Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION TuesdaY. July 18, 2006, 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. 6:30 - Presentation - Tree Ordinance Amendment Update 5. Approval of Minutes a. July 6,2006 6. Public Hearings 7:00 Carpet Court (1685 Arcade Street (at Larpenteur Avenue)) Zoning Map Change - R-1 (single dwellings) to Be (business commercial) Building setback variance Public Vacation 7. New Business None 8. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations July 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer July 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover August 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood 11. Staff Presentations Annual Tour Update (July 31, 20(6) 12. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 6:30 for the tree ordinance presentation and the regular planning commission meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Cornrnissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Cornrnissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Staff Present: Present at 7:00 Present Present Present at 7:00 Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Steven Kummer, Civil Engineer II Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson rnoved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Grover seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood IV. Tree Ordinance Amendment Update Presentation (6:40 -7:10 p.m.) The city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004. The environmental cornmittee was created to exarnine and deal with environmental issues within the city. An area of particular concern with the city council was the examination of the city's existing environmental ordinances by the environmental committee. On July 10,2006, the tree task force finalized a draft tree ordinance. This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney's office with oversight from the environmental committee. Mr. Dale Trippler said in addition to serving on the planning commission he is also the chair of the Environmental Committee. He said he is here to speak about the tree ordinance amendments. Mr. Trippler reviewed the draft information in the tree ordinance packet. He then introduced DuWayne Konewko to speak further on this subject. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -2- Mr. DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Manager, addressed the commission. He spoke about the Environmental Committee and why he is here this evening. Mr. Konewko said in addition to Environmental Committee member Dale Trippler some of the other committee members are presentthis evening including Jim Beardsley, Ann Hutchinson, Directorofthe Maplewood Nature Center, Hans Neve, and Mandy Musielewicz, City Forester for the City of Maplewood. Shann Finwall has also been working on the draft tree ordinance amendments. Following this presentation the Environmental Committee will be meeting in the Maplewood room with the other members of the Environmental Committee. Included in the packet of information are copies of the current code in Maplewood, the proposed code amendments, and a chart comparison by city regarding tree preservation ordinances for the city of Blaine, Eagan, Oakdale, St. Paul, Woodbury and White Bear Lake. He then turned the discussion over to Shann Finwall. Ms. Finwall said she has been working with the Environmental Committee on the tree ordinance. The committee is proposing to change the definition of a large tree. The city's current definition of a large tree is a tree with an 8-inch diameter tree excluding box elder, cottonwood, poplar and any other undesirable trees. The proposed ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as significant trees. A significant tree is a hardwood tree with a 6-inch diameter, softwood tree with a 12-inch diameter, conifer tree with an 8-inch diameter, and further defines a landmark/specimen tree as any tree with a diameter over 28 inches. No tree species is excluded from tree replacernent. Ms. Finwall reviewed the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance for the applicability, project inclusion and notification, woodlot definition, noncompliance, number of replacement trees, size of replacement trees, tree species and guarantee, and surety for replacement trees. Then a tree replacement comparison was done. One tree comparison was for the Comforts of Home site off of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street. A second comparison was for Maplewood Imports off Highway 36 on Highway 61. The proposed schedule is to present the draft tree ordinance to the community design review board for comment. Then the environmental committee will conduct public education on the draft ordinance. The public will be introduced to the draft ordinance through articles, mailings, and possibly an open house. Comments received will be reviewed by the environmental committee for possible changes to the draft ordinances. After all the comments have been received and reviewed by the Environmental Committee this will go to the city council for review. Staff estimates that this process could be accomplished by mid October. Ms. Finwall stated that with this proposed ordinance change there would be more staff time needed to review permits at the city as part of this process. Ms. Finwall then introduced Mandy, the City Forester. Ms. Mandy Musielewicz, City Forester, addressed the commission. Ms. Musielewicz said the Environmental Committee is working on the tree ordinance so it's a better tool for the community to capture the significance of the trees in the city. We are moving to a percentage calculation for tree replacement as an incentive to maintain additional trees. The more trees you maintain on a site the less you would have to replace. The Environmental Committee decided to go with tree diameter rather than a tree for a tree recognizing that larger trees are significant and take longer to grow compared to planting many small trees. Commissioner Dierich asked if you had a woodlot on your property and you decided they created too much shade and you didn't want the trees any more, is there a provision for replacing those trees? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -3- Ms. Musielewicz said if you clear your woodlot you cannot apply for a permit for 2 years or you have to replace the trees one tree for each tree removed but that would only apply if you were planning on building a structure. Chairperson Fischer asked what would happen if you had too much shade on your property and you wanted more sun on your property so you could grow a garden and wanted to clear trees out? Mr. Konewko said both the current and the proposed ordinance do not address that situation. The only other opportunity to address a situation like that would be through the application of permits. If a developer cleared a property there would be a two year moratorium on development of that property. Aerial photos would be taken of the property showing the significant trees that were on the site. If a developer received a conditional use permit one of the conditions would state that all the significant trees remaining on the property must stay in place. If they chose to cut down one of the trees listed on the permit that would make it out of compliance for the conditional use permit which comes up for review yearly. The city is trying to prevent developers from clearing a property and then coming to the city to apply for a permit after the fact. Commissioner Dierich asked how buckthorn is categorized in the city because there is a lot of it in Maplewood and it's a real nuisance. Ms. Musielewicz said buckthorn is not considered a tree and therefore is not in the tree ordinance. Buckthorn is considered a nuisance shrub. Mr. Konewko said the city has a program at the Maplewood Nature Center for removing buckthorn. If someone needs assistance identifying buckthorn the city can give assistance. Ann Hutchinson with the Maplewood Nature Center has more information on that. Commissioner Dierich asked what would happen in a development with a homeowners association and someone takes some trees down after the homes are built, is there anything to address that situation? Ms. Musielewicz said the ordinance does not address a homeowners association and homeowners taking trees down after the development is complete. Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks there is a piece of the puzzle missing. If you are going to add a significant addition to your home and it's on a heavily wooded lot the place where you want to build the addition would probably be in the wooded part of the lot. Say you are going to build a house on a 100% heavily wooded lot, are you going to have to replace the trees that were displaced with the building of the house when in effect you would only be planting new trees in amongst existing trees to an impractical level above and beyond what nature would have. Is there a mechanism to take into account how many trees there are already on the property verses the trees removed? Commissioner Trippler said there are very few wooded lots in Maplewood that are 100% covered with woods. The final decision comes from the city council to grant a variance. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -4- Commissioner Yarwood said there are many lots in his neighborhood that are at least 2/3 heavily wooded so it's a concern. He is also concerned about someone being required to add trees to the sides and fronts of a property where it may be impractical. Commissioner Trippler said that is a situation the Environmental Committee can look at. Mr. Konewko said there is a provision in the ordinance requiring someone to pay a tree escrow for trees removed and that money would go into a tree fund. If that person decided they did not want to replace the trees the money would then be used for the city to plant trees elsewhere in the city. Commissioner Pearson said he has a problem with the tree formula as it applies to the two examples given for Comforts of Home and Maplewood Imports. Based on the footprint of the building and the parking for the Comforts of Home proposal that would mean the developer would have to replace 46 trees because of the 26 trees that would be removed from the site. With Maplewood Imports the developer would be penalized with this proposed ordinance for removing 135 large diameter trees and would be required to replace 288 srnall trees. You already lost the trees and there should be some adjustment in the formula so you don't end up having to replant 200 trees when the property is full already with a building and parking lot. He's just not sure that's fair to the developer. That tree escrow money could go to the city to invest in refurbishing another area in the city. Mr. Konewko said there has to be a plan in place to let developers know that if they remove trees from a site the city will require them to replace the trees. Commissioner Pearson said the formula you are working with for the city is a good idea but somewhere in there you need to fine tune things because with this formula you would end up having to plant an excessive nurnber of trees which could discourage development in Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson said he thinks it's a good rule to have one tree replaced for one tree removed. Mr. Konewko said the thought was when you remove a 36-inch diameter tree and replace it with a 2.5 inch diameter tree there is no balance there. This is something the committee can take a look at however. Commissioner Pearson asked what the rational was for putting a two year moratorium on a property if someone clears a site verses only a one year moratorium? Mr. Konewko said when the Environmental Committee conducted a workshop with the city council the council came up with the idea of a two year moratorium, the Environmental Committee wanted a moratorium somewhere between one and three years. Commissioner Pearson said he didn't think a developer would be dumb enough to clear a lot out but if they did, they should be significantly penalized. Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would make sense to have the plantable tree area calculated after the building is in place and then have a threshold that beyond this density does it make sense to plant more trees on the site? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -5- Commissioner Oierich said she thinks it's a good idea to take escrow money in lieu of planting trees. If sorneone doesn't want to replace the trees, she thinks it would be good to have in the ordinance that the money could be used to clean up existing areas of dead trees and other diseased trees that are spreading diseases to neighboring trees and improve other woodlots in the city as well. Chairperson Fischer said we want people to know we are counting healthy trees and not trees that are diseased or dead and should be removed from the site anyway. Mr. Konewko said that is correct. Commissioner Pearson asked if a developer built all the lots and a year later half of the trees that were planted are dead or dying because the association or homeowners failed to water or maintain the trees, what type of relief is there, what would the developer's responsibility or obligation be then? Mr. Konewko said typically the developer's responsibility is to care for the trees for 2 years after the tree is planted. Typically the city sees about 1/3 of those trees die which equals about a 30% replacement. After those trees were replaced the two year clock would start again as soon as those trees were replaced. Commissioner Hess asked if there was a provision regarding working with the developer up front regarding the location of trees on the site? Mr. Konewko said the goal is to be proactive and work with the developers up front. Prior to the issuance of the building permit the developer would be required to submit a tree plan to the city for review prior to removing any trees on the property which would also be reviewed by the city forester as well. Mr. Konewko thanked the planning commission for their time this evening. The Environmental Committee had to be excused to begin their meeting in the conference room. The comments would be typed up and passed along to the appropriate parties. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 6, 2006. Commissioner Desai moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 6, 2006. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Oesai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson Abstentions - Dierich, Yarwood The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -6- VI. PUBLIC HEARING Carpet Court (1685 Arcade Street at Larpenteur Avenue) (7:12-9:38 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blairwants to relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. On March 20, 2006, the planning commission reviewed a concept plan of Mr. Blair's revised development proposal which included the frontage road being vacated and combined as part of the property. The planning commission expressed concern over the amount of impervious surface and the location of the driveways. On March 28, 2006, the CDRB reviewed Mr. Blair's revised concept plans and expressed extreme concern over the style of building proposed at that location. The community design review board will review and make a recommendation at their meeting of July 25,2006, and the city council will review this proposal on August 14, 2006. Ms. Finwall distributed and read aloud a memo she received before the meeting today from MnDOT. She also shared comments from Commissioner Dale Tripplerwho was excused from the planning commission meeting to attend the Environmental Committee meeting. Commissioner Dierich asked if the driveway access is not approved would that disallow the proposal as it is proposed? Ms. Finwall said MnDOT has agreed to turn back the right of way without any conditions regarding the location of the driveway access. However, they encourage the city to require only one driveway access at this location. Mr. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Civil Engineer II, addressed the commission. He said there wouldn't be any MnDOT permitting authority when it comes to driveways off the road. They can recommend the spacing from the state highway. Chairperson Fischer said the county can take the recommendation but doesn't necessarily have to follow the recommendation. Ms. Finwall said the city doesn't have comments from the county regarding the location of the driveways. The city code requires at least a 30 foot setback from the intersection but the further the driveway entrance is from the intersection the better. Mr. Roberts said the city is not sure that section of Larpenteur Avenue is a county road. The county road may turn and go up Parkway Drive. If it is a county road in that location the county is obligated to provide each property with at least one access. The county tries to work with the city, state, and property owners but there is no guarantee. This information will have to be clarified. Planning Commission Minutes of 07 -18-06 -7- Commissioner Grover asked in terms of the access to the remaining portion of the service road it sounds like it will be a one way in but is there one way out? Ms. Finwall displayed a map of the proposed cul-de-sac. She said the proposed entrance and exit frorn the service road would be a right in and right out only for those two properties. She said Mr. Bacchus from Bacchus Homes is here tonight to discuss his viewpoint. Commissioner Hess said the site appears very narrow for trucks entering the warehouse area. That is a residential area and depending on what type of trucks drive into the site it may be a dangerous turn around situation. Chairperson Fischer asked if the engineering department had done any turning radius calculations for the site? Mr. Kummer said based on where the entry is located it appears the only way to get to the loading dock is if the truck backs off of Larpenteur Avenue. He said he hadn't done any turning radius calculations and he hadn't seen any hammerhead turnarounds on the site plan either. Commissioner Hess asked if staff knew what size truck would need to turn around on the site? Mr. Kummer said he didn't know the size of truck that would be accessing the site but didn't think the truck would be too large and he would think the only way the trucks would be able to get out of the site would be to back out onto Larpenteur Avenue, which is a dangerous situation with the traffic. Commissioner Hess was curious about the height of the side wall on the building elevations and if that was all metal siding. A large expanse of flat metal siding might not look very good without sorne other type of building exterior enhancements there. Ms. Finwall said the showroom portion of the building will have a shorter sidewall and the overall height to the top of the roof is 25 feet. Part of the building will have a stone wainscot and metal siding. These are issues that will be reviewed at the community design review board meeting on July 25, 2006. Commissioner Hess said the reason he brings it up is it appears the stone wainscot only extends to four feet above grade and he thinks it would dress things up to break the wall up with additional building materials. Commissioner Desai asked who would be responsible for the safety of the drivers in and out of the site if two driveway entrances were allowed? Ms. Finwall said it's the city's responsibility to look at the safety of the site during the planning phase and the city would hope Mr. Blair would take the safety of the site into account during and after the planning phase. Commissioner Desai said he also noticed two dock doors on the site, one is 12 X 14 and the other is 9 X 10 and he wondered what the purpose was for that. The 9 X 10 dock door is in line with where the customers would be parking and he asked what the purpose of that dock door was. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -8- Commissioner Desai said he is concerned about safety and asked if the trucks would make deliveries to the dock door. Ms. Finwall said the applicant would have to answer that question. Commissioner Dierich said she didn't notice any place in the staff report to vote the proposal down. There are the three recomrnendations for the rezoning, vacation of a public right-of-way and the building setback variance but nothing regarding voting the proposal down. She asked if this proposal would come back to the planning commission when things were further along? Ms. Finwall said this is a permitted use within this zoning district so it doesn't require a conditional use permit. There are several opportunities to make amendments in the conditions of approval. You could for example approve the vacation of the right of way on the condition that there is only one driveway. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB will look at the site plan layout and then it will go to the city council who will approve or deny the overall project which requires four votes since this is rezoning of residential property to commercial property so it will be important for Carpet Court to have all the issues resolved before it goes onto the city council. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Robert Blair, representing Carpet Court, residing at 9040 Grey Cloud Trail, addressed the commission. He said the staff did a nice job with the presentation. He then had a video presentation run forthe proposed building for Carpet Court. (The video presentation is shown on the video tape of the planning commission meeting but was not transcribed for the minutes.) Mr. Robert Blair said this is really two properties here and we have the right to have a driveway entrance for each property. We have tried several different options to have a turnaround but it hasn't been feasible and would require two rnuch land coverage. If a large truck drove onto the parking lot the asphalt would not support a heavy truck and the weight could put indentions in the parking lot. However, the majority of trucks that would visit the site would be smaller city trucks. Most carpet stores have warehouse space and the trucks go to the warehouse to pick up the carpet orders and then they drive the carpet to the store docks. We don't have many semi-trucks making deliveries, maybe only two to three a year. The reason for the two dock doors is that one of the docks is for customer pick up and the larger dock is for truck deliveries. Porous pavement is very costly and they would not want to damage it by installing it in front of the main dock door. Commissioner Hess asked what type of building exterior they would have? Mr. Robert Blair said the front section is stucco, the siding is steel which costs about the same as vinyl siding but performs better. Commissioner Yarwood asked what the estimated size of trucks would be that would access the property? Mr. Robert Blair said usually it's their delivery truck which is about 20 to 25 feet in length. The truck primarily loads the materials for the installers for the week which is done once a week. There may be times someone has to pick up materials at the last minute. There may be shipments that come from out of town which may be three times a year for things like padding. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -9- Mr. Robert Blair said one of the reasons they designed the building the way they did is if a semi did drive in it would be hidden frorn the front side of the building where the customers come in. There are trees that would hide the residential side. We are trying to keep the neighbors happy which is a critical concern. At the same time, this building will increase the value of the neighborhood; it will increase the value of the homes. Carpet Court is in the decorating field and we are not trying to design a shabby looking building. We want the customers impressed with the building and feel comfortable enough to want to come back. If Carpet Court created a store that looked like a barn, nobody would come to the store. Commissioner Yarwood said he is trying to estimate how many times a truck would be backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue because that seems like a very unsafe situation. Mr. Robert Blair said once a week a city truck would pickup carpeting and supplies and three times a year a semi would come to the store for large deliveries. Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would be reasonable to have a hammerhead turn around on the site which would make for a safer situation for the trucks that need to turn around? Mr. Robert Blair said if they did have that turn around it would cover the entire western portion of the property and would probably require a variance. Commissioner Yarwood said he would be willing to grant a variance for a hammerhead turn around to eliminate trucks backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue. He wondered how large the hammerhead turn around would have to be to accommodate the trucks turning around? Mr. Gary Blair, Carpet Court, 1769 Rainey, addressed the commission. He said they did have extensive engineering done. By doing that the variance would not allow that because it took up too much space for the land coverage and because of the zoning they have. Because of the amount of impervious surface it was not permissible. They have several drawings done by their architects that have a hammerhead turn around. The other thing was the setback, it would have been almost all asphalt by the time they would be done constructing it. Commissioner Dierich said there is a drawing showing a landscaped area on the Larpenteur Avenue side between the two driveways and she is concerned about the turn around for the trucks and for the two driveways. She said she doesn't buy the argument that this is two properties and should both have their own driveway because this is going to be combined into one piece of land when it's turned into business commercial property (BC) from single dwelling residential (R-1) so you get one driveway. Mr. Robert Blair said that is only one aspect of it though. Commissioner Dierich asked if they had thought about making the impervious surface driveway and then connecting the impervious surface into the other parking lot without having the entrance near Highway 61. She has a hard time approving this due to the safety concerns and the issue of the turning radius for the trucks. She applauds Carpet Court for putting in the pervious surface. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -10- Mr. Robert Blair said he can understand her concerns regarding the turn around. If we did something like that it would probably only be 18 feet orthe distance of a parking space. The small straight line trucks would be able to turn around but the semi trucks would still have to back out onto Larpenteur Avenue and only come three times a year. If that would help the commission rnove this plan forward they would be willing to do that. Commissioner Yarwood asked what city staff thought of that? Ms. Finwall said the hammer head would need to maintain a 20-foot setback to the westerly property line so it looks like a possibility. She showed some other options on the overhead she received from MnDOT. Commissioner Pearson asked in the operation of the business do they store old flooring outside before it gets disposed of or is it removed and brought somewhere else? Mr. Robert Blair said Maplewood requires 100% opaque enclosures on dumpsters so they decided to have an area inside the building for a holding area before it gets recycled off site or brought to a landfill. Commissioner Desai asked how often the old flooring is picked up by a truck? Mr. Robert Blair said due to the cost a dump truck comes once a month and picks up the old flooring and brings it to a recycling center. There would also be a garbage truck picking garbage up once a week. Commissioner Desai asked what type of mechanical units they would have on this building and would there be any rooftop units? Mr. Robert Blair said yes they would have rooftop units. Commissioner Desai asked if the rooftop units would be screened, he is concerned about them being an eyesore? Mr. Robert Blair said some of the units may be visible but for the most part they hope to have the rooftop units hidden. Also, he stated he is aware that the 60-foot setback to the Highway 61 intersection for the easterly driveway is a concern for the planning commission. He and Gary Blair took out a measuring tape and measured out 60 feet so the planning commission could see how far 60 feet from the intersection would be. He said if they didn't own that second lot nothing could be developed on the first lot if the city required a greater setback for the driveway. If this proposal does not go through, maybe that's the case that nothing gets built there. Mr. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he has owned this property for seven years and prior to that the property has been in his family for over 50 years. His only communication with representatives of Carpet Court was about five years ago when they contacted him to see if it would be okay with Carpet Court storing some equipment on the property. However, there ended up being more than just some equipment stored on the property. He wants to have a neighbor on the property so they don't have to look at weeds and an overgrown property. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -11- Mr. Bacchus said he has three full time employees. Bacchus Homes is in the home building and remodeling business and they like their location. Carpet Court was looking to build a new building so he let the condition of the property go at first but last year he finally called Shann Finwall and complained about the condition of the property because his employees and customers alike were complaining about the unsightliness of the property. There is debris, tall weeds and junk on the property. Ms. Finwall told him Carpet Court was slow getting their property cleaned up. Carpet Court finally did get rid of some old boats that were stored on the property for three years which was very frustrating to have to look at. The carpet rollers are still stored on the site all these years later and its overgrown with weeds. When he first spoke to Ms. Finwall he thought the service road vacation was an asset but after reanalyzing things he thought this could be a really long term project and the future cul-de-sac has no timeframe attached to it. Closing the frontage road is going to be an issue for his employees and forthe Palme family. If the new cul-de-sac were to go in next year it could benefit him but if it's in ten years that may be difficult for his employees and they would have to share the access with the Palmes. The Palmes have lived there for 65 years so removing this frontage street would be a hardship on them. Even if Carpet Court gets everything to work the impact on the vacation of the public right-of-way may be an issue on the resale of his property because it's zoned commercial. If a semi truck comes down the service road it makes sense to park the large truck there; therefore the service road is an asset to the property. Mr. Bacchus said Carpet Court did a nice job on the video presentation showing what the property would look like. He is concerned about the metal roof and how it's going to look. Is it going to look like a metal roof like what is at the City of Maplewood or is it going to look like a shed roof? Most carpet warehouses are located in a commercial park. The carpet company he uses is located in White Bear Lake which has a smaller building at 6,000 square feet and a much larger parking lot compared to the proposal Carpet Court has for a 7,848 square foot building. In looking at the variance for an impervious surface he doesn't see it as that big of an issue and is more beneficial than vacating the service road. Commissioner Grover said if the city voted to take that area of the service road and add it to Carpet Court's property that would leave Bacchus Homes and the homeowners with part of a service road. He asked if there was anyway that would work for you? Mr. Bacchus said they would be landlocked and there would only be the one entrance and exit. Yes that would affect them. The cul-de-sac sounds great and looks great with the comprehensive plan at first but if it takes ten or more years from now it doesn't seem so great anymore. There are a lot of unknowns still. When Bacchus Homes gives directions they give them off of Larpenteur Avenue because if they give directions off of Highway 61 people miss the turn because cars are driving so fast. It's a very bad spot to pull your car out because of the speed of the traffic. Mr. A. L. Brown, (representing the District 5 planning council for St. Paul which covers the area directly south of Larpenteur Avenue), residing at 693 Montana Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the commission. He said this is a project that is of significant importance. He chairs the Community Planning and Economic Development Committee which deals with zoning issues for the district. They have several concerns about this project. He said he takes issue with the concept that the solution to debris problems is to build a building there. The area should be cleaned up whether you are proposing to build something there or not. This area is a gateway to the St. Paul district. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -12- Mr. Brown said they are working very hard in the Payne and Phalen area to recreate a good irnage which is important to property values as well. The metal aspects of this building and the large rooftop units which will be visible coming off of Highway 61 and directly through St. Paul are concerns of theirs. But most importantly is the safety issue. He travels that way quite often and he cannot irnagine a safe way of backing trucks onto that street even if it is only a few times a year. Accidents can happen at any time and backing up is just an unsafe way. The traffic here is increasing and this is a narrow stretch of road to navigate especially the way the roads are cut up which only adds to the safety issues. These are issues of your neighbors in St. Paul regarding safety and the look of the property and the building. When someone asks for a variance, a variance is a step away from the rule. If there is a way to do this project within the rules that should be strongly encouraged. He or a member from his group will also attend the CDRB meeting to discuss the appearance of the building and the concerns they have. He has an issue with the boats that were stored on the property and the blue tarps covering the stored items. That's something people remember on the property and it's disheartening to see things stored on the property for that long. The Palmes, 1721 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This is a safety issue and he was happy the other planning commissioners addressed their concerns about the safety. If you are coming south on Highway 61 there should be a right hand turn lane. In the process of building highways now people are trying to eliminate traffic coming out onto the highway because of the safety issues. Mr. Pal me said Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue is the worst intersection in the world. There have been a few bad accidents on that corner and the safety is a real concern here. Regarding the trucks going out onto Larpenteur Avenue, the traffic is bumper to bumper on that road. Maplewood has never had to maintain the service road. It has always been MnDOT or Mr. Bacchus plowing it in the winter and sometimes they plow it. If you are talking about a future cul- de-sac, who is going to maintain the cul-de-sac? This is an inconvenience for thern as homeowners having their access cut off. This is a residential area and they would like to keep things residential. There are new homes built here and people should not have to look at a pole barn and have it look like an industrial area. This building proposal looks like a pole barn. The neighbors are against this proposal. The church is against it also. The weeds are terrible on the property. (They showed photos of the condition of the property to the planning commission). He said the things that were stored on the property must be rotten after sitting outside in the elements for that long. Ms. Amy Erickson, representing the group home at 785 Larpenteur Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This whole discussion is interesting to her because she was not aware of any ideas for a cul-de-sac here. She just wants everyone involved in this to be aware that the group home has a 28-foot-long school bus loading and unloading wheelchairs twice a day so the safety of trucks backing up on Larpenteur Avenue is a concern for them. Mr. Robert Blair said they are concerned about the neighbors in the area as well. The initial idea for the storage was to store the racking system with the anticipation that they would build a new building in 2000, unfortunately that didn't happen. He said this is a thick heavy metal racking system and it would take a lot of effort to move this racking system off the property. However, the racking system got there somehow so it probably could have been moved with a lot of effort. The intention was not to have the racking system there this long and the intention is not to keep it there now either. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -13- Mr. Robert Blair said we want to get the building erected and make the area look nice. We want to take care of the overgrown trees and tall weeds in the area and that is one of the reasons they want to build this building. He said they are aware the group home has buses loading and unloading and delivery trucks visiting the site. The buses and the delivery trucks would not be affected by the easterly driveways' 60-foot setback to the intersection. The driveway they might be affected by is the westerly driveway which will be over 150 feet from their property. Commissioner Pearson asked if over the last six years did the city put impediments in your way that would have kept you from keeping the property clean? Mr. Robert Blair said no. He said they could have mowed the property however they would have needed a special heavy duty mower to do that which they did not have. This would not be like mowing your grass at home; it would be like mowing brush. Before that time the county mowed the section of land they owned and the city ceased doing that. Mr. Bacchus said he wants a neighbor here. He is trying to work within the parameters that are there. He said if we can keep a service road there and make this building fit he can see the variance for an impervious surface. But to listen to Robert Blair talk about the condition of the property and the condition it was when they bought it frustrates him. Ashland Oil owned the property before Carpet Court did and Ashland Oil maintained the property. The Blair's have let the condition of this property go for too long. He said he was tempted to go over to Carpet Court and tell them if they don't take care of the property then he would because he is frustrated and tired of looking at it for so long in this poor condition. He has had customers and employees complain to him about the appearance of the Carpet Court property as well. Mr. Bacchus said his family has owned the property for over 50 years and to listen to Carpet Court explain why they left the property in the condition that it is in for over six years and that they didn't have the capability to clean up the storage on the site or maintain the weeds on the property is frustrating. Build a building that will fit into the neighborhood, improve the look of the area and everyone will be happy. His concern is that Carpet Court will start a building and leave it half done for whatever reason. Are we going to have these same maintenance issues down the road? He said he is just trying to be practical here. Mr. Palmes said this is not an industrial park, it is a residential area of Maplewood and he is proud of where he lives in Maplewood. Mr. Gary Blair said the concerns and questions of the neighbors are his concerns too. It is hard to change something that has been that way for a long time. When there are changes taking place in your life change can be difficult. We would be more than happy to put in a hammerhead turnaround there. He is concerned about the traffic turning in and out of the area as well. We are willing to cooperate and agree that this has been an unsightly area. You haven't seen all the stuff behind the scenes. We have had more than one set of plans done before MnDOT got involved and we were supposed to come before the city almost a year ago. MnDOT said the service road had to be turned back so the plan was not possible, so we had to go back to square one. In 2000 his mother took ill and it was impossible for him to do anything else. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -14- Commissioner Grover asked how wide the service road is? He is concerned about it as a one- way and wondered if it can handle traffic frorn both directions? Ms. Finwall said the service road is a two-way road. Commissioner Grover said as things stand right now he cannot vote for the vacation with the neighbors to the north not having access to Larpenteur Avenue. He would be more in favor of closing the north end of the service road at least to deal with the safety issue of vehicles onto Highway 61. Commissioner Hess said regarding the safety issues, closing the service road, and the possibility of a future cul-de-sac, it would be nice to see a drawing that showed all these improvements relative to the building so it would be easier to envision the site. Especially with the hammerhead idea that came about this evening. Commissioner Dierich agreed. She asked if the commission could table this proposal so the plans could be tweaked and this could be brought back? Ms. Finwall said Mr. Blair waived his 60-day rights last year when MnDOT was looking into this so Carpet Court is not on the 60 day clock except for the applicant's request to keep this proposal moving forward. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about the safety concerns and she doesn't like the idea of leaving elderly neighbors with no access. Commissioner Desai said the Blairs have done a good job trying to avoid as many variances as possible but the one key factor that is missing is the safety of the people around the area. We heard from Mr. Bacchus and the Palmes regarding their concerns of having access. He is concerned about the layout. Yes, Carpet Court owns the land and they have the right to develop it but the way things stand right now he is not willing to vote for this. The commission discussed the possibility of requiring a driveway on the north side of the parking lot for access onto the remaining portion of the service road. Mr. Roberts said he is concerned a driveway from the frontage road would take cars into what would now be parking spots so staff will have to check to see if the civil engineering lines up. Mr. Robert Blair said Carpet Court has an affidavit signed from the church that says Carpet Court can use six of their parking spots if they need to. In return the church asked if they could use Carpet Court's parking lot for overflow on Sunday's which works perfect because Carpet Court is closed on Sunday's so things work for everybody involved. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant has a problem with the planning commission tabling this proposal for a revised set of plans representing where the turnaround would be, the driveway entrance etc. Mr. Gary Blair said he really wants to keep the application moving forward and doesn't want to delay things. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -15- Mr. Gary Blair said they have plans to build at a certain time of year and they want to have this project moving forward, there have been enough delays already because they tried to build a building a few times already and would like an answer either way. Commissioner Dierich asked if the planning commission could take a 5 to 10 minute break to discuss things. The planning commission took a recess from 9:12 - 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Trippler recommended voting on each recommendation separately. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the rezoning resolution attachment 15 in the staff report. This resolution changes the city's zoning map from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC) for Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019). This change is based on the following: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and 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 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. f. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for the development of a retail/warehouse carpet store. Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the public vacation resolution attachment 16 of the staff report. This resolution authorizes the vacation of a public right-of-way to include a portion of the Highway 61 frontage road located on the east side of 1684 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way, 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. Vacation of the right-of-way is approved with the following conditions: (changes or additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must: 1 )Submit a 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement for approval by city staff. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -16- 2) Record the approved right-of-way easement with Ramsey County. 3) Submit a revised grading and drainage plan and landscape plan to be approved by staff showing the relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement. 4) Submit a revised site plan to be approved bv staff showinQ a drivewav connection from the north side of the parkin!:! lot to the unvacated part of the service road. 5) Submit a drivewav easement over the parkin!:! lot for in!:!ress and e!:!ress to be approved bv staff. 6) Record the approved drivewav easement with Ramsev Countv. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Dierich Commissioner Dierich voted nay because she has an issue with the two entrance/exits to the site and she wanted to include that in the motion. The motion passed. Commissioner Grover moved to adopt the building setback variance resolution attachment 17 in the staff report. This resolution authorizes a 42.5 foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line for a retail/warehouse carpet store (Carpet Court) to be located at 1684 Arcade Street. This variance is based on the following: a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50-foot setback. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as follows: c. The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. d. The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -17- a. The applicant submitting a screening and landscape plan which ensures an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood Nay - Trippler The reason Commissioner Trippler voted nay is because he can't justify such a large setback variance. He knows this is a difficult site but the applicant should have known that when he bought the property. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 14, 2006. Commissioner Yarwood would like to recommend that the CDRB look at the option of having a hammerhead turnaround on the site for the delivery trucks to maneuver around to try to keep as few trucks from backing up onto Larpenteur Avenue as possible. Commissioner Dierich would like to recommend that the CDRB look at the option of having only one entrance to the site and eliminating the second entrance/exit to the site. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. IX. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. X. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. The CUP revision for Liberty Classical Academy at 2696 Hazelwood Street was approved by the city council. The Legacy Village Townhomes at County Road D and Kennard Street forthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Revision and Preliminary Plat was denied by the city council because city councilmembers felt there was a market for office/cornmercial space at this present time and that the property should remain as is on the plan rather than having additional town homes. The soil boring report for the site was very poor as well. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-06 -18- Ms. Fischer said the 5-8 Club Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Change and the CUP revision, was approved with the condition that the fence move 7 feet in from the property line, and the continuation of the Carver Crossing EAW discussion was approved 3-2. b. Mr. Grover was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the July 24, 2006, city council meeting; however there are no planning commission items to discuss. c. Mr. Yarwood was to be the planning commission representative at the August 14, 2006, city council meeting, but he is unable to be present, therefore, Commissioner Hess volunteered to be the representative. The only planning commission item to discuss is Carpet Court, 1685 Arcade Street. XI. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Annual Tour Update (Monday, July 31,2006) Mr. Roberts asked for any additional inputforthe annual tour before he makes the final list of tour stops. XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.