Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 23, 2005, 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. February 7, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Troutland Auto Dealerships (County Road D, west of Highway 61) Conditional Use Perm it Conditional Use Perm it 7:30 Overview (McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Prelim inary Plat 745 Jessie Street Proposal (1685 Edgerton Street) Lot Width and Lot Area Variances Lot Division 8:00 Outdoor Storage Area Conditional Use Perm it Revision (Police 1m pound Lot - 1160 Frost Avenue) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations February 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich February 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Lee ?? March 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Daniel Lee Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Bartol moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for February 7, 2005. Commissioner Trippler requested the wording on page 6, last paragraph be clarified. Commissioner Bartol restated the last paragraph, third line and it should read Commissioner Bartol said he likes the idea of a senior development because those drivers would not contributc to thc normal traffic ic a normallcvcl but not contribute to the typical rush hour traffic that you may might see if this was a mixed single family housing development. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 10, under Commission Presentations under letter a. Add the 2004 Planning Commission Annual Report and Rules of Procedure were also on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Trippler had a correction under Building Permits under letter e., on the seventh line; the sentence should say She said there alse-are some homes. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -2- Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for February 7, 2005, as amended. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Trippler Abstention - Ahlness, Desai, Lee, Pearson v. PUBLIC HEARING a. Troutland Auto Dealerships (County Road D, west of Highway 61) (7:03 - 8:30 p.m.) Mr. Roberts introduced Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner from the firm DSU, who presented this item to the planning commission. The Ryan Companies, at 50 South 10th Street, Minneapolis, has applied for conditional use permits for used auto sales and repair garages on two parcels at the parcels at the intersection of the re-routed County Road D and Highway 61. The dealerships are proposed forthe west side of Highway 61. The dealerships will be owned by Steve Bloomer of Maplewood Lexus. The owner hasn't decided which lot will be designated for used car sales and which for new car sales. Therefore, he is applying to the city for both uses on each parcel. There are no architectural plans or elevations for the buildings. Only the building locations and the location of the driveways and parking areas have been submitted as part of the CUP application. The applicants plan to construct the retaining walls and parking lot during the summer of 2005. The first of the two buildings would be built in 2006. The second building would be built in late 2006 or 2007. Commissioner Dierich asked if Chris Cavett would discuss his thoughts and findings regarding this proposal. Mr. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. He struggled with this plan because there wasn't a lot of engineering details shown on the plans. He is concerned about the extensive retaining wall, the integrity and longevity of the road if something failed. This is a piece of property that is fronted by two significant roadways with Highway 61 and County Road D. Essentially this design is eliminating any access to this property on County Road D. There may be a way to take advantage of both frontages and to increase some of the usable square footage of the property. He has been looking at a way to build an upper parking lot and a two story building. One side of the building would front County Road D and could be a low story office building that would fit nicely in a residential area and add screening to the activity on Highway 61 as well as the parking lots and the property below could be the car dealership fronting on Highway 61. This option would eliminate the need for the large retaining walls and would increase the screening in the area. The other design concern he has is the truck turn around shown on the plans. These are the truck movements that are needed to bring vehicles to and from the property. It appears possible as shown but he has concerns about the design of the truck route and feels it's impractical. The city wants to see a design where the truck transport can circulate throughout the site and exit the site comfortably. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -3- Commissioner Trippler asked where the storm water run offwould go? Mr. Thorvig said he understood the storm water run offwould go to the regional collection system to the south. Commissioner Trippler thought each site had to retain their own storm water? Mr. Cavett said that's true but as part of this site development, the dedication of the right of way and the developer's agreements, the city has incorporated their site into a regional pond that is being expanded as part of the County Road D project. Commissioner Trippler asked if they had any discussions regarding the use of pervious surfaces as opposed to impervious surfaces to eliminate run off? Mr. Cavett said no. They would recommend pervious surfaces when they don't have the facilities to do ponding treatment, but at this site the water is going to be treated by a regional treatment pond. Commissioner Trippler asked if this project were to proceed who is responsible for providing some type of protection on County Road D so cars can't fall off the cliff with the retaining walls? Would it be the city's responsibility or the developer's responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen? Mr. Cavett said the city would make that a condition of the developer to install things like such as proper guard rails but over the long haul the city would assume responsibility. Commissioner Trippler said on page 7, item d. and e. are very similar in the staff report. Could one of those be eliminated, and if so, which one would you suggest keeping? Mr. Thorvig said essentially item d. and e. are very similar and one of those could be eliminated. Mr. Ekstrand said city staff would take care of that. Commissioner Pearson asked what the purpose of the cross easements were with Sparkle Auto and where are the easements located? Mr. Thorvig said Sparkle Auto is located to the north of the site and eventually the city would prefer that there not be any access from Highway 61 to Sparkle Auto. The cross easement is needed when Sparkle Auto loses its access onto Highway 61 and then another curb cut would need to be added some where on County Road D, but those details haven't been worked out yet. Commissioner Bartol asked iflhere was a request for a variance because he read in the letters from the residences there is supposed to be a 350 foot setback and now the setback has been reduced to 167 or 169 feet. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -4- Mr. Thorvig said as part of the negotiation with the land owner for the right of way and the development involved, the agreement was that the dealerships would stay 350 feet away from any existing residences to the west and the two homes to the north are expected to be converted to commercial property in the future. Mr. Thorvig said the developer also wanted to build something on the west side of County Road D, however, because of the topography of the land it would be very difficult to put anything commercial there. Commissioner Bartol asked if the reduction of setback was a decision that had already been made and wasn't up for discussion tonight? Mr. Ekstrand said as part of the developers agreement for this entire project, the city council required that any development of the commercial lots maintain 350 feet setback from existing residential but the city council said the developer may go closer than the 350 foot setback for a new commercial building. Commissioner Bartol said there are setbacks for a logical and an aesthetic reason and it shouldn't matter if there is an existing builder or a new builder. If it's all owned by the same developer and that developer is willing to develop row townhomes that deviate from the guidelines or regulations, he doesn't see why the city should be anxious to break covenants because one developer owns the whole parcel. He asked how difficult it would be to move the buildings toward Highway 61 and give the new row town homes the setback they deserve? The row townhomes will be lower priced compared to what surrounds this property, however not everybody wants to live next to a commercial building. Mr. Ekstrand said it's a done deal and the city council has already made that decision. He thinks Mr. Cavett's design displayed on the screen was a good one but that it was Mr. Cavett's design and not the applicant's design. Commissioner Bartol said he believes this proposal has been prematurely brought before the planning commission. There hasn't been enough information, detail or thought put into this and Mr. Cavett is proposing a fairly significant deviation from the initial concept. There are too many unanswered questions in this plan and there are some relatively easy solutions to some of the problems that have been addressed. Commissioner Bartol said he is disappointed in the incompleteness of this proposal. Commissioner Dierich said she noticed in the resolution on page 31 that the planning commission was left out from looking at the final plan. When the planning commission votes they should be able to look at the final plat, particularly given the significant grading, drainage, and layout of this site. Mr. Ekstrand said that was staffs suggestion and the rational behind that was once the land use has been identified the site design issues go to the CDRB for review. The plans are inadequate as the planning commission mentioned and staff agreed it should come back for the commission to review again. Commissioner Pearson asked if it was a given that Sparkle Auto would lose their access to Highway 61? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -5- Mr. Cavett said that is what has come out of the discussions with MnDOT with the changes that are going to happen along Highway 61. This is a long term planning and safety issue regarding reducing access points. The cross access isn't defined, it's more of a condition that leaves it open for discussion, but there's a good probability MnDOT will eliminate that access point. Commissioner Pearson said if the cross easement is going to take place then he has a concern regarding the row of parking closest to Highway 61 that may be lost to provide a service to both of the properties and uses. The city and the developer should be planning for this as part of this development if access is going to change for Sparkle Auto. Mr. Cavett said those are good points and if the city had an opportunity to look at a different site layout that's something that should be considered with reduced setbacks to the right of way which MnDOT may be open to as long as it provides for cross easements. Commissioner Trippler said he felt uncomfortable with the way this plan was put together. He is particularly concerned about having a long stretch of County Road D right on the edge of a 20 to 30 foot drop off and trying to engineer some type of a retaining wall that would be adequate to hold that up concerns him. He likes the plan that Chris Cavett showed leaving the property on the west side at the same elevation as County Road D and he would think from a financial standpoint that would be cheaper than building a retaining wall this long. He said he has no problem with approving the use of the property but has a problem with not seeing how this is going to be laid out or how it would look in the future. He also believes the planning commission should have a revised plan brought back to the commission to review and comment on. Mr. Ekstrand said staff agrees and this item will come back to the planning commission. Commissioner Desai asked if Sparkle Auto has been a part of the conversation regarding losing their access onto Highway 61? Mr. Cavett said Sparkle Auto would only lose their access if Sparkle Auto were to redevelop the site. Under the current situation, no existing access point would be lost onto Highway 61. Commissioner Desai asked what the reason was for asking the planning commission to recommend approval of this proposal when so many things are incomplete. Mr. Ekstrand said it's certainly up to the planning commission to agree or disagree with city staffs recommendation. Staff solely thought to give the applicant an answer of some sort while still holding back on the major part of the site elements. Recommending approval of the automotive uses is to give the applicant an indication that the city approves the used auto sales plus the new and used car sales on this site. The recommendation is not to allow anything else until the city has a suitable site plan through the process for approval. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -6- Commissioner Bartol said the neighbor that approved the Lexus dealership moving to this site made a comment about the nature and the status of the dealership. He thought that was appropriate and within the context of the image that Lexus may like to create. The applicant may be persuaded to keep the line of cedar trees along Highway 61 to give a value and screening from Highway 61. Lexus doesn't need the high exposure and advertisement that some of the other dealerships need. If someone wants to buy a Lexus, people know where to go, and a few extra cedar trees in front of the lot will not deter a buyer from coming in to look at a Lexus. He would encourage the developer to leave the cedar trees if possible. Commissioner Grover said regarding Chris Cavett's idea for a different site design plan with a one story office building with access from County Road D, would there off street parking on County Road D? Mr. Cavett said his site plan would allow for a small parking lot in the front of the one story office building with access from County Road D, however, there is no off street parking on County Road D. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jim Kellison, representing Troutland Auto Dealerships who is the developer of this property, addressed the commission. They have been in the process of developing this property for about 2% years now along with the realignment of County Road D and with the right of way. In doing so they worked very closely with the City of Maplewood to acquire the Prokosch property. They have purchase agreements on all the property that is available at this time. The retail center is going to be coming into the city for review this spring. It now appears they will have a 12,000 square foot building that will include a bank but that deal isn't finalized yet. The property to the west is going to be multi family residential row townhomes being proposed by Town & Country Homes with underground parking, a lot of green space and landscaping, which will be coming to the city in the next few weeks. As for the auto dealerships, part of the reason they are looking for approval tonight is the last time they came before the city council they asked specifically that this property be approved for auto uses. This was granted by the city council and the issue of the 350 foot setback would apply strictly to the homes on the west property line. Town and Country Homes would notify people before purchasing a townhome, what development would be built in the area prior to the people living there so there would be no surprises. He isn't aware of any other city that has a 350 foot setback for an auto dealership from residential besides in the City of Maplewood. He said if they were doing this as part of a manufacturing facility they could build a metal stamping shop 50 feet away from single family homes. Most of the residents he has spoken to are in favor of having the townhomes separating the commercial property. Regarding the retaining walls, companies today can engineer pretty much anything these days, so he has no concern regarding the retaining walls in this proposal but details will have to be worked out. He introduced Mr. Bryan Tetters with Ryan Companies who is here to discuss the design of the building. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -7- Mr. Bryan Tetters, Ryan Companies, 50 South 10th Street, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. He said they are here tonight for approval of the land use concept plan only. They are keeping their options open for either a new or used car lot. Regarding the plan discussed tonight by Chris Cavett, they would look into that, but there is no guarantee that a two story building would fit into the model of construction. Regarding the retaining wall, they will have a structural engineer make sure there aren't going to be any issues with County Road D. They had a neighborhood meeting a few days ago and there was neighborhood opposition to having a two story building on this site. The construction of the facilities would start this fall and the latest would be in 2006. Regarding the trees in the right of way, MnDOT is currently working with the developer and Maplewood to possibly remove the trees when Highway 61 is widened in the future so they aren't sure what will happen to the cedar trees. Regarding the cross easement for Sparkle Auto, they acknowledge there would need to be some type of easement needed there in the future but that it has not yet been addressed in detail. Mr. Tetters said from a business standpoint they cannot take the easement for Sparkle Auto through their lot. They would like to work with city stafflo determine some possible locations for the easement on the site. If they move the proposed buildings closer to Highway 61 , this would create more of a lighting issue for the neighbors. Keeping the parking lots closer to Highway 61 will buffer those residential homes from lights and noise. Mr. Tetters said for the most part residents would look down onto the top of the building. Commissioner Bartol asked if the row town homes would be two story units? Mr. Thorvig said Town & Country plans to build a two story row town home unit with underground parking. Commissioner Trippler said it seems to him that the developer could solve all kinds of problems by giving Chris Cavett's plan some serious consideration. The people on the west side of County Road D would be looking at a one story building and the people from Highway 61 would see a two story building because of the grade and topography. Maybe the showroom could be in the upper level facing County Road D and the used car lot could be on the lower half facing Highway 61. He tried to envision what this would look like with the elevation of County Road D and he visions this development being built in a hole. Mr. Tetters said they will consider Mr. Cavett's plan but at this point they are only looking for concept approval for the land use. At the point where they decide which building would go where they would submit another plan and the planning commission can comment on the plan and setbacks. As far as where the building is located from County Road D, if they push the building closer to Highway 61 you lose frontage and with any car dealership you want as much frontage for visible car inventory. The traffic on County Road D is going to minimal compared to Highway 61 as far as visibility and that is where they want the car inventory to be seen. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -8- Mr. Lee Koppy with Ryan Companies, addressed the commission. They have already met with city staff on several occasions to get a feel for if this type of a land use is something they could proceed with. They knew they needed a CUP to do anything here but the developer really didn't want to purchase the property until they knew if this type of layout would be acceptable to the City of Maplewood. The city couldn't give that assurance and recommended the applicant bring this before the planning commission for feedback. This is a very challenging site with the topography, steep grades and traffic access points on County Road D and Highway 61. The parking in the front of the property is very important to the applicant for the highest inventory visibility. They looked at having a retaining wall along Highway 61 so they wouldn't have a 30 foot retaining wall in the back. The site is slopping from west to east about as steep as you can slope it. The parking lot is at a 4% percent grade and they are trying to minimize the height of the retaining wall. The suggestion of stacking the buildings on top of each other is well taken, however, the challenge is that these sites may be owned by two different property owners and their may be security issues with having an office building on top of a car dealership, but they will discuss that with the client. More than anything they want to know if the planning commission thinks this land use is appropriate for the site and regarding the issue of screening for the residents to the west. They want to provide a sound barrier for the residents and their building may provide a barrier for the residents from the noise from Highway 61 . They believe the truck transport route would work and understand they have to prove to the planning commission that the drive path shown on the plan is the best way to transport cars in and out of the site. Commissioner Dierich said the commission is strongly telling you as the applicant that as a planning commission they aren't wild about the retaining walls, they aren't wild about looking down from County Road D and seeing the top of the air conditioning units on the building and they aren't wild that this plan has so much impervious surface. The planning commission is not objecting to the use but they are telling you as the applicant if you come back with the same proposal she would guess that 50% of the planning commission is going to vote this down. If you are thinking the project hinges on what has been provided tonight you probably need to go back to the drawing board and start over with a better plan given the comments from the planning commission. The city is spending millions of dollars on the realignment of County Road D and she would hate to see it fall off to one side. She can't imagine the amount of money that would need to be invested into securing the retaining wall. The other issue is the planning commission wants to be able to have some control regarding what this site looks like and there is nothing wrong with the planning commission voicing what they would like to see this development look like. This is part of the CUP process and it appears you as the applicant aren't listening very well to what the planning commission would like to see. Mr. Koppy said he apologizes ifit appeared they weren't listening to the requests of the planning commission because that was not the intention. The client they represent is a business owner in Maplewood with the Lexus of Maplewood facility and he is a respected business owner. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree that Lexus of Maplewood is a respectable business in Maplewood. The issue isn't with the use of the land it's just that this plan is sketchy and the planning commission is looking for some assurance that this plan is going to change for the better because currently this design isn't looking very good. Mr. Tetters apologized if it came across that they were objecting to Mr. Cavett's designs because that wasn't their intention. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -9- Commissioner Dierich said you have the right to object to Chris Cavett's plan to change the design, the issue is the retaining wall and the drainage and the planning commission would like to make it clear this design isn't acceptable and would like you to bring a better plan back. Mr. Koppy clarified a point in the staff report regarding the fact that they may have two used car dealerships. They would have one used car dealership but one of the dealerships could also be a new and used car dealership. The Lexus could be a new car dealership with pre-owned cars and they don't want to preclude from having that option. Commissioner Bartol said the design isn't as bad as it's been made to sound. He can see where a lot of thought has been put into this plan. The site line on the cross section is appropriate and demonstrates that a majority of the residential neighborhood wouldn't be affected by sound because it's below the retaining wall and it wouldn't be affected by the light from the parking lot. It's just a challenging site because of the topography. This represents an opportunity to make the final solution one of the most unique car dealerships in the city. If you take the retaining walls and the topography and make it a work of art and be creative with trees it could be very nice. In his opinion eight-foot pine trees on fifteen-foot centers lacks creativity and is a minimalist approach. He would talk to a landscape architect and do some things with the landscaping and different tiers and layers because he sees that the levels could work to the car dealerships advantage. Mr. Tetters said they are looking for concept approval. They haven't spent a lot of time and money on this plan. They know Lexus wants to go on this parcel and are just trying to get the recommendation for approval to bring back to their client. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Mr. Tom Holm, 3035 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He lives directly west of this proposal. His largest concern is the lighting for this proposal. He would invite the commission to see this neighborhood at night since the grading has taken place they get quite a lot of light from the Lexus dealership and Volvo and Nissan dealerships across Highway 61 that shines into their neighborhood. The neighbors had a chance to meet with the developers regarding this site and after looking at this site they didn't have major problems with it. He heard about moving the buildings closer to Highway 61 but because of the amount of light they have now he can't imagine how much light would be on the west side with two more car lots. His concern is to minimize the light even though he realizes they need light for security reasons. He would like to keep the lights at a 15 foot maximum and direct light towards Highway 61 as opposed to having flat lights that disperse light out in all directions. He thinks it would be beneficial to have the buildings closer to County Road D because that would put the lights farther away from the residential homes. The neighborhood met with Town & Country Homes a few weeks ago regarding the two level row town home units with underground parking and they are proposing to build units around $250,000 plus. As a neighbor with a newer house in a higher price bracket he wants to maintain property values and he wonders how the property value would be maintained so close to a car dealership. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -10- Mr. Kellison said the homeowner's comments are appropriate now that the site is completely graded there is a lot of light shining from the auto dealerships, but you have to take into account that Lexus will be putting in a lot of screening from County Road D. When the townhomes are built there will also be a lot of landscaping and the structures will shield a lot of light before it gets to the residents. This is a zoning request to acknowledge the fact that they can or cannot put auto dealerships on this property and they recognize there are many design facts to review. Part of the reason this is so critical at this time is they have a purchase agreement with this applicant and if they cannot fulfill this purchase agreement within a certain time period then they have to look elsewhere for another applicant. They have to finish the grading, County Road D has to be completed and as the developer they are under the gun. He knows that when you talk to the planning commission developer's economic issues aren't the planning commission's issues but those are the reasons they are here with this request tonight. They recognize the design has to be finalized and the building plans have to be brought before the planning commission again but they have to get the conditional use permit to allow auto dealerships to be on the property and be located approximately where the buildings are shown on the plan. This is all they are asking for tonight from the planning commission. Mr. Will Rossbach, 1386 County Road C, resident and City Councilmember, addressed the commission. He said Mr. Kellison stated earlier that in the M-1 zoning a developer could put a metal stamping shop on this property 50 feet from residential homes and there is nothing the city could do about it. This is completely false because M-1 zoning is specifically designed to be conditioned to prevent these type of things from happening. He doesn't want anyone to believe that would ever take place with M-1 zoning with residential homes surrounding it. Mr. Rossbach said regarding the statement made by Mr. Kellison relating to the retaining walls that engineers and companies can build anything these days, he is sure they thought the same thing in California where homes are washing down the hillside from all the rain they are receiving. There is smart engineering and then there is "smart engineering". It's good to consider everything in the process and how it affects the surrounding area. The applicant is looking for zoning input but if the planning commission feels that yes they would allow car dealerships on this parcel but no they wouldn't allow this under the current design, he would be very forceful in saying so, this way they completely understand that you don't start a process and come back to the planning commission and say "you (the planning commission) said we could do this". Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolutions approving conditional use permits for used car sales and automotive repair for the two northerly commercial lots in the Trout Land development located on the west side of Highway 61, north of the future County Road D extension. Approval is based on the findings required by city ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (Changes to the original motion are underlined.) . This permit does not include a specific site plan approval due to the need for further plan development addressing the issues identified in the staff report and as identified bv members of the planninq commission. Detailed plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Maplewood Planninq Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council before site development and parking lot construction can begin. The applicant is allowed building setback reductions, as previously approved by the council for the setback from future County Road D. All buildings must, however, be set back at least 350 feet from the rear lot lines of the single family properties to the west. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -11- . The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. . The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 14, 2005. b. Overview (McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue) (8:30 - 8:55 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 24 townhouses in a development called Overview. It would be on a 5.5-acre site on a cul-de-sac on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and a stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Commissioner Grover asked what the previous use was for this property prior to this proposal? Mr. Roberts said it was a vacant parcel. Commissioner Grover asked staff what explained the interesting topography on the site? Mr. Roberts said it was vacant land. A member of the audience answered aloud that it was once a gravel pit. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Cavett how you would stabilize soils in such a short period of time and then build a townhouse on top of it without having problems with settling? Mr. Cavett said he has done a lot of work in soils himself and for homes to get mortgage approval if the home is built on significant fill, it goes through a very extensive compaction testing process during the backfill. They have to provide an extensive report for every pad and show how much fill was used along with a compaction test. He said there are homes in Maplewood sitting on 30 feet of fill so he knows it can be done. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff felt comfortable with the berm on the west edge and if it would be sufficient to alleviate the traffic noise? Mr. Cavett said the developer will have to go through a sound study and either mitigate or build higher insulation standards. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -12- Commissioner Trippler asked if the townhomes at the Gardens were similar to this design? Mr. Roberts said the Gardens are similar to the plan for the Overview except the Gardens are slab on grade and these have basements and lookout windows. From the grade up they will look very similar and some of these will have side loaded garages as well as front loaded garages to include some variety. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Gordie Howe, Masterpiece Homes, 127 County Road C East, St. Paul, addressed the commission. They developed the Gardens and those units are slab on grade. The Overview development will have 14 ramblers and 10 story and a half units. The story and a half has everything that the rambler has except on the half units they have a second bedroom, a full bathroom and a loft that overlooks the living room. They changed the elevations and they have three different styles of elevations in this project. They had a neighborhood meeting and talked to the neighbors and will do more screening than what is shown on the plan. He has also met with MnDOT and they have done additional screening on that side also. The will also add more screening for the pond as well. Commissioner Desai asked about the screening from Highway 35E? Mr. Howe said they are below the berm and there will be a four foot retaining wall behind the units that back up to Highway 35E. Masterpiece Homes thought about going to MnDOT and cutting the berm down but after thinking about it and working with the engineer they decided it wouldn't be a good idea. Commissioner Grover asked what the height of the berm would be? Mr. Cavett said according to the plans it appears the top of the berm is about 15 feet. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Mr. Jay Swenson, 1780 McMenemy Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Swenson said he lives next door to the Gardens and kitty corner to this proposed development. He is a neighbor with an acre of land and a vested interest in staying in the neighborhood. He wanted the trees there to stay but he realizes they cannot remain. He's very happy with Masterpiece Homes and is happy about this proposal. He has spoken with Gordie Howe and thinks this will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. His only concern was the trees and keeping the pond in good condition. He wants this to blend in and hide the MnDOT building. With the grading there is a lot of work that was done to the north of him and there was a lot of trucks that came through the area and he would like to see the construction trucks go up to Roselawn Avenue. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page 42 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Overview development on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -13- 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped January 25, 2005, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond ordinance standards. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the remaining vegetation and large trees. (3) The street (Summer Avenue) must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new pond with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence along McMenemy Street as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. d. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Street and the end of the cul-de-sac, so there are at least two hydrants along the street. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -14- 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. 'Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Overview PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the Overview preliminary plat (received by the city on January 25,2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. 'Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least three locations. One light shall be at the intersection of McMenemy Street and the proposed street (Summer Avenue), one in the middle of the block and the third near the west end of the street near the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of the traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -15- f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. 'Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes in the memo from Chuck Vermeersch dated February 14, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -16- (11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. (12) A creative design for the proposed storm water pond with curves, rather than straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and visual appeal. The pond, however, shall have the require storm water capacity. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2%) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding area (b) Along the north and south sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the north and from the MnDOT facility. (7) Show the planting of at least 120 trees after the site grading is done. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The street (Summer Avenue) shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3) Repair of McMenemy Street (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. (4) The developer enclosing the new pond with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. (The fence shall not be six feet high as shown on the plans.) The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city engineer. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -17- (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the common areas as outlots. c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. d. Label the street as Summer Avenue on all plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. 'Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -18- 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. 13. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 14, 2005. c. Jessie Street Proposal (1685 Edgerton Street) (8:55 - 9:27 p.m.) Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -19- Mr. Ekstrand said Jeremy Shackle, of River Run Properties, is requesting approval of a lot split and four variances. He proposes to divide an existing lot with a house at 1685 Edgerton Street by splitting off the back 120.5 feet into 60-foot-wide lots. Each lot would have substandard lot width and lot area. Each proposed lot would be 60 feet wide; code requires 75 feet of lot width. Each proposed lot would have 7,230 square feet of area; code requires 10,000 square feet. Mr. Shackle is requesting two 15-foot width variances and two 2,770 square foot lot area variances for each proposed lot. Commissioner Trippler said his home in Maplewood sits on a 60 foot lot so he is aware of how cramped it is. When he looked at the other lots in the neighborhood, particularly on Jessie Street, he noticed 1699 and 1697 Jessie Street are both 60 feet wide, 1703 Jessie Street is 45 feet wide, and 1694 Jessie Street is 40 feet wide. The statement made by city staff that the reason for the denial is that this wouldn't be compatible with the other lots in the neighborhood but it seems that a 120 foot wide lot is more inconsistent in the neighborhood than the consistency of two 60 foot wide lots. 1690 and 1693 Jessie Street are the only 120 foot wide lots, the rest of the lots are 60 feet wide. He feels the statement made by Chris Cavett regarding the lot being very low and there could be potential drainage problems is more of a valid argument than the size of the lots. Mr. Ekstrand said it's easier to make the position that it's in keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood and intent of the ordinance but the other finding by state statue is strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. It could be argued the lots would be in character with the neighborhood but then what characteristic of the property justifies a variance. He agrees Mr. Cavett's comments are stronger for a denial than city staff's comments. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Shirley Pfeil, property owner at 1685 Edgerton Street, addressed the commission. Ms. Pfeil said she is the owner of the property and has lived there for 56 years. It's getting time for her to retire and she needs this money for retirement and would appreciate it if the city would approve the lot split. Mr. Jeremy Shackle, River Run Properties, addressed the commission. River Run Properties entered into a purchase agreement to purchase the lots facing Jessie Street. Ms. Pfeil communicated to them her desire to split the parcel into two lots in the interest of getting a higher sale price. Ms. Pfeil's interest in River Run Properties is due to the fact that they have a good reputation to build a number of houses in St. Paul, West St. Paul, South St. Paul and Minneapolis and a number of homes have been on 40 and 50 feet wide lots. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -20- Mr. Shackle said they have developed a number of house and site plans that work on smaller city lots and are excited to be able to develop property on 60 foot wide lots since they are used to working with 40 to 50 foot wide lots. Mr. Shackle said Ms. Pfeil has an economic interest at stake here and he acknowledges that state law states that economic hardship cannot be a reason for the variance iflhere is another suitable use for the lot. As city staff is proposing, one lot would be an alternative that would be suitable as opposed to two lots. The seller, Ms. Pfeil, has been holding onto these lots for quite some time and this is her nest egg for retirement. She owns a total of six lots, three lots facing Jessie Street and three lots facing Edgerton Street. He appreciates the drainage concerns that have been addressed and he is willing to work with city staff to come up with a plan for the site that properly addresses the drainage issues. The few times he has been out to the site he has seen standing water, so clearly this is an issue that needs addressing and they look forward to the challenge. Mr. Michael Kontz, 1717 Edgerton Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. His concern is that his home value is looked upon as one of the higher home values in the neighborhood. He is concerned about having smaller lots with smaller homes on them with his home being one of the larger homes that is higher valued in the neighborhood. Mr. Tom O'hern, 1690 Jessie Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Putting houses on the lots would be a good idea but looking at the dynamics of the neighborhood there are already four homes for sale within the area. 1683 Edgerton Street has a home that was built and has already been for sale for two years. Another house on Edgerton Street is for sale and there are two other homes on Edgerton Street that are for sale as well. Having all these homes for sale does not benefit the neighborhood especially when they do not sell. The two homes at 1681 and 1683 Edgerton Street are behind his house at 1690 Jessie Street and he and his wife have had nothing but problems. The developer has been negligent and not returned any of his phone calls regarding water problems on the site. He and his wife had to take down their fence because of the water problems causing dirt to be pushed up against their fence and they have been working with the city engineer to solve this problem. The homes that are for sale have been on the market at about $284,000 and he guesses the median house price is about $180,000 and he is concerned about the homes that aren't selling. This is a safe neighborhood and is a great place for people to live but adding two more lots to build two more homes on that would eventually be for sale will be difficult in today's market. Spending $284,000 to live in this neighborhood does not seem to conform to the other homes in the area. Fill needs time to settle and if you are going to build homes on top of fill and you build too early you will have a lot of future problems. There have been problems with other homes in the neighborhood with sink holes and water in basements because of problems with fill. Mr. Mark Nelson, 1700 Jessie Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He built his house 8 years ago next to the home at 1685 Jessie Street that is in question here. At that time the minimum lot width was 75 feet which he complied with. Jessie Street is not a cul-de-sac, it's a very narrow dead end street that is less than 30 feet wide and if he has company parked on the street another driver can barely get a car through there. It would be profitable for Ms. Pfeil to sell the lots, but it would be cramped. He feels because he had to follow the 75 foot wide lot rule to build his house everybody should have to follow the city ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -21- Ms. Rozanne Nohre, 1694 Jessie Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She is the resident that owns the 40 foot wide lot next door to the applicant. One day she came home from work and saw some property stakes in the front corner of her property next to 1685 Jessie Street. Because she hasn't had her property surveyed she is worried that the property line may be an issue for her after seeing where the stake was located. If the property line is an issue she would have to break up the long cement driveway that goes from the front of her property to the back and this concerns her. The fill that would have to go on this property is a concern of hers as well but it sounds like the city engineer is also concerned and sounds like it will be taken care of. She bought her house three years ago and Jessie Street is a very unique street and neighborhood. There is a mix of different kinds of houses, with open space, it is a dead end street with woods at the end and the Gateway Trail runs across it. This was a huge draw for her to have a home in an area where you almost think you aren't in the middle of the city. She doesn't think cramming two more houses in here is a deterrent because she was drawn to buy a house here. She is concerned about having a house built so close to her as she is starting to feel cramped already with only a 40 foot wide lot. Commissioner Dierich asked Ms. Nohre if she had spoken to Ms. Pfeil about buying a portion of the lot that she is selling to increase the size of her 40 foot lot? Ms. Nohre said she spoke to Ms. Pfeil after she saw the survey stakes on the property but Ms. Pfeil told her she sold the property to a developer. She would be interested in buying the first 40 feet of property then she could have an 80 foot lot but she could talk to Ms. Pfeil about that. Mr. John McKenzie, 1693 Jessie Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said there are 8 houses on the street. There are two 40 foot lots, two 60 foot lots, two 80 foot lots, two 120 foot lots. Divide that by 8 and that is 75 feet. If you put 2 more houses in there and add 120 feet that equals 720 feet divided by 10 houses equals 72 feet. If you put one house in there and divide that by 9 that equals 80 feet. He said his house used to be a chicken shack and he put a lot of time and money into his property. He thinks this should be one 120 foot wide lot with a nice house built on it. He likes the neighborhood, the Gateway Trail, and he has a lot of family that live in the area. If you put two houses on this property he thinks there will be problems. Ms. Mary Borowske, 1737 Edgerton Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said she sent in a letter along with her neighbor at 1731 Edgerton Street, which covers most of the points she wanted to bring up. Back when the city did the Comprehensive Plan the city got rid of spot zoning and wanted to make these into nice lots. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission received Ms. Borowske's letter? Mr. Ekstrand said the letter was received after the packet had been mailed out as well as several other responses that came in too late to get mailed with the packet. Staff has her letter on file and Mr. Ekstrand read it aloud. Basically it stated that she is against the proposal to split these lots up and would prefer one home be built on a 120 square foot wide lot because this is a quality of life issue. There are many other homes for sale in the area and there is not a lack of housing in the area. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -22- Commissioner Trippler moved to deny the proposed lot division and resulting lot width and lot area variances for the creation of two 60-foot-wide lots on the back of the property at 1685 Edgerton Street. Denial is on the basis that: . There are no circumstances that are unique to this property that justify the variances. . The ordinance requirements for lots of minimum width and area allow the creation of a new lot fronting on Jessie Street behind the home at 1685 Edgerton Street. This is a reasonable use of the property. The creation of two substandard lots would be excessive and unreasonable. . The back of 1685 Edgerton Street is low and would require substantial fill for two new home sites. Filling for one home site could be accomplished without compromising the existing storm water runoff on this lot. . Two lots would not be in character with the Jessie Street neighborhood. There are other small lots, but there are also other large lots. A 120-foot-wide lot, as would be allowed by ordinance, would fit this neighborhood's character. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve a lot division to create one 120-foot-wide by 120.5-foot- deep lot behind the home at 1685 Edgerton Street. This lot division is conditioned upon the following requirements: . The deeds to split this property shall be submitted to the city for stamping within one year or this approval shall be null and void. . The payment of cash connection charges for water and sanitary sewer before the signing and stamping of deeds by the city. The amount to be paid is $5,620-$2,81 0 for sanitary sewer and $2,810 for water. This is because cash connection charges have not been paid for the new lot on Jessie Street. . The outbuilding that would overlap the proposed lot line shall be removed and all debris hauled away before the city shall stamp the new deed creating this lot. As an alternative to this, should weather prohibit the removal and clean up, the city will accept escrow to guarantee its removal. The amount of this escrow shall be determined by staff and shall accompany a letter of permission to enter the property to do this removal and clean up. . The construction of a home along Jessie Street should be situated within the south 80 feet of the lot. This area is higher and would easily be above the lower area. The lowest opening of any new structure would have to be one foot above the emergency overflow in the street. This will be regulated at the time of the building permit review forthe new lot on Jessie Street. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -23- . The city would require that a public drainage and utility easement be dedicated overthe subject low area. This would allow the city to install an overflow pipe from the easement area at some point in the future. The dimensions of these easements shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. These easements shall be dedicated before the city signs the deeds to split the lot. . Extra care will have to be taken during grading and construction of an adjacent home to guarantee that the low area is protected from erosion, sedimentation and tracking of equipment. A double layer of silt fence is likely to be required around the easement area. This will be required as a condition of the building permit for the new lot on Jessie Street. . No grading, filling or tracking of equipment would be permitted in the easement area. The area can, however, be enhanced and landscaped to create a rain garden. A landscaped rain garden will enhance the property and will not only take advantage of the occasional periods of extra rain, but the roots of the plants and shrubs will promote and maintain the infiltration of the soils. Information on rain gardens can be obtained from the Maplewood Public Works Department or on the city's website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. The monitoring of the grading, filling and tracking will be regulated during the house construction. . Plans for a rain water garden on the Jessie Street lot must be provided for the city engineer's approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Jessie Street lot. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 14, 2005. d. Conditional Use Permit Review - Outdoor Storage Yard and City Impound Lot (9:27 - 9:36 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said the conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 1160 Frost Avenue is due for review. The initial CUP was for Quality Restoration Services, Inc. to use this property for an outside storage yard for their business. The city code requires a CUP for a parking lot as a principal use, for trucking terminals and for outdoor storage in a M-1 (light manufacturing) district. Since the last CUP review, the property was purchased by Mr. Mark Ashby for future development. Conditional use permits run with the land, not the property owner. Mr. Ashby would like to keep the CUP active and, as will be described below, is requesting it's continuation for use by the City of Maplewood. Mr. Ekstrand said in the spring of 2005, the City of Maplewood will begin the expansion of the public works facility at 1902 County Road B East. During the construction, and possibly afterward, there will not be room on site for the continued storage of impounded vehicles by the police department. Chief Lukin feels that the temporary impound lot is needed for six to eight months. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -24- Commissioner Pearson asked if the CUP would sunset with the city ending their temporary impound storage use? Mr. Ekstrand said the CUP will go on and the city would review it in one year by that time the impound lot should be not needed at that time. There is a condition in the resolution that states the city council shall review this permit revision and the permit shall end on November 1,2007. Commissioner Trippler asked if this was in the area of the Gladstone redevelopment area that is currently under the moratorium and what exactly does the moratorium cover? Mr. Ekstrand said under the moratorium there is no new construction or expansion allowed but the CUP for an outdoor storage yard is allowed because it doesn't fall under the rules of the moratorium. Basically the city doesn't want to any large investment put into properties until the city has determined what the outcome of the moratorium would be. Commissioner Trippler asked why this proposal was coming from Fire Chief Lukin and not Police Chief Thomalla? Mr. Ekstrand said the history behind that is last summer the city was looking at having a temporary impound lot at the fire station on Maryland Avenue and Century Avenue and because it was going to be at the fire station, the fire chief got involved. When it was determined that area would not be feasible, the fire chief said since he had already been involved in the process he would remain involved, thus leaving the police chief out of the scenario. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution revising the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage yard located at 1160 Frost Avenue, subject to the following conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined): 1. All conctruction chall follow thc citc plan datc ctampcd Junc 11, 1997. Thc dircctor of community dcvclopmcnt may approvc minor changcc. Outside vehicle storaqe is allowed. The director of community development shall review the proposed layout for all outdoor storaqe since there is no current site plan. 2. The city council shall review this permit revision annually from the date of this approval. iR onc ycar. In addition this permit shall end on November 1, 2007, as previously required. ~ The property owner shall clean the site of all debris and shall cut or remove any noxious weeds. This shall be done on a reqular basis. cubmit a plan for ctaff approval chowing thc following citc improvcmcntc: a. Rcdorc thc ground arca north of thc north fcncc with ground covcr. b. Plant screening trees to help hide the storage yard from Frost Avenue. The ccrccning chould includc 8 foot tall Blacl{ Hillc Sprucc and Whitc Ccdar in ctaggcrcd rowc. Thccc plantingc chould covcr thc arca from thc cad cdgc of thc gate to a point about 60 feet to the east. Quality Restorations may place the ccrccning rowc ncar thcir fcncc or on top of thc hill cloccr to Frod Avcnuc. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -25- c. Restore the areas of gravel and bare ground near Frost Avenue. This restoration will involvc rcmoving thc gravcl and wccdc within about 50 fcct of Froct Avcnuc and rcctoring thc arcac with turf, ground covcr and landccaping. d. Rcmovc all thc Sibcrian Elm trccc from thc propcrty. e. \Nhen the city restores the open space site to the east, Quality Restorations shall rcmovc and cradicatc thc I{napwccd and cwcct clovcr from thcir propcrty and thcn rcctorc thc hillcidc with ground covcr, landccaping and trccc. f. Providing additional ccrccning on thc couth cidc ofthc citc by adding landccaping or by providing a ccrccning in thc fcncc. g. Thc applicant chall complctc thccc improvcmcntc by Junc 1, 2003. 4. The temporary storage of work-related materials such as dirt piles and cable spools, for example, may be permitted. These materials may be kept on site for no more than one month. No more than 25 percent of the site shall be used for the storage of such materials. This condition is left in as part of this permit in case the applicant leases this property to another user such as Qualitv Restorations. for whom the permit was oriqinallv approved. 5. Normal hours of operation shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Exceptions will be allowed to provide emergency service to customers. The permitted hours of the impound lot are 24 hours a day. seven days a week. unless the city receives complaints. in which case there shall be no impound lot activity between the hours of 1 0 p.m. and 6 a.m. 6. The city council will need to approve a revision to this permit if the owner wants to put a permanent building on the site. 7. The owner or operator shall provide a dumpster in the storage yard for business garbage if a use other than the police impound lot takes place on this property. 8. The owner or operator shall provide a paved driveway to the gate of the storage yard, subiect to the requirements of the fire marshal. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 14, 2005. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes of 02-23-05 -26- None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Dierich was the planning commission representative at the February 14, 2005, city council meeting. The only planning commission item was the Public Works Expansion at 1902 County Road B East, which was approved ayes all. b. Because there were no planning commission items to discuss at the February 28,2005, city council meeting no representation is needed. c. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the March 14,2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Troutland Auto Dealerships at County Road D, west of Highway 61 for two conditional use permits, the townhome development called the Overview at McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue for a CUP, PUD and the Preliminary Plat, the Jessie Street Proposal at 1685 Edgerton Street Lot width and Lot Area Variances and Lot Division, and the Outdoor Storage Area CUP Police Impound Lot at 1160 Frost Avenue. Commissioner Desai asked what was happening with the planning commission members whose terms have expired and has that been addressed by the city council. Mr. Roberts said that hasn't been addressed but may happen in the month of April. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.