storm water system. 4. All 3: 1 slopes or greater require an erosion control blanket and the project engineer shall clearly label these locations on the project plans. 5. Any graded areas left undisturbed for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with a temporary seed. This shall be noted on the plans. 6. The project engineer shall provide more information on stockpiling locations and measures of containment. Also, show rough cut and fill quantities for the site. 7. The grading erosion and control plan shall provide phasing information through building and parking lot construction. More erosion and sediment control devices may be required at that time. 8. The bottom of the retaining walls shall be greater than the HWL of the pond and infiltration basins. 9. Drainage calculations and construction details shall be submitted for the underground storage and ponding proposed for sites adjacent to Carmax for review and approval. Utilities 1. All 8 inch sanitary sewer shall be noted as schedule 35 and all 6 inch sanitary sewer shall be noted as schedule 40 2. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval. 3. The project engineer shall submit plans and coordinate with MnDOT (frontage along T.H.61) and Ramsey County (Beam Avenue frontage) for their review and approval. 33 Page 4 of6 Traffic I. A traffic study is being prepared by the city's traffic engineering consultant, Kimley Horn and Associates, to address the traffic impacts of the proposed development. Kimley Horn will also be preparing the construction plans for the public street that is proposed through the development. 2. Mn/Dot has concerns regarding the right in/right out entrance off of Highway 61. The Kimley Horn traffic study will provide details on the impacts to traffic this access will have. The access may need to be relocated further south. Mn/Dot will make a final determination regarding the Highway 61 access once all traffic analysis is complete. 3. The proposed gated entrance to CarMax which is the closest entrance to T.H.61 offof Beam Avenue will not be allowed after discussions with Ramsey County. Dan Soler from Ramsey County Public Works will be sending formal comments on this and other traffic related issues. Miscellaneous 1. The south western portion of the development falls within the Shoreland designation and all development within this delineation shall not have over 60% impervious area. A possible remedy is to specify pervious pavement and landscaping for the other 40%. 2. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 3. The developer or project engineer shall obtain a building permit for all retaining walls that have a height greater than 4 feet. All top and bottom of wall elevations shall be shown on the project plans. 4. The developer shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the gardens, ponds, and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond, and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. 5. The developer shall enter into a Developer Agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. 6. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencIes. 7. The landscaping plan is subject to review and approval by the city's naturalist, Virginia Gaynor. 34 Page 5 of6 COMMENTS FROM RON LEAF, SEH DATED 6-21-06 Michael, SEH has prepared the following preliminary comments on the proposed Carmax project plans and related storm water submittals dated May 17, 2006. Our preliminaIy comments focus on the relationship of the proposed plan to the MMATI Storm Water and Wetlands Plan. Our understanding is that the Ramsey-Washington-Metro WD (RWMWD) is conducting a review of the project components that impact their wetland areas to the north of Co. D. and south of Beam Avenue and of the infiltration. We have prepared an updated HydroCAD model for the area and currently coordinating our hydrologic/hydraulic review with RWMWD staff. 1. As background, previous correspondence (4-22-04 and 3-29-04) to Mr. Mogren from the City indicated that the existing storm water pond at Co. D could accommodate up to 11.25 acres of drainage area from the future development area to the south. The proposed plan shows slightly more than this is routed to the pond/wetland system including Outlot B and C and portions of Lot 2. From a hydraulic routing and water quality treatment standpoint, the pond system can accommodate the proposed runoff from Outlot C, the portion of Lot 2 and additional area up to the 11.25 acres stated in previous correspondence. 2. The routing of Outlot B runoff directly to the west wetland cell is not acceptable as currently proposed. In part, this is due to requirements of the wetland conservation act as they apply to mitigation sites. As a minimum, the discharge would need to be treated the City NURP standards prior to discharge to the west wetland mitigation cell. Provided that the line has capacity, we suggest keeping the rain gardens and redirecting the outlets from the rain gardens on this site to the 54" storm line. 3. Sheet C 1.2. The final plans show more detail on the removals, especially in the area of the wetland mitigation site. Also, will the City remove the shed as part of the north-south road? There are a number of shallow drain tiles throughout the site that are identified in the Peterson Wetland Report that will need removal. The should be identified on this sheet or in the notes section. 4. Sheet C1.2 and C3.1 show that the hill near boring ST 120 will be left in place, except that the rerouted twin 48" pipes will be placed through this hill. For the area to the north (and in the wetland buffer zone) removing some of this hill in the final grading plan should be considered. It is also not clear where the intended emergency overflow is intended from the wetland are to the north. The two possible routes based on the current plan are (I) directly south through the parlcing lot generally in line with the proposed 27" storm line or (2) to the west between the Carmax site and the retail site to the north (Outlot B). The plans should identify the intended route and EOF elevation. 5. Based on this preliminaIy review, the overall treatment levels provided in the ponding and raingardens on the various sites appears to meet the City's standards and the requirements established in the MMATI plan and previous correspondence. We would like to see more detail on the infiltration basins and rain water gardens relating to soil profile and construction/planting specifications as the design proceeds. We also suggest that the designer provide more detail on the treatment capacity of the subsurface detention and infiltration systems in the Warehouse Retail (southeast) portion of the project. 35 Page 6 of6 6. A complete HydroCAD model of the entire system would be helpful from the design engineer. While we are working on updating the model we have for the MMA TI area, we are still looking for some info from RWMWD's engineer on the system north of Co. D and south of Beam. When we get our model to a level that can give the developer's engineer some useful guidance, we will make it available to them. The main effort in further developing this model will be to re-evaluate the 100-year HWLs as well as the system response to an extreme event (e.g., on the order of 10- inches). Again, these are preliminary. Please call if you have any questions. Ron 651.765.2998 direct 612.201.0876 cell 651.490.2150 fux rleaf@sehinc.com www.sehinc.com 36 Attachment 9 Memorandum DATE: June 26, 2006 TO: Tom Ekstrand - City of Maple wood FROM: Dan Soler - Ramsey County RE: CarMax The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed PUD request for the CarMax development at the intersection ofTH 61 and Beam Avenue. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this request. 1. The County has been working with the City of Maple wood for several years on development and re-development in the Maplewood Mall area. As part of the re- development ofthe former CountyView Golf Course site in the northeast quadrant of TH 61 and Beam Avenue the developer will be required to reconstruct Beam Avenue between TH 61 and the former railroad bridge. This reconstruction shall include widening of Beam Avenue to provide two through lanes in each direction, a median, along with left and right turn lanes at the main public street access to the site. Details of these requirements will be analyzed by Kimley Horn as part of their traffic study for this site. 2. The developer will be allowed to have one right in / right out driveway opening between TH 61 and the new public street and one right in / right out driveway opening between the new public street and the bridge. The opening closest to TH 61 will not be allowed. 3. The developer will be required to obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the access and improvements on Beam Avenue. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Cc: Bridget Gombold - Mn/DOT Waters Edge Erin Laberee - City of Maple wood 37 Attachment 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Chris Crowe of CarMax, and Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to develop a CarMax used-car dealership on the former Country View Golf Course property; WHEREAS, this pennit applies to the 14.46-acre site at the northeast comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The legal description is: PART OF TRACTS A AND B, R.L.S. NO. 466 AND PART OF TRACTS A, B, C, D, E, AND I OF R.L.S. NO. 210, ALL IN THE SOUTHWEST Yo OF THE NORTHWEST Yo OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE WEST Yo CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST, 60.02 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BEAM AVENUE; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 01 DEGREES. 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST, 265.81 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 (ALSO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 61); THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE, PARALLEL WITH AND 75 FEET DISTANCE FROM A SPIRAL CURVE ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY 61, SAID LINE'S CHORD BEARS NORTH 14 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST, 24.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 912.34 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PROPOSED COUNTY ROAD D; THENCE SOUTH 80 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST, 241.63 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, 416.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 92.54 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST, 128.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES. 54 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 283.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, 272.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, 804.48 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BEAM AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, 985.82 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use pennit is as follows: 1. On July 6, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review 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 recommended that the city council this conditional use pennit revision. 38 2. The city council reviewed this request on . The council considered the reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council above-described conditional use permit revision because: the 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 30, 2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 39 4. This approval permits the development of the CarMax site only subject to the conditions of the city council. The future sites are not approved at this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications and materials for the proper evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance. 5. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the engineer's report dated June 26,2006. 6. The PUD allows the applicants to provide 9- by 17-foot wide spaces for vehicle- inventory parking and 9-foot-wide parking spaces for customer and employee parking. The applicants shall submit justification to staff for the number of such parking stalls to be provided. Customer and employee parking spaces shall be signed as such. 7. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The concrete-block screening wall design is not allowed as proposed. The design of this smooth-faced concrete block wall must be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. 8. The city shall not issue a grading permit for CarMax until the applicants have submitted, and received approval of, the pervious-paver system for that part of the site within the shoreland boundary area. 9. The applicants shall revise the site plan for staff approval to eliminate the westerly driveway proposed along Beam Avenue. 10. The highway acoess to the parcel north of CarMax is not allowed at this time and is subject to further traffic analysis. 11. This approval shall prohibit any use of public right-of-way for vehicle loading or unloading. 12. The applicants shall provide the following before the city will issue a grading permit: . A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance acoess route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. . A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2006. 40 Attachment 11 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Chris Crowe of CarMax, and Bruce Mogren applied for the vacation of the following described drainage and utility easement: WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. A majority of the property owners abutting this easement signed a petition for this vacation. 2. On July 6, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider this request. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council this vacation. 3. On , 2006, the city council reviewed this request and considered the recommendations of the planning commission and city staff. WHEREAS, after the city council hereby approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to Bruce Mogren or a subsequent buyer of this property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described vacation because the vacation is in the public interest. Retaining this easement would serve no public purpose since the stormwater pipes within the easement are not needed for the proposed CarMax development. This vacation is subject to the developer rededicating any easements that the city's engineering department may require for CarMax. Adopted on ,2006. 41 MEMORANDUM DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Ken Roberts and Shann Finwall, Planners Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board Duties June 29, 2006 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION The planning commission (PC) and community design review board (CDRB) recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB. Specifically, it was pointed out that there should be clarification as to which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2006, the PC had a discussion about the responsibilities and duties of the PC and CDRB (Attachment 1). The PC asked staff to put together more information about the duties and responsibilities of the two groups. On June 7, 2006, the PC reviewed the city ordinances which guide the PC and CDRB (Attachment 2). Based on the ordinances and past experience with development proposals it was determined that there are areas of development requests which impact both group's decision making process. The PC requested that the item go to the CDRB for comment On June 27, 2006, the CDRB reviewed and discussed this subject. They indicated that they wanted to do an in-depth review of the city's parking ordinance with the help and comments of the planning commission. They also agreed with staff that there sometimes is overlap in responsibilities and that is necessary and probably could be a good thing. Finally, they requested to have their chairperson, Linda Olson, attend a planning commission meeting to discuss this topic with the planning commission. DISCUSSION Attached find the two city ordinances that have the duties and responsibilities of the PC (Section 2-252) and those of the CDRB (Section 2-286). These ordinances do not give detailed information about which development items or matters each group should be reviewing, but rather guidelines. Both groups are advisory boards to the city council. In general, the PC deals with all land use request such as comprehensive land use plan changes, rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, etc.; and the CDRB deals with all of the exterior improvements of commercial or multi-family housing and some variances. Some of the exterior improvements on a development may affect how the PC views a land use request such as reviewing a rezoning request from residential to commercial which is adjacent other residential properties. The PC may be more supportive of the 1 rezoning knowing that there is adequate screening from the new business to the existing residential. The PC identified the following items as those that are most often looked at by both groups: 1. Parking (including the size of spaces and parking lot layout) 2. Screening 3. Lighting 4. Landscaping 5. Rain Water Gardens 6. Site Grading and Drainage (induding impervious surfaces) Most of these items would be addressed as part of design review conditions of approval. However, there are instances when these items could be induded as a condition of a conditional use permit or variance. SUMMARY The question for the city to decide is whether the city needs to clarify which group (if not both) should review and comment on these and on other similar items. It is staff's opinion that there are times when the PC may want to review items which the CDRB would make recommendations on such as screening for a conditional use permit. In these instances staff would bring the pc's comments and concerns to the CDRB for consideration in their recommendations. It would not be appropriate, however, for the CDRB to make comment or recommendation on the overall land use request, but rather on the improvements made on that land. In regard to ordinance changes, there may be an instance where both groups feel a need for a change to a particular ordinance. This is the case with the city's parking ordinance. Both groups mentioned this as an area to address since the city had received many requests for reductions in the size and number of parking stalls. In this instance it would be beneficial for the city council to receive comment and recommendation from both groups, since both groups review the parking ordinance with development proposals. Other examples of ordinance changes such as the sign code changes proposed by the CORB or the noise ordinance changes proposed by the PC would not need additional review by the other group, as these are dear areas of review by one group or another. RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction as to any changes the planning commission wants to see with the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CORB as to the review of proposed development plans or ordinances changes. p:com_dvpt\community design review board\pc and cdrb duties - 2006 Attachments: 1. April 17, 2006 PC Minutes 2. June 7, 2006 PC Minutes 3. Division 4 of City Code (PC) 4. Division 5 of Cny Code (CDRB) 2 Attachment 1 Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -22- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS PC/CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting Date Mr. Roberts said there has been discussion regarding the responsibilities and duties of the Planning Commission and the Community Design Review Board and the overlaps. The most common item that has come up is the parking ordinance. Who should review those things and who should comment on them? Should we leave things as they are? Do you want both Chairs to meet and report to the commission and board on the decision? Commissioner Pearson said one thing he would like staff to provide in the packet is if the proposal had been reviewed by the CDRB or not or if it doesn't need to be reviewed by the CDRB. If it doesn't need to go to the CDRB then certain items should be brought up by the planning commission for discussion before it goes to the city council. Commissioner Trippler said he has had this discussion with the CDRB Chairperson Linda Olson. It may be good for staff to put together a list of things that are discussed at both meetings such as parking lots and then decide how many things clearly fall under the CDRB or under the realm of the PC. Commissioner Pearson said the PC finds themselves discussing things like screening, lighting etc. and those are really items for the CDRB. Years ago the PC used to discuss the location and screening of the mechanical equipment on rooftops and now the CDRB covers that in their review. Chairperson Fischer said in the past the city had the pleasure of having Matt Ledvina on both the PC and the CDRB so the PC could get a report on items that were discussed and covered by the CDRB. That was a rare situation to be in. Now with people's time commitments it's too difficult to serve on two boards or commissions. Commissioner Grover said he would be interested in rainwater gardens. Commissioner Dierich said she would like to know more about roof heights, grading surfaces, and impervious surfaces. The PC decided staff should compile a list of things the PC has concerns about. Then Mr. Roberts would check with Ms. Finwall to see if she could bring this item up at one of the CDRB meetings. Then the PC and the CDRB can decide if a meeting is needed or if the chairpersons should meet to discuss the overlapping of certain items that get discussed at the meetings. Then the chairs from each group can bring the discussion back to the respectable groups. This would alleviate the need for a joint meeting or having to make sure there is a quorum. Then city staff would decide what the next step would be. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Attachment 2 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7,2006 VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning Commission and CDRB Duties Mr. Roberts said the planning commission recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the planning commission and the community design review board. Mr. Roberts said specifically, the PC thought it important to clarify which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site- related development improvements. On April 17, 2006, the planning commission had a discussion about the responsibilities and duties of the planning commission and CDRB. The PC asked staff to put together more information about the duties and responsibilities of the two groups. The planning commission identified the following items as those that are most often looked at by both groups: Parking (size of spaces and parking lot layout) Screening Lighting Landscaping Rain Water Gardens Site Grading and Drainage (including impervious surfaces) The question for the city to decide is whether the city needs to clarify which group (if not both) should review and comment on these and on other similar items. Commissioner Trippler said he read in the staff report a statute that states the CDRB has the right to make recommendations to the planning commission regarding certain items. But what about the planning commission making recommendations to the CDRB? Mr. Roberts said he read that as an overlay district of a neighborhood where there may be a different set of design criteria for a geographical area such as the Hillcrest or Gladstone area where there is a special set of criteria that is laid out for a specific area. Commissioner Trippler said he believes that is a correct interpretation but that it goes beyond that. There is still the issue regarding should the CDRB be considering the item or should the PC be considering the item. If the PC can clearly understand what items the CDRB should be reviewing so the PC doesn't have to review them that would be helpful and could eliminate the overlap of reviewing it twice. Mr. Roberts said if staff writes the report so all the CDRB and PC conditions are included in the report then everyone knows what will be reviewed by the commission or board. This could be very helpful but the commission members or board members would have to make sure to read through all of the recommendations. The PC could point things out to the CDRB as well as an additional means of checking things. Staff feels the PC is generally outspoken enough that they would bring something to staffs attention if they felt something needed to be reviewed closely. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -2- Commissioner Trippler said the Environmental Committee which he serves on is looking at making some changes to the ordinances regarding wetlands, tree ordinances and other things so when those kinds of ordinances are changed the plan would be to come before the PC and CDRB and present the changes in the ordinance. Commissioner Dierich said she was struck by how detailed the CDRB responsibilities were on pages 4-12 in the staff report because the PC which has 9 members lists responsibilities on pages 4-6 and the CDRB which has 6 members lists responsibilities on pages 7-12. Commissioner Dierich said she has brought this issue up for 3 years now regarding what should be included and what needs to be reviewed and by whom and she really liked Sec. 2-288. She would really like to see the city be more detail oriented because the more eyes that look at things, the better. Each board or commission member looks at things with a different eye so to speak than another group does. Commissioner Hess asked if there was ever a time that both the PC and the CDRB review an item at the same time? He also asked when and how often the CDRB meets? Mr. Roberts said depending on the calendar, the CDRB meets the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month so basically the CDRB meets 1 week after the PC reviews a proposal. The one thing that drives proposals and projects is the 60 day clock which by state law says you are required to have a project through to the city council within 60 days of receiving a complete application. If it's a project like Carver Crossing of Maplewood the normal process would be it would go to the PC, to the CDRB and then to the City Council, which would be 3 weeks after being heard by the PC. He said staff tries to get the staff report done for the PC including the CDRB conditions or recommendations for the PC to read through. Staff would say 90% of the projects follow this timeline. Occasionally a project may be heard by the CDRB first and then be heard by the PC and then by the city council. In a case like that staff tries to have the completed staff report ready but depending on the timing of the meeting the minutes may not be done in time to get them included in the staff report. However, staff could report to the CDRB or PC what was discussed at the meetings. The city council would have the minutes from each of the meetings and the staff reports to refer to in order to make the final decision. The planning commission decided staff should take this matter to the CDRB for their comments. Attachment 3 ~ 2-246 MAPLEWOOD CODE DMSION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION" Sec. 2-246. Established. The city council establishes for the city a planning commission as an advisory board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. ~~ 462.351-462.364. (Code 1982, ~ 25-17) Sec. 2-247. Advisory body; exceptions. All actions of the advisory planning commission shall be in the nature of recommendations to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority about any matters, except as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it. (Code 1982, ~ 25.18) State law reference-City planning agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.354, subd. 1. Sec. 2-248. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms. (a) The planning commission shall have nine members appointed by the city council. The members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public office. When possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents. (b) The city council shall appoint members of the planning commission for three-year terms. The city shall divide the membership into three groups of three members each. The terms of the three members in the same group shall end in the same year. If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the unexpired part ofthe vacated terms. All terms shall expire on December 31 of the year in which the appointment ends. (Code 1982, ~ 25.19) Sec. 2-249. Cbairperson and vice-chairperson. The planning commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second planning commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the vice-chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the planning commission can hold an election for new officers. (Code 1982, ~ 25-20) *State law references-Municipal planning, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.351 et seq.; city planning agency, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.354, subd. 1; metropolitan government, Minn. Stats. ch. 473; Ramsey County included within "metropolitan area" over which "metropolitan council" has jurisdiction, Minn. Stats. ~ 473.121, subds. 2, 3; metropolitan land use planning, Minn. Stats. ~ 473.851 et seq. CD2:16 ADMINISTRATION ~ 2-252 Sec. 2-250. Vacancies. (a) Any of the following may cause the office of a planning commissioner to become vacated: (1) Death or removal from the city. (2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend four meetings in any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the council. (3) Resignation in writing. (4) Taking public office in the city. (b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term. (Code 1982, ~ 25-21) Sec. 2-251. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The planning commission shall elect its own officers, establish meeting times, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. (b) All meetings of the planning commission shall be open to the public. (Code 1982, ~ 25-22) Sec. 2-252. Duties and responsibilities. The planning commission shall have the duty to: (1) Prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan of development for the city. (2) Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the city council about the adoption of the city comprehensive plan and any amendments thereto. The comprehensive plan certified and adopted by the city council shall be recognized as the city's official comprehensive plan. (3) Study and make recommendations to the city council about implementing the comprehensive plan and any land use regulations. (4) Study and make recommendations to the city council about zoning code amendments. (5) Review, prepare and make a report to the city council by the second city council meeting in February of each year regarding the commission's activities in the past year and major projects for the new year. (6) Maintain a liaison and coordination with government and private agencies so that the city council may be familiar with the planning activities of such agencies in order to establish an order of planning and development unity for the city. (7) Review and recommend, on or before June 30 of each year, a capital improvements program to the city council, which is designed to accomplish the comprehensive plan for the city. CD2:17 ~ 2-252 MAPLEWOOD CODE (8) Review and make recommendations to the city council on development applications, such as rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, vacations, preliminary plats and home occupation licenses. (9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city council, including conducting hearings. (Code 1982, ~ 25-23) Sec. 2-253. Compensation; expenses. All members of the planning commission shall serve without compensation. However, approved expenses of the planning commission shall be paid from available city funds. (Code 1982, ~ 25-24) Sec. 2-254. Responsibilities of community development director. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the planning commission and its chairperson, the community development director shall: (1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission. (2) Send out all required notices. (3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission. (4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings. (5) Keep all required records and files. (6) Maintain the files and indexes of the commission. (Code 1982, ~ 25-25) Sec. 2-255. Duties of city engineer, city attorney, city inspectors and other city employees. (a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the planning commission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission. (b) All city inspectors and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate with the planning commission and make themselves available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982, ~ 25-26) Sees. 2-256-2-280. Reserved. CD2:18 Attachment 4 ADMINISTRATION S 2283 DIVISION 5. COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Sec. 2-281. Established; objectives. The city council does hereby establish a community design review board in order to: (1) Encourage the orderly and harmonious growth of the city. (2) Provide foi the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the city. (3) Maintain the public health, safety and general welfare. (4) Maintain property and improvement values throughout the city. (5) Encourage the physical development of the city as intended by the city comprehensive municipal plan. (Code 1982, S 25-61) Sec. 2.282. Purposes of division. It is the purpose of this division to: (1) Recognize the interdependence ofland values and aesthetics and provide a method by which the city may implement this interdependence to its benefit. (2) Encourage the development of private and public property in harmony with the desired character of the city and in conformance with the guidelines provided in this division with due regard to the public and private interests involved. (3) Foster attainment of those sections of the city's comprehensive municipal plan which specifically refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of this city and its harmonious development, through encouraging private and public interests to assist in the implementation process. (4) Ensure that the public benefits derived from the expenditure of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets, public structures and spaces shall be protected by the exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of buildings and open spaces to include street landscaping, median strips, parks, etc. (Code 1982, S 25-62) Sec. 2-283. Membership. (a) The community design review board shall consist of five members. The city council shall appoint all members of the board. Each appointment shall be for a two-year term. (b) Council-appointed members shall be as follows: (1) 1\\'0 architects shall be appointed, if available to serve. (2) 1\\'0 members shall be from a related design or construction field, i.e., landscape architects, interior designers, planners, civil engineers, contractors, appraisers, real- tors, etc. CD2:19 ~ 2-283 MAPLEWOOD CODE (3) All of the members appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(I) or (2) ofthis section shall, if applicable, be registered and licensed to practice in the state. (4) At least two members of the community design review board shall be citizen laypersons. (c) All members shall be able to read and interpret architectural drawings and to judge the effect of a proposed building, structure or sign upon the surrounding community. (d) The director of community development shall serve as secretary of the board and shall have no voting status. (Code 1982, ~ 25-63) Sec. 2-284. Officers; quorum; changes to rules of procedure. (a) Chairperson, vice-chairperson. At every second meeting in January, the community design review board shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. (b) Quorum. At least three members of the board must be present at the meeting to constitute a quorum. (c) Changes to rules of procedure. Any changes to the rules of procedure shall be submitted to the city council for approval. (Code 1982, ~ 25-64) Sec. 2-285. Approval of plans. (a) The city shall not issue a building permit for minor construction plans unless the director of community development approves the plans. The director shall also review plans for single dwellings, where required by this Code. The city council shall define minor construction by dollar valuations set by resolution. Before approving the plans, the director must determine that the plans meet all city ordinances and policies, including the design standards in section 2-290(b). The director may send any minor construction plan to the community design review board. The director shall send a copy of all approved plans to the city council. For setback changes, the director shall also send a written notice and plan to the adjacent property owners. This notice shall advise the owners of their right to appeal the director's decisions. (b) Only a city councilmember, community design review board member or an applicant may appeal the director's decision about a minor construction project. Only a city councilmember, an applicant or an adjacent property owner may appeal the director's decision about a single dwelling. The director shall send an appeal about a single dwelling to the city council. The director shall notif'y the applicant and the adjacent property owners of the meeting. The affected parties may waive their right to an appeal by informing the director of community development. An appeal must be received by the director of community development within 15 days after the director sends a copy of the approved plan to the city council. The director shall send an appeal of a minor construction project to the community design review board. The board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days after the board's decision. CD2:20 ADMINISTRATION ~ 2-287 (c) The city shall not issue a building permit for a major construction project unless the community design review board approves the plans. Major construction includes projects not defined as minor construction, but does not include single dwellings. The board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days after the board's decision. However, no person shall revise a plan that the city council originally approved without its approval. Cd) This section shall not apply to interior construction, repair, maintenance, underground tanks, administrative variances or the same-style replacement of building parts, such as a new roof, door or windows. See article VI of chapter 44 for administrative variance procedures. (Code 1982, ~ 25-65) Sec. 2-286. Duties and responsibilities generally. The duties and responsibilities of the community design review board shall be to: (1) Review all building plans, except proposals excluded from review under section 2.285. The board shall review sign applications as required in article III of chapter 44. (2) Approve, modifY, deny or table any matter it reviews. The board, however, shall not review interior designs. (3) Hold regularly scheduled meetings and advise an applicant of the date, time and place when the board will review the applicant's application. The staff shall notifY the property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's site of the meeting, unless the city council will hold a hearing on the applicant's project. (4) Make a decision based on a staff report, the findings required by this Code and the applicant's presentation. (5) Prepare a report to the city council by January 31 of each year outlining the board's actions and activities during the preceding year. The report may include recommended changes, including but not limited to ordinances and/or procedures. (Code 1982, ~ 25-66) Sec. 2-287. Determination of similar exterior design and appearance of homes on smaller lots. (a) The director of community development shall have the power to determine whether or not single-family dwellings on lots containing between 7,500 square feet and 9,999 square feet in R-2 zone lots are similar in exterior design and appearance. Appeals of the director's decision shall be made to the community design review board. (b) Dwellings on lots with less than 10,000 square feet in R-2 zones, having a similar exterior design and appearance, shall be located at least 500 feet from each other. CD2:21 ~ 2-287 MAPLEWOOD CODE (c) Dwellings shall be considered similar in exterior design and appearance if they have one or more of the following characteristics: (1) The same basic dimensions and floor plans are used without substantial differentia- tion of one or more exterior elevations. (2) The same basic dimensions and floor plans are used without substantial change in orientation of the houses on the lots. (3) The appearance and arrangement of the windows and other openings in the front elevation, including the appearance and arrangement of the porch or garage, are not substantially different from adjoining dwellings. (4) The type and kind of materials used in the front elevation are substantially the same in design and appearance as adjoining dwellings. (Code 1982, ~ 25-67) Sec. 2-288. Applications for review; required documents and information. All persons required to submit building or remodeling plans under this division shall submit a community design review board application form and the following written materials, as applicable to the specific project and in sufficient quantities as determined by the board, to the community design review board: (1) A design development plan of the entire project showing the following: a. A dimensioned site plan. b. A roof plan of all buildings. c. The locations of all existing trees and structures on the project site. d. The locations and dimensions of all streets, alleys and highways, both adjacent to and within the project site area. e. The locations of all off-street parking and loading facilities and areas. f. The locations of points of entry and exit for all vehicular and internal circulation patterns. g. The locations of all walls and fences. h. The locations of all exterior lighting standards. A detailed photometric plan shall be submitted as required by the outdoor lighting requirements in section 44-20. i. The grading and slopes, where these affect the relationship of the buildings on the project site and surrounding buildings adjacent to the project. (2) Dimensioned architectural drawings which show the following: a. An entire plan drawn to scale. b. Elevations, including all sides of the proposed project buildings or structures, including materials and colors. CD2:22 ADMIJ\fSTRATION ~ 2-290 c. Perspectives, models or other suitable graphic materials, at the option of the unard. (3) Preliminary landscape plans designating all areas to be landscaped, with an indication of both types of materials and their elevations. (4) Site photographs, at the option of the board. (Code 1982, ~ 25-68; Ord. No. 826, ~ 3, 4-8-2002) Sec. 2-289. Staff duties. The community development department staff shall process and review all community design review board applications and shall act as professional advisors to the board. Other staff members of the city may provide advice to the board, depending upon the complexity of the subject and the need for specific expertise. (Code 1982, ~ 25-69) Sec. 2.290. Review of application; required findings for recommended approval. (a) The community design review board shall review the written materials submitted with the application under section 2-288 with respect to the following aspects of the proposal: (1) General site utilization. (2) General architectural considerations, including a review of the following: a. The height, bulk and area of all bnildings on the site. b. The colors and materials to be used. c. The physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structure with existing and proposed structures in the area. d. The site, layout, orientation and location of all buildings and structures and their relationship with open areas and the topography. e. Height, materials, colors and variations in boundary walls, fences or screen plantings. f. Appropriateness of sign design, where provided by article III of chapter 44, and exterior lighting. (3) General landscaping considerations. (4) Graphics to be used. (b) To recommend approval of an application, the board shall make the following findings: (1) The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighbor- ing, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed develop- ments; and it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. CD2:23 ~ 2-290 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) The design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this division and the city comprehensive municipal plan. (3) The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. (1) (2) (c) The board, in its recommended actions for approval, may: Recommend any conditions that it deems reasonable to its action of approval. Recommend that the applicant, as a condition, provide gnarantees that the conditions of approval will be complied with. (Code 1982, ~ 25-70) Sec. 2-291. Recommendations for establishment of special community design re- view areas. The community design review board may, from time to time at its discretion, recommend to the planning commission that certain special community design review areas, and that specific criteria to be considered in reviewing applications for development within such areas, be established. The planning commission shall review such recommendations and shall recom- mend approval, modification or denial of the applications to the city council. The city council shall take the final action on all such recommendations and may designate such areas by resolution. (Code 1982, ~ 25-71) Sec. 2-292. Criteria for final inspections and issuance of occupancy permits for developments. No final inspection shall be made or occupancy permit shall be granted as to any development reviewed by the community design review board pursuant to this division, unless the completed work complies with the plans approved and the conditions required by the city council pursuant to this division. (Code 1982, ~ 25-72) Sees. 2-293-2-345. Reserved. ARTICLE V. FINANCE. DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sees. 2-346-2-370. Heserved. *Cross reference-Any ordinance appropriating funds, lerying or imposing taxes or relating to an annual budget saved from repeal, S 1-19(a)(3). CD2:24