The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/06/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 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. October 2, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Saint Paul Regional Water Services Sandy Lake Site (County Road B - West of I - 35E) Conditional Use Permit 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations October 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood October 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts November 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich November 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 11. Staff Presentations Reschedule December 4 Meeting - Tuesday December 5 or Wednesday December 6? 12. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 2,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:10 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 Staff Present: Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff added an item to the agenda under staff presentations to discuss rescheduling the December 4, 2006, planning commission meeting. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai. Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for September 6, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to page 7, second paragraph, seventh line, inserting a space between incompliance making it in compliance. Page 8, last paragraph, eighth line, correct There to Their. Page 14, fifth paragraph, second line, correct pour to pOQr. Page 15, second paragraph, fifth line, change square yards to cubic yards. Commissioner Pearson had a correction to page 15, fourth paragraph, first line; change Will Rossbach to Georqe Rossbach. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for September 6, 2006, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -2- Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Fischer V. PUBLIC HEARING (7:18 -7:29 p.m.) a. Legacy Town Houses (County Rd D - Kennard Street to Hazelwood) Preliminary Plat Mr. Roberts said the Hartford Group, the master developer of Legacy Village, is proposing to develop the final phase of town homes at Legacy Village. This proposal is for 91 town homes which would be located on the south side of County Road D between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets. The exception to this site is that the southwest corner of County Road D and Kennard Street will be developed later (possibly with an office building as required by the approved PUD) (planned unit development). On July 10,2006, the applicant had proposed a 119-unit townhouse development on this site that would have included the 1 Y:.-acre parcel at the southwest corner of County Road D and Kennard Street. This corner piece was intended to be developed with Executive Office Suites in the PUD. The applicant had requested a comprehensive plan amendment from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high-density residential) and also an amendment of the PUD to build the townhomes. The city council denied these requests because they preferred the office element of the PUD and felt that the developer should still try to develop this corner with office suites as approved in 2003. Chairperson Fischer had a correction to Michael Thompson's engineering report on page 21, item 8, correcting County Road B to D. Mr. Roberts said staff would have that corrected. Commissioner Yarwood said he read the neighbors comments and concerns in the staff report and asked why the neighbors were surprised that more development was going to take place in this area when development has been occurring since 2003? Mr. Roberts believed while the Goff townhomes were being built the new owners expected that the large evergreen trees and land would remain as they saw it across the street and maybe they didn't expect anything would be developed there. There has been a lot of building in this area since 2003 and maybe people didn't check with the city to see if any development was going to occur in this area and were surprised when they heard about this plan. Commissioner Hess said he noticed the comments in the staff report that people thought the wetlands that were on the original plan were not on the plan any longer and he asked staff to clarify that. Mr. Roberts said there is a large wetland that has always been there and will remain. There was a small wetland on the corner that was taken out with the reconstruction of County Road D and Southlawn Drive and was mitigated on the golf course property as part of the storm water plan for this development; otherwise the developer has followed the plan to a "T". Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -3- Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, addressed the commission. Mr. Janes had no questions for staff or for the planning commission. The planning commission did not have any questions for the applicant. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing up to the public. No one from the audience came forward to speak therefore, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Legacy Townhomes at Legacy Village, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city's engineering report dated September 19, 2006. 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 or parks director may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the staff may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item will be heard by the CDRB on October 10,2006, and by the City Council on October 23, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. South Maplewood Development Moratorium (7:29 - 8:28 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said on September 6, 2006, the planning commission adopted a motion asking the city to adopt a moratorium on development for the part of south Maplewood that is east of 1-494. The planning commission wanted staff to identify and investigate properties in south Maplewood that have land use and zoning designations that are inconsistent with each other. This report provides the planning commission with information about the R-1 (R) zoning district, with sewer and development issues in south Maplewood and with land use zoning maps of the area. The intent of the R-1 (R) zoning district, as adopted by the city council in 2003, reads: "Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the citv expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -4- To allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style, the city creates the R-1 (R) zoning district. This zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitarv sewer unlikelv. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single dwellings on large lots. Such low-density residential development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. The lots and parcels in the R-1 (R) zoning district are generally much larger than those in the R-1 (single dwelling) district and those with municipal sanitary sewer and water." In the ideal world, the land use designation and the zoning designation that the city places on each property would be the same or at least consistent with each other. This however, is not always possible. A primary reason that the designations the city gives to a property are not always the same is that the land use categories in the comprehensive plan are not the same as those the city has in the zoning code. Staff was asking the planning commission to determine if there is a need for a moratorium on development for the area of Maplewood south of Carver Avenue, east of 1-494. If the city wants to enact such a moratorium, the city will need to decide what issues they want staff to investigate during the moratorium. This could include the possibility that the land use and zoning designations for some properties are not consistent with each other (and that they city should make land use or zoning changes to make the designations consistent with each other). Commissioner Hess asked if the city council has made any decisions regarding which way they want to go with this area south of Carver Avenue and east of 1-494 in Maplewood? Mr. Roberts said there really haven't been any proposals for south Maplewood since 2003 so there isn't a basis to go on. Eventually this area will be developed with or without sewer systems. There are some differences between the zoning code and the comprehensive plan and this may lead the city to updating the comprehensive plan and this area could be focused on as part of that. Commissioner Trippler said he appreciates the fact that staff included the exact language in the city ordinance which defines R-1 (R) and underlined the things that indicate that R-1 (R) is tied to whether or not there is a sewer there or a likelihood of a sewer going in there. He focused in on the part of the ordinance that states Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors did not have or does not expect to have sanitary sewer or water service. To allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, resident/allife style, the city created the R-1(R) zoning district. He doesn't see anything in the ordinance that states if sewer is available this disqualifies the property as R-1 (R). It says if it doesn't expect sewer to be there or if its unlikely sewer would be available here. Commissioner Trippler said his position is even if there was sewer there it wouldn't disqualify a piece of property from being zoned R-1 (R). Mr. Roberts said he would agree. That is the position the Mayor and Councilmember Cave took with the proposal for Carver Crossing. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -5- Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks we have focused too much on the sanitary sewer aspect of this. The key sentence is to allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style. This definitely came up with the Carver Crossing proposal in that there is one outlet for this entire development and the effective density would be close to 4 units an acre in terms of developable land and it didn't seem to fit with the rest of south Maplewood. He thinks the R-1 (R) designation is there to protect a fairly unique area and aspect of south Maplewood. It's much bigger of an issue than just sewer, it's protecting something else. To him it's relatively simple; we should modify the comprehensive plan to match the zoning patterns and perhaps modifying the farm land to make that R-1 (R). We should place a moratorium there to make the comprehensive plan and zoning plan consistent. That way the city can't get tangled up in legal issues and have developers believe they could build something there they can't. Commissioner Hess asked if Woodbury were to develop their property on the west side and needed to run sewer through Maplewood because of the drainage issues, would Maplewood gain financial benefits from that even if Maplewood wasn't developing in that area? Mr. Roberts said that would only happen if it were a joint project between the two cities and typically there would be cost sharing between the two cities. Assessments and levying costs to the various parcels would be determined by acreage of number of lots. The only benefit would be to do it as one project rather than two or three smaller projects but there probably wouldn't be a direct benefit to Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson said as a commiSSion member involved in voting on the R-1 (R) designation there was a lot of discussion back then whether or not wells or septic systems would fail or would be failing in the future. His clear recollection is the commission voted for R-1 (R) to protect the nature of the area, the topography and semi-rural residential. He did not recollect that the R-1 (R) zoning would wash out sewer to that area. It was specifically to protect the character of the area. Chairperson Fischer said her memory was that we were going to go with the larger lot size without sewers with a future possibility of it having sewers. Commissioner Trippler said that's what he remembered as well. Staff had professors from the University of Minnesota and people from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to get feedback regarding what they thought the minimum lot size should be to adequately protect a sewer system as to not contaminate the wells. There was discussion regarding how we arrived at the 2 acre lot size as it related to what could adequately handle the soil conditions and topography in the area. He has always felt that one of the benefits in Maplewood is that there is a wide range of life styles that exist within the community. This is an area where there are a number of large lot sizes and this would be another mechanism to serve multiple purposes, not only the issue of sanitary sewer systems verses septic systems but also the large lot size. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't care if sewers were available here or not, he wanted the 2 acre minimum lot size. He asked if the way the current ordinance is written is confusing or misleading orwould it be beneficial to the city to change the language making it more concise? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -6- Mr. Roberts said staff doesn't think the language is confusing. The question for the city council is what do they want to emphasis? Does the city council feel strongly about keeping the strong semi-rural character and no sewer? Maybe some language should be added to strengthen the statement. Should the city change the comprehensive plan to make it more consistent as suggested by Commissioner Yarwood? Staff would contend that an R-1 designation in the comprehensive plan is consistent with R-1 (R) because they both say single dwellings. The land use is the same; it's a matter of how many units you put on the acreage. If the R-1 (R) category was added to the comprehensive plan and to the maps, that would strengthen the city's policy if the city council chooses to do that. Commissioner Yarwood said that is the key issue, you can build single family homes right on top of each other or you can space them a large distance apart which changes the nature of the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan apparently doesn't have anything less than an R-1 designation and the zoning needs an additional designation. Mr. Roberts said there is the estate designation. Commissioner Trippler asked staff how hard it is to amend the comprehensive plan? The city is scheduled to begin work updating the comprehensive plan for 2007. Does it make sense to go through the effort to update the comp plan now or should we wait and work on it as part of the total picture? Mr. Roberts said updating the comprehensive plan in general will be a lot of work. As staff we are struggling with how it will get done due to work loads and time constraints. Chairperson Fischer asked if staff anticipated the planning commission would work on the comprehensive plan during work sessions? Mr. Roberts said that would be part of the process. Changing the designation for 15-20 properties and sending the notices and mailings would be some work. The risk the city runs if they don't do a moratorium on an area in Maplewood is if the city were to get a development proposal for that area. This area of south Maplewood is in the area of MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) which is land that the Met Council expects will develop "with" sewer. Parts of Woodbury and Newport are outside of the MUSA where they don't expect to have sewer for 20 years plus. Because Maplewood is in the MUSA Chuck Ahl expects all this area will one day have sewer. The question is does the city want to deal with the situation now or let future commissions and/or city councilmember's deal with it later. The price of land is getting to be too valuable and it's inevitable there "will" be some type of development there. Commissioner Trippler asked when staff anticipated the planning commission needed to have the comprehensive plan updated for the Met Council? Mr. Roberts said it's his understanding that the comprehensive plan would need to be done by the end of 2008, which means adopted by the Met Council and would need to be there by the middle of 2008. Commissioner Trippler asked how long the city can put a moratorium on development in an area in Maplewood? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -7- Mr. Roberts said the moratorium can be for 1 year before being challenged by the legal system. If the moratorium would be for longer than 1 year you start risking a "taking". Commissioner Trippler said it sounds like we need to start modifying the comprehensive plan for this part of Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson asked if there was any problem making changes "peace meal" to the comprehensive plan or does that have to be done in mass? Mr. Roberts said to change the text from the comprehensive plan for R-1 to R-1 (R) from the Met Council perspective staff doesn't see a problem. However, the city will have to notify the property owners and have the hearings etc. first. Staff doesn't know how those property owners will like the rural designation. Commissioner Pearson said if the housekeeping part of it would have been done on that section of south Maplewood we wouldn't be looking at this proposal now. Mr. Roberts said staff mentioned that in the staff report. Ideally if we thought this was going to be an issue in 2003 when the R-1 (R) was added to the zoning code, we would have added an R- 1 (R) to the comprehensive plan and then updated the comprehensive plan maps and have that amendment already in place, but we didn't do that. In staff's defense we didn't see that R-1land use was that much different than R-1 (R) zoning, but there are those that would disagree with that. Chairperson Fischer asked if we are correct to assume there are no plans or anything in the talking stage for the Bailey Nursery site property? Mr. Roberts said correct. Mr. Roberts said if the commission wanted to take public testimony there are people here in the audience. Commissioner Trippler asked if this was a public hearing? Chairperson Fischer said no it isn't but if the commission would like we could hear public testimony, we can. Commissioner Yarwood said he would like to hear the public. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak? Mr. Ron Cockriel. 943 Century Avenue. Maplewood. addressed the commission. The consideration of a moratorium is an important thing. It affects developers, both current and future landowners and it affects how the city and residents view things. There was a moratorium in place 3 or 4 years ago south of Linwood Avenue. The assumption for a moratorium is that the city should come up with a plan first which appears to be what the commission is doing this evening. Three or four years ago the moratorium was put in place to study everything for development purposes such as soil conditions and sewer connection possibilities. When the moratorium was lifted the city should have had a plan in place. Now we are down to Carver Avenue and there are some discrepancies in the plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -8- Mr. Cockriel said as a result from having the moratorium a decision was made by the city council regarding how to treat the property. What should have occurred at that time is that the city should have updated the comprehensive plan. Ultimately, when developers come to the city wanting to develop a property in Maplewood they should have been informed regarding what is allowed with that parcel of land. He said he was at the last planning commission meeting and he remembered the conversation regarding what area the commission wanted to look at. He thought the commission decided anything that was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan was what the commission wanted to look at. Ultimately it all revolves around the R-1 (R) zoning. He believed both the east and west sides of the freeway should be looked at. The city council rejected the Carver Crossing proposal 3-2. It would be a strong message from the planning commission to recommend to the city council that a moratorium be put on this area or follow up on the unanimous vote turning down the Carver Crossing proposal on the grounds of land use. Too much focus has been on the sewer issue. It involves much more than just sewer. It is also to protect the character of the land and the area. This area falls within the freeway corridor and the Met Council wants to fill land up as much as possible close to the freeway. Ultimately, the Met Council has identified this property as regional significance for its critical habitat. This is a unique piece of property and we want to keep it that way. If a developer bought property and was not well informed regarding what can and can't be done on the land it could be a buyer beware situation. He recommends revisiting the language that set the direction three or four years ago regarding the land use over another moratorium south of Linwood in Maplewood. Ms. Carolvn Peterson. 1801 Gervais Avenue. Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said about 15 years ago there was a 10 member Open Space Commission appointed by the city council to evaluate the open space left in Maplewood. There were 66 open spaces of varying sizes that the group studied and the Carver Crossing property was one of the larger open spaces. It took 3 years to complete the study. It was done by a ranking system based on certain criteria. The Carver Crossing property was ranked number 7 at that time. One of the criteria used to judge this land was Vista and she hasn't heard anyone say anything about that property. The property would be number 1 on the list now. There has been discussion about the environmental value of the land, the topography, and the wildlife in the area, but she hasn't heard much about the bluff line which is very important in the Mississippi River Critical Area. This is a fly way for birds. It's a 73 mile long area on both sides of the Mississippi River and Maplewood has an area with a bluff line on it. If this land is left in its natural state you wouldn't have the fees for sewer connections, roads, utilities etc. Please keep in mind the historical and environmental value of this land when the city makes any decisions. Commissioner Pearson asked Carolyn Peterson if she knew out of the 66 open spaces how many of those remain undeveloped today? Ms. Peterson said other than the Carver Crossing land she didn't think she could name one piece of open space that is still open. Mr. Roberts asked Commissioner Pearson if he meant open space land that is still privately owned? Commissioner Pearson said yes, subtracting what was purchased for the open space. Mr. Roberts said the city owns some open space. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -9- Chairperson Fischer said she thought she remembered there was some open space that wasn't part of the study because owners indicated they didn't want their land to be considered. Ms. Peterson said yes. One of the open spaces was the Hajicek property which is now the Legacy Village Area. The Open Space Commission contacted every owner of the undeveloped space and some people said they weren't ready to sell and they didn't want their land included in the study. Mr. Roberts said one of the criteria for buying it was you had to have a "willing" seller. Ranking the open space is one thing but some of those prime spaces didn't have a willing seller and are developed today. Ms. Peterson said she just wanted to give the historical background of this property and other open spaces in Maplewood for the commission. Commissioner Trippler said Mr. Cockriel stated the city council rejected the Carver Crossing property at the city council meeting, is that a done deal now? Mr. Roberts said as far as staff knows it's a done deal. Mr. Cockriel had a point that there is R- 1 (R) zoning on that side of the freeway as well and if that is a question of consistency and inconstancy for the planning commission you may want to consider those properties on that side of the freeway for a moratorium. Commissioner Yarwood asked if we are going to include the properties on both the east and west side of the freeway what is the best way to identify those? Chairperson Fischer asked if we are looking at simple housekeeping of information or are we looking at recommending a moratorium? Commissioner Yarwood said he believes this needs a moratorium placed on it and the comprehensive plan modified. Commissioner Trippler agreed. Mr. Roberts said the map on page 16 of the staff report identifies the properties that have the land use and R-1 (R) inconsistencies not including the Carver Crossing property. If it's the wish of the planning commission to have a moratorium it would be for the area south of Carver Avenue east of 1-494 and including the properties that were proposed in the Carver Crossing project. Then the planning commission should provide direction to staff regarding what to do as far as the moratorium. Commissioner Yarwood moved to recommend to the city council a one year moratorium on development in Maplewood east of 1-494 and the properties considered as part of the Carver Crossing development to enable the city to make the comprehensive plan and zoning maps consistent with regard to R-1 (R), Farm and R-1 zoning. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -10- The motion passed. This item could go to the city council as early as Monday, October 23, 2006. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the September 11, 2006, city council meeting. Items discussed were the street right-of-way vacation for Century Avenue and New Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard and the Easement Vacation on Hillside Estates between Linwood Avenue and Springside Drive, which was passed by the city council. He also stated the Environmental Committee was elevated to full commission status. The Tree and Woodlands ordinance amendment was passed by the city council 4-1. b. Mr. Desai was the planning commission representative at the September 25,2006, city council meeting. Mr. Desai said the city council meeting ran too late on Monday, September 25,2006, and had to reconvene on Thursday, September 28, 2006, but he couldn't make it to the meeting that evening. Therefore, Mr. Roberts reported that after a four hour meeting for Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue & Henry Lane) the proposal was denied 3-2 by the city council. c. Mr. Yarwood was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the October 9, 2006, city council meeting however; there are no planning commission items to be discussed. d. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the October 23, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Legacy Town houses at County Road D and Kennard Street to Hazelwood and the South Maplewood Development Moratorium. e. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the November 13, 2006, city council meeting. It is unknown what items will be discussed at this time. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -11- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Rescheduling of Monday, December 4, 2006, planning commission meeting Mr. Roberts said the planning commission meeting scheduled for Monday, December4, 2006, will have to be rescheduled due to a taxation meeting that evening. When all the planning commissioners are present the commission will look at their calendars and decide what the best date is to reschedule the planning commission meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit-Sandy Lake Materials Storage and Recycling County Road B West of 1-35E November 1, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Blackstone, of the Sl. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS), is requesting that the city council allow the continued operation of a recycle-materials storage operation. Currently, the applicant is using this property, the Sandy Lake site, as a place to deposit dirt, concrete and bituminous rubble that accumulates after the SPRWS repairs water-main breaks. Mr. Blackstone has explained that they have been doing this already, but he would like approval to be allowed to periodically crush this material, or recycle it, for use later in restoring the ground after water-main breaks. The crushed materials would be stored on site in a row of concrete-walled bins which would hold sand, class-V gravel mix, other gravel, lime grit and cold asphalt mix. These bins would be the only items constructed on the site. The bins would measure 20 feet wide, 30 feet deep and six feet tall. Refer to the enclosed narrative and maps. In an email.Mr. Blackstone gave this additional background and project information: "The SPRWS is proposing to continue to use the site for storage and recycling of construction materials as we have been since the 1880s. Lime disposal began on the site in the 1930's. The proposed improvements to this site are minor and would not preclude converting the site to another use. The previously-proposed construction of soccer fields by the City of Saint Paul was abandoned because of the exorbitant cost of developing the site. SPRWS plans to remain on this site. We are currently investing $10,000,000 to uP9rade to granulated activated filters. Our conduits from Lake Vadnais are on this site. The site is currently being capped and native grasses will be planted on over two thirds of the open space. We don't anticipate increased generation of traffic. Construction activities including crushing will be conducted during normal business hours. Crushing would occur once every year or two. We do have approximately 150 main breaks per year. If a main break occurs at night or on the weekend, we need to restore residential water immediately to continue to serve residents." Request The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for this use since city code requires a CUP for any public utility, public service or public building use. BACKGROUND Spent-Lime Lagoon February 27, 1989: The city council approved a CUP for the St. Paul Water Utility to remove up to 130,000 cubic yards of spent lime per year over a five-year period. June 10, 1996: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion of the solids dewatering facility. August 11, 1997: The city council granted a CUP for the mining of the four dewatering lagoons to the north of Roselawn Avenue and west of the Jackson Street homes. This permit was to allow the water utility to remove lime from these four lagoons. One condition of this CUP was the submittal of a landscape plan for the area around these four lagoons. March 30, 1998: The city council approved the lagoon-landscape plan. December 1, 2001: The CUP for spent-lime lagoon had a "sunset" date which was December 1, 2001. That CUP, therefore, automatically ended. Sandy Lake Soccer Fields March 10, 2003: The city council approved a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS (open space) to P (park) and a CUP to allow the City of Sl. Paul to develop the Sandy Lake site with soccer fields. The city council moved to review this permit in two years. February 14, 2005: The city council reviewed this CUP and moved to review it again in one year. November 28, 2005: The city council terminated the CUP for the soccer fields since the City of Sl. Paul decided not to build them. Capping of Sandy Lake The applicant has stated that they are almost finished capping (covering with dirt and restoring with turf) the Sandy Lake site. This has been an ongoing hauling and spreading operation for several years. Mr. Blackstone said that they anticipate that the capping will be completed next fall. After the capping is completed, they will plant the site with native grasses. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit According to Mr. Blackstone, the SPRWS has operated this site as a storage site for materials and as a deposit site for spent lime off and on since the 1880s. It has been used in its current fashion since the early 1990s. The main reason for the applicant's request is to seek approval to crush/recycle the stockpiled materials for approximately a week each year. Potential Problems/Neiahbors' Concerns Traffic increase, noise, vibration and dust: The applicant does not foresee any increase in truck traffic during the normal day-to-day operation. For now, it will continue to be operated as it currently is with the exception of the proposed materials-crushing operation. One neighbor finds the site to be a nuisance already due to truck noise and vibration. Part of this problem is with backup beepers on trucks that are an annoyance. 2 Possible Remedies Mr. Blackstone stated that the best dust-control method is watering to keep dust down. He also said that the worst of the commotion will end when the site is capped off next fall. Staff looked at whether additional plantings around the perimeter of the site would be beneficial. The homes to the south already have an evergreen hedge behind their yards to screen this site. When the deciduous trees are leafed out in the spring and summer, the screening is better. Likewise, there is existing screening for the homes to the northwest. Of course, the summer months provide the best screening when trees are leafed out. Due to the existing trees and the distance from the homes for the proposed activity, staff is not recommending any additional trees. This is certainly something the planning commission and council could consider, however. One last idea considered by staff is the paving of the entrance driveway. Developed sites always need paved drives and parking lots according to ordinance. This site is not developed in the true sense, but should the entrance drive be paved nevertheless? The benefit of paving would be to help lessen dust and dirt that is tracked out onto County Road B. Staff sees some benefit in this as there is a certain amount of dirt tracked out onto the street. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal and has no significant public safety concerns. However, given the numerous neighborhood complaints that were received during the proposed soccer field proposal, he encourages 100 percent compliance with the sentence in Section 5 which states: "All SPRWS vehicles will be directed to enter the facility from the west (Rice Street)." Engineering Department Comments John DuCharme, with the city's engineering department, commented that dust would be a concern and the applicant should take steps to keep the dust down. The site should also be vegetated and care should be taken to control erosion and sediment from leaving the site. Capitol Region Watershed District Bob Fossum, of the Capitol Region Watershed District, commented on this proposal. Mr. Fossum said that the watershed district may not have a permitting requirement for this project, but they would like to review a more detailed plan to make that determination. Their biggest concern is that erosion and sediment be controlled so that it does not leave the site. One matter staff noticed while inspecting the site is that there are two areas that appear to have eroded from the intemal driveway on the east side of the site down to the adjacent pond. There was concrete rubble placed in these furrows to serve as riprap. Mr. Fossum stated that he would inspect these. 3 SUMMARY Staff is supportive of the continued storage of materials on this site. The SPRWS has a need to store dirt, concrete and asphalt debris resulting from their watermain repairs and this property is the most logical location. The impact of allowing the annual crushing/recycling operation is the only unknown at this time. Staff feels it is reasonable to allow this CUP for that purpose on a temporary basis. The city should evaluate the materials-recycling operation after the first time to see what, if any, problems may arise. Since the equipment is brought in to do the crushing once a year, staff does not see a problem with prohibiting the continued annual operation if nuisances occur. The SPRWS should provide a detailed plan to the city engineer and the Capitol Regions Watershed District to assure that all erosion and sediment will be contained on site. Staff also recommends that the SPRWS provide a paved driveway apron at the street to help prevent dirt from being tracked onto County Road B. This apron should extend 50 feet into the property from County Road B along both intemal driveways. The city engineer should approve the final design plan. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Sl. Paul Regional Water Services proposed material-storage and crushing/recycling operation on the Sandy Lake site south of County Road B. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the site plan date-stamped October 6, 2006. All construction shall follow that approved site plan. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the bins and paving of the driveway apron must be substantially started within two years of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. If the applicant has not substantially started this project by that time, the city council may renew this permit. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed plan for the approval of the city engineer and the Capitol Regions Watershed District showing how they will prevent any erosion and sediment from leaving the site. This plan shall also include the restoration of the riprapped areas of the slope down to the pond and detail the construction of a paved driveway apron from County Road B back 50 feet into the site along both branches of the driveway. 5. The annual materials-crushing operation shall be reviewed by staff after the first time to evaluate whether there were any problems or nuisances caused by this activity. The city council may prohibit any subsequent crushing activity if problems and complaints occur. 6. When dust becomes a problem, the applicant must keep the site watered to control the dust. 4 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 79 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their opinion about the proposed soccer fields. Of the nine replies, four were in favor, two had no comment and three were opposed. In Favor · We think that this is a much better use of land and money and will keep our neighborhood as we like it. (Bednar, 137 Mount Vemon Avenue) · We both agree that the location of this development will not unduly affect our home. It sure beats the soccer field fiasco!! (Gerstner, 176 Mount Vernon Avenue) · I approve of your proposal to use the Sandy Lake area as a storage and recycling facility. I think it's a good idea. I have no objection whatsoever. (Donahue, 103 Mount Vemon Avenue) · I guess my only concem would be if it becomes a noise issue during non work hours. Thanks. (Yannarelly, 2008 Adolphus Street) Concerned · As one of the homeowners closest to the site and the vehicular traffic it generates, I hold out hope that someday the parcel will be converted to public park/open space with a walking/cycling path but no roads. Barring that, as long as the plan up for debate does not increase the noise at the site or the traffic on the service road behind my house, I see no reason to oppose it. I would resist any plan that does increase the traffic or noise overall, or would create either at odd hours. I feel that overall, the aim of the city should be to reduce the industrial use of this site over time, to retum it to a more natural state and have it be another in the fine group of public spaces the city boasts of. We are in a sometimes forgotten part of Maplewood, and I want to make sure the city is doing what it can to improve it. (Chapman, 160 County Road B) Opposed · We would like to see this entire area retumed to its natural state-prairie grass-with no storage, crushing or recycling on it. Thank you. (Balster, 117 Skillman Avenue) · We are very concemed with this proposal due to noise and dust. The trucks are currently running 24 hours a day, they have their back up beepers on for 45 minutes at a time and the dust was so bad this summer you couldn't open your windows in the house. When you start crushing this material will it increase the dust and what will the noise levels be? What process is used? We have a vibration issue in the house already when the trucks are idling. We want to receive notice of the public hearing when it is scheduled. #4 in the criteria for approval states that this will not cause excessive noise or vibration. We already have vibration just from trucks idling. (Plumbo, 176 Skillman Avenue) 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.5 acres (this is the northeast comer of a larger site totaling over 30 acres) Existing land use: Undeveloped, but currently used as a storage site for recycle materials (dirt, concrete and bituminous) from watermain breaks for the Sl. Paul Regional Water Services. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings and County Road B South: Single Dwellings East: Undeveloped open space and the St. Paul Business Center West West: The Soo Line Railroad, the Minnesota Waldorf School and the Tri-District School PLANNING land Use Plan designations: existing: OS (open space); proposed: P (park) Zoning: F (farm residential) CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(1) of the city code requires a conditional use permit for public utility, public service or public building uses. Findings for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base their approval of a CUP on compliance with nine specific standards or findings. Refer to the findings in the attached resolution. APPLICATION DATE This application was accepted in complete form on October 6, 2006. State law requires that the city decide on this request within 60 days. The city council must act on this request by December 5, 2006. 6 p:sec18\Sandy Lake CUP 11 06 Attachments: 1. LocationlZoning Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Written Narrative 5. CUP Resolution 6. Site Plan date-stamped October 6,2006 (separate attachment) 7 Attachment 1 I " COUNTY ROAD 8 ~ a !!: - o D LJ GO GO u PROPOSED MATERIALS STORAGE & CRUSHING SITE f \1 ] J I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i LOCATION I ZONING MAP 8 Attachment 2 I I I COUNTY ROAD B 8 6 g PROPOSED MATERIALS STORAGE & CRUSHING SITE os ~ ] J II I I \ \ I OOWNS AVE '" n6 LAND USE PLAN MAP 9 i:!l ~~ Ii; <l: ~t: -J ~: <l: I- W a I 2 ~ ... .. ~ D' I 1 rn .~'~~;.':;: ~i -H-H-I-H-,-~-l-ITI-,-~ ,-H-I- ~t~~t ~ ~ t~ .. :e; 1.0-1 r;'t ~ ~ ... tIJ il t<) '" I ~ t<) '" z ~ J~\ . I ~ J}-.Q 0 I '" i= I -.} ~ u ~ '" w 5 z If) ;;; i= 0 ~ u i= I'. ~ u 01 .~ ~ "~L...mu..,.I--;l,~ ~ '. 1 11__. lit u'" --. :'l , h ~--- II ~ i"~~ OJ I I I.f i > " ii ~ ',-' ,...tr ... ~ ., r "'>" ',"" n ~ I ! Lilli h h II II ID Attachment 3 ~ .. '-' ~ .. " ., ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. :;J 1i1~,l! '" I- S! Ii Uii.. ~ ~ i! .. " !;; "l ~ 1I U IiiE II i~ SITE PLAN ItlIIlWI 6~~s:.1~.r;.,rr= 10 Attachment 4 CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES PROJECT SUMMARY RECEIVED OCT 0 6 2006 - CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The City Council may approve, amend or deny a conditional use pennit application, baSed on the following standards for approval, in addition to any standards for a specific conditional use found in the zoning ordinance. I. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in confonnity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. This parcel is.,designated as open space on the Maplewood Land Use Map. Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) has operated a construction material recycling and storage facility at this site for many years. SPRWS had an agreement with the City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Department to construct six (6) soccer fields at this site. When the City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Department decided not to pursue the proposed soccer field construction SPRWS proceeded with closing the spent lime disposal site to meet Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MnPCA), City of Maplewood and Capitol Region Watershed criteria. SPRWS indicated in the pennit application that construction material storage and recycling would continue at this site after closure of the spent lime disposal site. Native grasses will be planted on the earthen cover. This will provide wildlife habitat and a pleasing view for homeowners south of the site. SPRWS intends to continue to operate this site in accordance 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. SPRWS is proposing to maintain the status quo by continuing to stock pile and recycle construction material. These operations would occur during normal business hours. Access to the site during-the repair of main breaks is a twenty-four hour year round operation. 3. The use would not depreciate property SPRWS is proposing to continue to operate the storage and recycling facility in the manner prior to capping the spent lime sludge field in compliance with Minnesota Pollution Agency, City of Maplewood and Capitol Region Watershed requirements. The cap will be planted with native grasses. This will enhance the aesthetic view of the property. 4. The use would not involve any actIVity, process, matenals, eqwpment 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, duct, odor, fumes water or air pollution, drainage water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. This site has been operated as a disposal site for spent lime since the 1930's and recycling material from water main breaks for since the early 1990's. Storage of material and treatment of 11 water from the water treatment process are conducted in the area adjacent to this parcel. Storage and recycling have been temporarily discontinued while the sludge field is closed. The proposed construction of storage bins will facilitate an efficient and effective stockpiling of materials for construction activities and to repair water main breaks. SPRWS plans to recycle concrete and asphalt by crushing material once every year or two when stockpiles are sufficient to support the operation. 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 operation of this site has required minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and has not created traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The proposed changes include construction of storage bins and recycling of construction materials. No increase in vehicular traffic is anticipated. All SPRWS vehicles will be directed to enter the facility from the west (Rice Street). 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, sc.hools and parks. Access to this facility is restricted to SPRWS staff. No additional public facilities and serVices including streets will be required. SPRWS retains the services of the Ramsey County Sheriffs office to police SPRWS facilities. No additional fire protection services will be required because the storage of non-combustible construction materials such as sand, gravel and cold mix has a very low probability of fire. In addition there will be no permanent human occupation. Drainage from the structure was addressed by the City of Maplewood along with the Capitol Region Watershed and the MnPCA as part of the closure of the disposal site. Water and sewer system requirements are minimal because no people are permanently located at the site. No additional schools or parks will be required because there are no permanent residents at this site. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. . ( Existing public facilities and services have been more than adequate to serve this site.. SPRWS serves 406,000 residents in thirteen communities including the City of Maplewood. The recycling and storage operations at this site will help to keep the cost of water affordable to . residents of Maplewood and the other communities served by SPRWS. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incotporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. This sit~would-remain -epeR,spaG6.::rh~onstFuction-ofst{')rage-bins-i,s-ine*p6nsive-andeasily .000.0 removed if another use is identified. The decision to terminate the proposed construction of tennis courts was due in part to the expense of developing this site. The enormous cost of developing this site combined with SPRWS's need for storage precludes any development in the foreseeable future. Therefore it is safe to say that the sites existing features will be retained except for the addition of native grasses once the closure is complete. 12 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. This site has been used for disposal of spent lime since the 1930's and storage and recycling of materials from and for main breaks since the early 1990's. Providing a storage and recycling site within the SPRWS service area will reduce environmental impacts including pollution from noise, fuel consumption and impacts to the local, county, state and Federal transportation system. Also materials from main breaks will be recycled rather that placed in landfills. 10. The City Council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the Council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. SPRWS requests that the City Council waive the above requirements for the proposed utility structure. Providing an efficient and effective location for the storage of materials from and for main breaks is in the public interest, reduces impacts to the environment and benefits residents served by SPWRS by keeping the cost of water treatment low. ~"-~----_.~~_."----.,".,_._--- -. -~------ --'-~--~~-----------'~-------._. -, -~---"~'------'----"- 13 Attachment 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the St. Paul Regional Water Services applied for a conditional use permit to use the Sandy Lake site as a storage and construction-materials recycling site. WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(1) of the city code of ordinances requires a conditional use permit for any public utility, public service or public building use. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the south side of County Road B East on the west side of Interstate 35E. The legal description is: Parcel #18-29-22-12-0010: South 140' of North 270' of E 442',68/100'. North 130' of SW Y. of NE Y. subject to County Road B part of NW Y. of NE Y. S.E.LY of 160' WW RIW in SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. Parcel #18-29-22-24-0024: Subject to Avenue; except South 15' of East 320' of West 1790' of NW Y. ex. Part in James 1st Addition part of said NW y., S.E.LY ofWW RIW in SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. Parcel #18-29-22-24-0001: SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. 100' WW R1W across N 2/3 of SW y.. 165' WW R1W across S Y. of NW y.. 160' WW. RIW across N % of E Yz of NW Y. of SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. Parcel #18-29-22-12-0009: SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. 160' WW RIW across NW Y. of NE Y. of SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 6, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended of this request. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission considered the recommendation of the city staff. 2. On , the city council this request after considering the recommendations of the planning commission and those of city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 14 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 applicant shall comply with the site plan date-stamped October 6, 2006. All construction shall follow that approved site plan. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the bins and paving of the driveway apron must be substantially started within two years of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. If the applicant has not substantially started this project by that time, the city council may renew this permit. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed plan for the approval of the city engineer and the Capitol Regions Watershed District showing how they will prevent any erosion and sediment from leaving the site. This plan shall also include the restoration of the rip-rapped areas of the slope down to the pond and detail the construction of a paved driveway apron from County Road B back 50 feet into the site along both branches of the driveway. 5. The annual materials-crushing operation shall be reviewed by staff after the first time to evaluate whether there were any problems or nuisances caused by this activity. The city council may prohibit any subsequent crushing activity if problems and complaints occur. 6. When dust becomes a problem, the applicant must keep the site watered to control the dust. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 15