Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 5, 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. November 20, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Easement Vacation - Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue) 7:15 CarMax Auto Superstore (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues) Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations Novem ber 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer December 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover December 18 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood January 8 Council Meeting: ?? 11. Staff Presentations Reschedule January 1 Meeting - Tuesday January 2 or Wednesday January 3? 12. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Staff Present: Present Absent Present Absent Present Absent Present Present at 7:11 p.m. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Hess seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 20, 2006. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November 20, 2006. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood a. Easement Vacation - Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue) (7:13 - 7:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Maplewood city staff, at the direction of the city council, is proposing that the city vacate part of an existing easement. This easement is now 20 feet wide and is between Lots 6 and 7 of the Jensen Estates plat. Specifically, the easement is on the west side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -2- The council directed staff to vacate the east six feet of this easement to ensure that the trail that the developer is to install will be kept to the west of the existing house. This shift is necessary to provide the homeowners room for the landscaping and retaining walls on their property. On September 25, 2006, the city council considered a request of Mr. Schroeder of 2320 Hoyt Avenue to not require the developer to install a required trail within the development. The council denied this request and so the city will still be requiring the developer to install the trail. As designed, this trail will run north-south from the Hoyt Avenue cul-de-sac to the north property line of the development. Mr. Schroeder originally requested that the city not require the installation of the trail because of concerns about grading, drainage and landscaping. However, the council directed staff to work with the developer to ensure that the city-required trail be installed while keeping as far from the Schroeders' home as possible. The possible trail plan and partial easement vacation should meet the requirements of the city council and help alleviate some of the Schroeders' concerns. Commissioner Trippler said according to the survey map shown on page 8 of the staff report which was done by Hedlund it appears the house on lot 6 is going to be closer to the easement than the house on lot 7, is that correct? Mr. Roberts said that may be. Until the city gets a specific house survey for that lot it mayor may not be closer. They have to stay out of the easement but they can come right up to it. Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, said Lot 6 is still owned by the developer and he is selling it to a builder. We had a homeowner who was not aware of the trail to begin with now the trail signs are up and the trail is going to be built and before someone puts a house up on Lot 6 the city can build the trail and the house can be built accordingly. Commissioner Hess said he went out to the site on Sunday and in looking at the survey done by Hedlund it shows the slope at 4.0% to the end of the trail. He asked if the trail has to be ADA compliant? He wondered how that would be accomplished with the amount of grading that would have to be done. Mr. Ahl said this plan was put together because of the ADA requirement for the trail that you mentioned. The grading is relatively steep. Originally Lot 7 had retaining walls and plantings there and now will be able to make this fit on the site which was a compromise to make this work. Lot 6 will have to be graded accordingly based on the trail elevation. For the ADA requirements you can have short segments up to 7 or 8% but typically they have to be shorter than 100 to 125 feet long and then you have to have a landing area. The 4% is the beginning of the landing area and if you look at the grades to the north towards Currie Street it actually flattens out there. This will very easily meet the 5% once it is constructed. The builder may have to bring in additional fill for Lot 6 and this will clearly be an extra expense for the developer and builder on the site. However, it was their error for not telling the people buying the lots that the trail was going in therefore, the city council determined the developer and builder should incur the expense for that. Commissioner Trippler asked iflhere were any sidewalks on Currie Street? He said he's in favor of trails and sidewalks but he can't see that the trail is going anywhere because it doesn't connect to Currie Street or anywhere else. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said as staff he worked with this property the original plan was to have two temporary cul-de-sacs and eventually have the streets connect. Then this developer came in and the property owner to the north came in and they both said they didn't think that would work so the connection never happened. Staff believes the thought for the trail is to allow pedestrians to move between neighborhoods without having to cut through yards. Street to street there isn't a connection but it gives people more choices rather than having to walk across or along McKnight Road which could be dangerous. Commissioner Trippler asked if there were any sidewalks on Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Roberts said no. At some point there may be sidewalks but that would be between the city and the county. It is and has been the city council's thought wherever we can put sidewalks and trails in the City of Maplewood that we want to do that. Commissioner Hess said the property line area of Lot 7 looks like there are two 30-foot tall evergreens where the trail will be going. He asked if those trees would be removed for the trail? Mr. Ahl said once the city gets a site plan for the property to the north the city plans to construct the trail around those evergreen trees. Chairperson Fisher asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Roberts said in this case the city is the applicant but the city did notify the neighbors for their opinions. Ms. Gail Schroeder, 2320 Hoyt Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said originally we petitioned the neighbors regarding the fact that nobody wanted the trail to go in. However, this situation is a compromise having the developer and builder pay for the trail to go. Commissioner Trippler asked if Ms. Schroeder said she and the neighbors didn't want the trail to go in and you did a petition against it? Ms. Schroeder said we petitioned the residents on Currie Street and Hoyt Avenue and brought it to the city council stating we were against the trail going in. Commissioner Trippler asked how many residents signed the petition against the trail? Ms. Schroeder said she couldn't remember the exact number but it was less than 20 and more than 12 names. The city council said in the event that sidewalks were ever built on Larpenteur Avenue and McKnight the trail would eventually connect to Currie Street. Commissioner Trippler thanked the resident for her comments. Mr. Roberts said just for clarification that was at the September 25, 2006, city council meeting that was referenced in the background report in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -4- Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anyone in the audience wanted to speak to come forward. No other audience members came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler said he was going to approve this request but he is now having second thoughts after hearing the neighbor speak. Commissioner Trippler asked why the petition was not included in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said staff did not include the petition in the report because the city council gave direction at the September 25, 2006, that even though the neighbors had a petition the city was still going to have the trail constructed. The direction to staff was to get the six feet of easement vacated so that is what staff brought to the planning commission. Chairperson Fischer said the neighbor was referring to the compromise of having the six foot easement vacated would leave in place the west 14 feet of easement. Commissioner Trippler said he felt strongly that the petition information should have been included in the staff report and was an important piece of information left out. Mr. Roberts apologized for not including it in the staff report. Commissioner Hess asked if there was some way we could reverse the city council decision since the neighbors don't even want the trail put in? Chairperson Fischer said this request came in as a result of the neighborhood petition and with the direction to vacate this part of the easement per the city council. Her thought is this trail gets kids through the area safely. Mr. Roberts said the commission could disagree with the city council and convey their feelings; staff is only doing what the city council requested. Commissioner Hess said he talked to Ms. Schroeder Sunday night about this and evidently when they purchased their property the trail was not shown on the drawings and the trail came about after the fact. Mr. Roberts said it's unfortunate and the situation has happened in the past. As staff we plan to work with the developers to get the trails constructed when the street is constructed or at least have signage put up that would say Future Trail so hopefully this situation won't happen again. The developer didn't tell the builder and the builder didn't tell the buyer and that information was lost in the chain of sales. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on page nine of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the drainage and utility easement on the west side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (between Lots 6 and 7, Jensen Estates). The reasons for the vacation are as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -5- 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use all of the existing easement for utility or trail purposes. 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage. 4. The remaining easement area will be wide enough for the installation of the required trail. This vacation is subject to the property owners at 2320 Hoyt Avenue maintaining the drainage on the west side of their house and garage on their property. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on either December 18, 2006, or January 8, 2007. Commissioner Trippler said the only reason he approved this request was that the neighbors were okay with the compromise that the city came up with to have a smaller easement for the trail. b. Carmax Auto Superstore (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues) (7:33- 8:51 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Carmax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, is proposing to develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. Carmax would occupy a site at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. There would also be three future development proposals that would occur on the remainder of the golf course property. Two of these future uses are identified on the site plan as a medical office/retail building and warehouse/retail with gasoline sales. The third site is not yet identified. According to the site plans, these future lots would be developed as follows: The proposed Carmax used-car dealership will be on Lot 1 and include two buildings. The first would be an 18,744-square-foot building for sales, service and display. The second would be a 750-square-foot car wash. The majority of the site would be used for parking, primarily with sales inventory parking. There would also be a .55-acre work-in-progress area surrounded by a six- foot-tall concrete-block screening wall. This area would conceal cars not ready for display or that are two old or in disrepair and not suitable for sale on this lot. There is no specific proposal yet for the site on Lot 2 which would be warehouse/retail/gasoline sales. This site plan is conceptual and not part of this review. Originally Lot 3 was part of the Carmax site. It will be a future development and there are no plans at this time for a specific proposal. Maplewood has a drainage easement over the proposed Outlot A for area ponding needs. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -6- Outlot B is shown on the plans as medical/office/retail but there is no specific proposal yet forthis site and is not part of this review. Mr. Ahl said the traffic study was done by Kimley Horn & Associates. Brandon Bourdon is here to discuss the traffic details and the impact this site will have on the traffic. The entire site will generate a fairly significant amount of traffic for the surrounding area. The developer petitioned the city council to have a traffic study done which has been completed. The traffic study recommends the center medians be installed on Beam Avenue to control the traffic and that additional right hand turn lanes are necessary to the site. There will be $4.4 million in improvements done for this project. This site will have impacts on the 20 year operation of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. This is a heavily traveled area and is one of the top 100 worst accident intersections in the State of Minnesota which means it's a very dangerous intersection. MnDOT also proposes upgrades to this intersection. The city will be upgrading the signal system and over $750,000 will be spent in this area. There are outside agencies other than the developer that will be spending $4.4 million on this area. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't see any future development plans for Lot 3 shown in the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand said no development plans have been proposed for Lot 3 yet. Earlier this summer in the previous Carmax proposal Lot 3 was part of the original site plan and was later reconfigured because of soil conditions which reduced the site plan and Lot 3 was taken out of the plan and now stands alone. Commissioner Trippler said from a traffic standpoint this Carmax site troubles him greatly because he sees nothing but disasters where the entrances and exits to the site are proposed. The entrance and exit points are shown at one of the worst intersections in Maplewood. He was surprised when he read that the transport truck was going to drive into a gated facility on Highway 61. In the past 20 years that he has lived in Maplewood he has never ever seen the transport trucks for Schmelz Countryside Volkswagen unload their cars in the parking lot, they have always unloaded the vehicles right on the frontage road of Cope Avenue by Menard's. In fact, most of the transport trucks deliver cars to the dealerships in Maplewood where they are not supposed and the dealerships know about it and don't do anything about it. This is very dangerous and he is concerned about this happening on Highway 61 in this location and having a gate on Highway 61 seems like a disaster waiting to happen and he doubts the truck would actually pull into the lot to unload cars. Maybe the gate could be moved to County Road D. The reason he asked what the future plans were for Lot 3 was because he thought the best way to access the facility was to bring the cars in on County Road D and across Lot 3. That way you are bringing cars into the facility and allowing them to leave the facility in a safer manner with less traffic. This way a vehicle can turn without a lot of difficulty. He said this is the first time he heard about having semaphores on Beam Avenue. This seems like it would only compound the traffic problem. He thought the reason we extended County Road D was to move traffic through the area and to get more vehicles off of Beam Avenue. He asked if the city had spoken to the developer about that idea at all? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -7- Mr. Ahl said the city spoke to the developer about that but the boundary between the Carmax site and Lot 3 has very soft soil and it would cost about $1 .6 million to cross County Road D and is cost prohibitive. Mr. Ahl said that's why as staff we supported the access point to Beam Avenue which was consistent with the traffic study. Working with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer and the MnDOT Metro Area Traffic Engineer and they concluded that access point was the best location for Carmax. Mr. Ahl said the city thinks this will work well even at a 20 year projection where traffic levels usually double. The city doesn't want transport trucks unloading vehicles on Highway 61, especially since Nissan, Volvo, and Lexus just spent $425,000 having a new frontage road constructed north of County Road D so their transport trucks could make deliveries safely to keep trucks from unloading on Highway 61. The gated road on Highway 61 is not designed for transport trucks to turn in and that isn't where Carmax would put vehicles. Carmax has shown the city their plans regarding how the transport truck would get into the site and we are comfortable with that. Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend that if the gate has to be located on Highway 61 it would be advantageous to have a turn off lane and an egress lane so people can get some speed up. However, if Carmax could move the entrance to County Road D that would be preferable. Mr. Ahl said customers cannot go from the south part of the site to the north; the internal gate system does not allow that, the northern part of the site is where the vehicles are. The city was thinking that gate entrance would have five to ten vehicle trips per day which wouldn't justify a turn lane on Highway 61 . Carmax is going to provide more information for the city regarding this. There are also some grading issues that would have to be looked at as well if that were to happen. That site used to be the old Venburg tire site which has been cleaned up and is part of the original easement agreement from 2004 that the Mogren's entered into an option to purchase from the city. Iflhere is enough traffic to justify the egress and ingress lanes on Highway 61 it would be city staffs recommendation to move that to County Road D because of merging traffic. Commissioner Trippler said he tried to think of another car dealership or commercial warehouse that had a concrete wall of any kind around it and the only thing he could think of was the State Penitentiary in St. Cloud. He couldn't imagine why a six foot tall concrete wall would be needed to protect used cars. Mr. Ahl said a Carmax representative can address that. Commissioner Desai agreed with everything Commissioner Trippler said. He said he lives in the area by Maplewood Toyota and he drives those roads every day so he knows what the traffic problems are. This is a very dangerous area. He asked if these road improvements would be done on Beam Avenue first and then Carmax would be built or is Carmax going to be operating and then the road improvements get done after the fact? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -8- Mr. Ahl said it's likely the road improvements will be done by November of 2007 which may be before Carmax is built. Carmax will not be the largest generator of traffic from this site, it will be the user of Lot 3 which will be a big box retail facility. Mr. Ahl said if you recall when the Country View Golf Course was operating there were many accidents and congestion problems there with the turn lane going in and out of the site. When we add traffic capacity to Highway 61 and the Beam Avenue intersection we worry about road improvements. In this case MNDOT had proposed to do improvements in 2009/2010 but because of the concerns they have moved it up to 2007 which will really help improve traffic at this intersection. Commissioner Desai asked if the left turn lane for vehicles driving into Carmaxwill be there orwill Carmax not be allowed to have vehicles turning left into the area before then? Mr. Ahl said he would have to verify that situation. Commissioner Desai said currently Maplewood Toyota has a left turn on Beam Avenue turning onto Highway 61 and people are still stopping and creating accidents on a regular basis. So he believes that making a left turn into the Carmax site will cause the same problem that we had with the Country View Golf Course site. He strongly believes that situation needs to be addressed before anything else can be done in this area. Mr. Ahl said he didn't discuss all the traffic improvements here but there will be improvements on Beam Avenue that will have turning restrictions. Commissioner Desai said regarding the area that is classified as the Watershed District how will oil be protected from draining into the watershed area? Mr. Ahl said the city worries about that getting into the ponding system as well. That is a final design requirement for car dealerships, repair shops and service stations. There are oil skimming devices and requirements for stormwater systems to handle that. Commissioner Hess asked about the oil infiltration, and if there are plans to have containment tanks or trenching outside the building? Mr. Ahl said he isn't sure about the requirements for the inside of the building because that's a building inspector requirement but most buildings do have floor drains in them. The Public Works facility has floor drains, which is a local requirement. Public Works looks at skimming devices and there are ponds and outlet devices which are requirements that we get into during the final design. The final design is being done under the city, not by the developer, but it's being done at the developer's expense. Commissioner Hess said on page C3. 2A there are grading and paving notes and it looks like there is a provision noted for concrete walkways. At the last review he asked if they were going to put a sidewalk on Beam Avenue and he wondered if anything transpired because of that. Mr. Ahl said he wasn't aware of any sidewalks proposed along Beam Avenue because the city isn't proposing any along Beam Avenue. There is a dedicated regional trail system along County Road D so we are not proposing any sidewalks there. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -9- Commissioner Yarwood asked staff how many vehicle trips per day would be going in and out of the site and will that significantly add to the traffic along Highway 61? Mr. Ahl said Mr. Bourdon the traffic consultant with Kimley and Horn can address that question. Commissioner Trippler said the memo on page 34 of the staff report under the Infiltration Systems it states the bottom of this infiltration basin is near elevation 863.0, which is likely near the normal (ground) water level. Plan Sheet C3.2A shows a normal water level (NWL) of 864.25 for the infiltration basin while the HydroCAD model reflects no such assumption. Tina Carstens from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District said in her report on page 46 of the staff report that the ground water is quite high in this location and therefore wouldn't meet the 3 foot separation to groundwater requirement for infiltration basins. That statement means to him that the rainwater gardens may not be very effective here. Mr. Ahl said these aren't the rain garden designs, these are the infiltration ponds. One of the difficulties with this site is that the soils are not very stabile and the more water stored at a higher elevation will move the soils around and we want to keep the soils stabile. That comment means the assumptions from the developer's engineers need to be explored which has been done. The Ramsey-Washington Watershed District has a large complex on the south site and has the capacity within the area. We are working to meet those overall intents. The provision of 1 inch of infiltration still applies which is standard. That says the assumption is a little high however, they have enough infiltration and buffer areas for this site and meets the requirements as needed. Commissioner Trippler said on page 40 of the staff report, table 1, the sentence above says these existing and proposed wetland and buffer areas are illustrated in Exhibits 8 and 9. However, he couldn't find Exhibits 8 and 9 in the staff report. Mr. Ahl apologized, Exhibits 8 and 9 were the colored drawings he put on the overhead earlier. Those exhibits were not included in the staff report and if the commission would like a copy, staff can get that for the commission. Commissioner Trippler said that was fine that the exhibits were not in the staff report knowing those were just shown on the overhead by Mr. Ahl. Mr. Ahl introduced Brandon Bourdon to give the traffic report. Mr. Brandon Bourdon, Kimley Horn & Associates, addressed the commission. Based on the vehicle trips generated for the various land use assumptions for the area the overall trip generation would be roughly 11 ,000 vehicle trips per day. Of those 11,000 vehicle trips Carmax would generate about 2,700 per day so Carmax would generate roughly 25% of the total trips and the big box retail shown on the plans would be well over 50% of the total site trips on the overall development. The traffic volumes and site traffic over the peak hour would translate to a 20% increase in traffic on County Road D as well as Beam Avenue, including the traffic from the development area, not just the traffic for Carmax. Commissioner Desai said are the 11,000 vehicle trips happening currently or is that after the developments are in place? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -10- Mr. Bourdon said that would be the daily anticipated vehicle trips after the "whole" development site was done. Commissioner Desai asked what the current vehicle trip rate was today? Mr. Bourdon said there are roughly 25,000 vehicle trips per day now on Beam Avenue and this development would add about 3,000 more vehicle trips per day or 20% more vehicles to Beam Avenue equaling 28,000 vehicle trips per day. Commissioner Desai asked if Mr. Bourdon meant 3,000 more vehicle trips per day adding Carmax to the site? Mr. Bourdon said that would be the total vehicle trips for the whole development site once it is completely developed. (However, if you take 25,000 vehicle trips now plus the additional 11,000 vehicle trips for the entire site once it is constructed that equals roughly 36,000 vehicle trips - not 28,000 vehicle trips.) Commissioner Desai asked what the traffic level would be at the peak hours? Mr. Bourdon said the peak hours would generate about 400 additional vehicle trips on Beam Avenue. Today during peak hours there are roughly 2,000 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Roberts asked what the average number of vehicle trips for Highway 61 are? Mr. Bourdon said there are roughly 31 ,000 vehicle trips per day on Highway 61 . Commissioner Yarwood said regarding the improvements Chuck Ahl was referring to, what is the general feel regarding the vehicle capacity the total improvements would add to this area in terms of the traffic volumes it can handle safely and effectively verses what the area handles today? Mr. Bourdon said looking ahead as to how the development would look when it is completely built up in 2010 the conditions are similar to what would happen if there were no improvements and regular growth occurred. Changing the traffic lane configurations at Beam Avenue and Highway 61 there will be some alignments that will improve safety considerably from what exists today. It also allows the signal to operate more efficiently because you don't have to separate the west bound movements from the east bound movements. Those improvements would have a minimal impact overall which is what we look for in a traffic study. We also look for what happens before the development and making sure would happen if there was "no" action verses if the development was built and the level of traffic remained the same and we took action to make the traffic level operate smoother. Commissioner Trippler said Tina Carstens from the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District commented on page 46, in number 5. of the staff report they would like something in the maintenance agreement regarding the pervious bituminous that would state no salt/sand usage and also a vacuum sweep at least annually. He said he looked for that recommendation in the staff report and he didn't see that. He asked if that would be covered in some other agreement? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -11- Mr. Ahl said after the city approval process sites like this have a development contract and then those conditions are listed there. The developer has to sign that agreement and post escrow money to ensure that the work is done and that the conditions will be part of the annual operating maintenance agreement that the city puts together. Mr. Ahl said the Public Works Department checks every year to make sure that is done. If you have seen the statement "to enter into a storm water maintenance agreement"; that is the agreement I am referring to where the condition is covered. Commissioner Hess said on page 43, item number 5., of the staff report Ginny Gaynor commented she would like to see more trees in the parking lot medians, he asked staff if that request has been modified in the plans? Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke to Ginny Gaynor and her thought is that having trees in parking lots is beneficial because the trees shade the vehicles. Staff is preparing the report for the CDRB meeting and landscaping is part of that report. Ms. Gaynor liked the idea of moving the trees closer to the parking lot and having trees in the parking medians to shade the vehicles. Staff isn't sure how the applicant feels about that request. Personally he has many trees on his property and often times sap drips onto his vehicles which can be a nuisance. Mr. Ekstrand said he was curious how the applicant felt about trees planted close to vehicles for sale in the Carmax parking lot. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Dave Sellegren, addressed the commission. He is a Land Use Lawyer speaking on behalf of Carmax. He verbally introduced the members for the Carmax proposal. He said because they weren't sure what the relationship was between the planning commission and the community design review board and the conditions they brought the whole team with in case there were questions from the planning commission. He said this is a very thorough staff report with a lot of information attached to it so he doesn't want to repeat what has already been written in the report. However, this project began as a larger project but due to the soil conditions on the site along with the large storm water pipes the site has been reduced and the concept has changed. Rather than going over the whole plan in detail he introduced Joe Jagdmann to report on the development. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -12- Mr. Joe Jagdmann, Real Estate Manager, residing at 12800 Tuchahoe Creek Parkway, Richmond, Virginia, representing Carmax, addressed the commission. He said Carmax is newto the twin cities area and the closest Carmax location is in Chicago, Illinois and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Carmax has 74 facilities in 20 states nationwide. Carmax has grown in 13 years and sells over 300,000 vehicles a year. We are a transparent; no price haggle business, with a customer service policy. If you come to a Carmax lot wanting to sell your vehicle Carmax gives you an offer price that is good for 7 days whether you end up buying another vehicle from us or not. If you come in and decide to buy a vehicle from us, there is no price haggling, the sales commission is the same whether you buy a Ford Escort or a Lexus SUV from Carmax. The purpose is to serve the customer and not to drive up the average price of a vehicle. We offer a quality alternative to gimmicks. We also have sources of financing that are actually open the hours Carmax is open so we get actual real time quotes and present them to the customer. Carmax will employ 80 to 100 employees in this facility and at least 80 of those will be hired from the local area. For the last two years Carmax is a company that is on the 100 best companies to work for in America and amongst the 200 most admired. We are very grateful for the work that Mr. Chuck Ahl and Mr. Tom Ekstrand and their staff for all the work that has been done on this proposal so we want to thank them. Mr. Jagdmann put a site plan on the overhead and reviewed the site plan and described where everything would be located. The sales lot would be surrounded by a highway guardrail or bent pipe bOllards and is surrounded with access controlled embassy-style security gates. If a thief tried to drive through that gate they would shear the top of their vehicle off before getting through the gate. Mr. Jagdmann said the six foot tall masonry wall extends north of the north wall of the northern most building and runs south along the east wall. The masonry wall will match the surrounding building. The purpose for the six foot tall masonry wall is so that they can have a work in progress area. Mr. Jagdmann said the vehicles are driven in off of Beam Avenue. We put a truck template on the parking lot to make sure we can get around, stop and drop off the vehicle. We are aware of the issues regarding transport trucks unloading vehicles on the street and are fully willing to be compliant with the law in that respect. Mr. Jagdmann described the layout of the site and how vehicles will come in to the site. The six foot tall masonry wall is needed so we can clean up the vehicles behind the wall which will make the overall site more attractive. We will discuss the details regarding the wall with the CDRB. Regarding the trees in the parking medians, Carmax tries to avoid having trees in the sales lot and prefer to clump the trees on the edge of the lot. We think trees in the parking medians cause problems with leaves dropping, birds sit in the trees and bird droppings land on the vehicles, and tree sap drips on the vehicles then so it would be Carmax's preference to "not" have trees in the parking medians due to the maintenance issues. However, we want to meet the landscaping ordinance and want approval from the city for this proposal. He showed a photo of their Carmax building in Harrisburg, Virginia. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -13- Mr. Jagdmann said this proposal in Maplewood would be a satellite facility and not a production facility. One of the commissioners asked why cars couldn't come in off of the north south connector street off of County Road D and Beam Avenue. Carmax drew the site plan that way and would've preferred to build in that fashion, but the cost to cross the property that way was so expensive due to the poor soil and we couldn't afford that. As a result, we reduced the site from a production facility to a satellite facility. The difference being that a production facility reconditions vehicles and requires a larger site with 14 to 20 acres. A satellite facility would be 8 to 10 acres and the cars would be prepared at another location and brought to this location to be sold. There will be sidewalks on the north south road but he wasn't aware of any sidewalks planned on Beam Avenue. Regarding moving the transport gate from Highway 61 to County Road D there are issues regarding the grade. If that could be worked out we would be willing to look at that and if that could be worked out we would come back with a new plan. Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant to show exactly where the six foot tall masonry wall would be located on the site. Commissioner Hess asked how they intended to dispose of oil and other flammables on the site. Mr. Jagdmann said in a satellite facility we have an above ground gasoline storage tank which will meet all applicable legal requirements. The service is done indoors. The flammables on the floor of the service building would be washed into the drain system where it goes through an oil/water separator, and into the sanitary sewer system. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Jagdmann to indicate where the employee parking would be as opposed to where the customer parking would be so he knows where the 9 foot and 9% foot wide parking spaces would be? Mr. Jagdmann said Carmax decided it would be much easier to make all the parking spaces 9% feet wide as opposed to the 9 foot wide parking spaces. We would also be adding a few more parking spaces. Mr. Roberts asked if Carmax would only sell used cars? Mr. Jagdmann said we have a few new car franchises across the country but this location would only sell used cars. Mr. Roberts asked where Carmax gets their vehicles they sell? Mr. Jagdmann said about half of the vehicles come to the lot from customers coming to the lot to sell their vehicle to Carmax. When we buy vehicles from the customer we sell half of them in an auction house like Manheim where vehicles are sold to licensed dealers. There are no auctions done at this site, those are done in auction warehouses. The other half of the vehicles are reconditioned and sold on the Carmax site. Mr. Sellegran said we generally agree with the staff conditions in the staff report, some of the wording may change because of some misunderstandings. We will meet all the requirements of the city and with the Watershed District. We ask for your recommendation so this can go on to the city council for final review and approval. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -14- Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler asked on page 48, attachment 11, is that legal description correct and does it include all the lots for the development site? Mr. Ekstrand said he will have to check on that because when he wrote this resolution he used the legal description for the report that he used earlier this summer. Before this goes to the city council he said he would make sure the legal description is correct. We don't want to be giving site plan approval for anything other than Carmax and we want to see the other lots come through for the normal review process. The PUD is for the whole site and the CUP is for Lot 1. Commissioner Trippler said in the recommendations it states a drainage and wetland report and DuWayne Konewko's report is called Stormwater/Wetland report. Would it be alright if we made it consistent and change the name of the report? Mr. Ekstrand said that would be fine, staff would make those reference changes in the report. Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carmax/Mogren Addition development. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped October 20,2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This approval permits the development of the Carmax site subject to the conditions of the city council. The future development sites are not approved at this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications and materials for evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance. 5. If the watershed district allows their twin drainage pipes to be relocated above grade as an open channel, the PUD shall also require that all developments within the Carmax/Mogren Addition actively and regularly pick up all litter from their parking lots to keep debris from entering this open channel. 6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated November 21 , 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson. 7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan review reports as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -15- . The Stormwater/Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November22, 2006. . The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006. . The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21 , 2006. 8. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The concrete-block screening wall design is not allowed as proposed. The design of this smooth-faced concrete block wall must be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. 9. The pervious-paving method proposed within the shoreland boundary area shall meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 10. Vehicle transports shall not use any public right-of-way for loading or unloading. 11. The proposed driveway on Highway 61 shall remain gated and closed at all times except when needed for vehicle test drives. This access shall not be allowed for any other use. If the Minnesota Department of Transportation does not allow the highway access, an alternative design shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 12. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 13. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces. 14. The applicants shall obtain any required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota and meet the requirements of those agencies. 15. The site plan shall be revised to move the driveway on Beam Avenue as far to the east as possible. This revision shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 16. The city engineer shall get the necessary approvals for wetland mitigation from the watershed district as part of the public improvements needed for this subdivision and development as stated in the report by DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist. 17.AII buildings, paving, unneeded utilities, etc. within the proposed subdivision shall be demolished and removed from the site by the applicants. 18. The applicants shall provide all development agreements, maintenance agreements and escrows required by the city. These agreements shall be executed and escrows paid before the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Carmax/Mogren Addition, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -16- 1. Signing of the following agreements with the city: . A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. . A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. 2. Revising the plat to rename all outlots with lot and block numbers. 3. The applicants shall dedicate any easements that the city may require for drainage and utility purposes. 4. The name of the street shall be subject to the approval of the city's public safety staff and city engineer. 5. The applicants shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated November 21 , 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson. 7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan-review reports as follows: . The Stormwater/Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November22, 2006. . The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006. . The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21 , 2006. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the CDRB on December 12, 2006, and to the city council on December 18, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 -17- None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischerwas the planning commission representative atthe November 27, 2006, city council meeting. The only items to discuss were the CUP for Sandy Lake for the materials storage and recycling for the SPRWS which was passed by the city council. b. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the December 11, 2006, city council meeting. The items to discuss include the Alley Vacation for Judy Driscoll, south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street, the Walgreens proposal at the northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenues) for a land use plan amendment from LBC to BC, a zoning map change from LBC to BC and a lot division. Also the Resolution of Appreciation for former planning commission member, Jim Kaczrowski will be discussed. c. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the December 18, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Carmax Auto Superstore (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues) for a Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, and possibly the Easement Vacation for Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue). X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS We will discuss at the next planning commission meeting rescheduling the January 1, 2007, planning commission meeting to either Tuesday, January 2 or Wednesday, January 3, 2007, when more planning commissioners are present. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.