Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2000BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD April 11, 2000 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. March 28, 2000 Forest Products, Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and County Road C - Conrad $olberg of Forest Products b. Fresh Paint, 1055 Gervais Avenue- Sanas Capital Investments 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Reminder: CDRB Volunteer for April 24 is Tim Johnson b. CDRB Volunteer Needed for the May 8 City Council Meeting. c. Items for May 9 CDRB Meeting: Curbing Ordinance, Amusement City 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forrns~:lrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MARCH 28, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Absent Tim Johnson Present Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. March 14, 2000 Boardmember LaCasse moved approval of the minutes of March 14, 2000, as submitted. BoardmemberJohnson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VI. There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW A. Bennigan's Irish American Grill and Tavern, West of the Olive Garden (1749 Beam Avenue) Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He said the applicant, Den-Way, Inc., is asking for a variance from the development moratorium ordinance and approval of the building, site, landscaping and sign plans. The variance will be decided by the city council. Chairperson Ledvina asked about the traffic circulation. Secretary Ekstrand showed the original site development concept plan for the Birch Run shopping center. He said the four outlots are meant to be interlinked with the connecting roadways that feed into the main parking lot for Birch Run Station. Mr. Ekstrand pointed out that the Bennigan site is shown and proposed to connect with Olive Garden. Chairperson Ledvina requested that the driveway location on the north and the area that had curbing issues be identified. Mr. Ekstrand indicated that the east/west paved drive on the north side of the property is existing. He said staff is recommending that the curbing, shown Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-28-00 -2- on the ends and the south sides, on the little islands be completed where they abut the east/west driveway. The orientation of the building was also questioned. Mr. Ekstrand said the front would be towards the south. Secretary Ekstrand explained that the sign code allows two signs on one true street frontage, however, the comprehensive sign plan for the shopping center allows for some flexibility. He thought that allowing a sign on the back of the building, facing the shopping center, would be beneficial. This sign would be about 12 feet long and three to four feet tall. Mr. Ekstrand thought the sign sizes were" modest" because the code allows walls signs to cover 20 percent of the wall surface area. He showed colored photos of Bennigan's. Tom Martin, of Cambridge Commercial Realty, was present representing the applicant. He explained that the photos were of a store that recently opened in Florida. Two wall signs on the building and a monument sign in front of the building were shown in the photo. Mr. Martin thought that Bennigan's might want to do something like this at this location some time in the future rather than have three wall signs. By code, a pylon sign could be 25 feet high. Mr. Martin felt that "most of the comments are relatively positive" for Bennigan's to proceed to the planning commission. They had no issues with staff's recommendations. Secretary Ekstrand had asked Mr. Martin to bring samples of the materials and colors proposed for the building. Because the applicant was away from his office and did not receive notice of this meeting until late, Mr. Martin was unable to obtain these samples. The photos did show the colors. Chairperson Ledvina said he was okay with the staff recommendation in relation to eliminating one of the wall signs and adding a pylon sign but he did not want the size of the wall signs to change if the applicant went from three signs to two signs. If the signs were proposed to be even slightly larger, he would want to either deny or review the new plan. Mr. Ledvina thought the building was "very nicely appointed" and very attractive. Staff felt the material and plan for the dumpster enclosure were acceptable. It was unclear whether the service yard gate was chain link or solid metal. Mr. Martin was unable to complete a phone call to clarify the matter. The board discussed the two materials. Mr. Ekstrand thought the metal panel would look better than chain link with slats but agreed with Boardmember LaCasse that it would be prone to denting and, therefore, a maintenance issue. Chairperson Ledvina suggested that staff and the applicant work together to decide what product would work best. Boardmember Johnson moved the Community Design Review Board: Approve the architectural, site, landscaping and sign plans, date-stamped March 10, 2000, for the proposed Bennigan's Irish American Grill and Tavern west of 1749 Beam Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-28-00 Co 3. The a. b. C. -3- b. Revise the site plan showing concrete curb and gutter on the south side of the east/west driveway north of the site. The applicant shall also make sure that their asphalt paving attach to the adjacent paving of the Olive Garden site. Present the design of the gates around the trash enclosure to staff for approval. applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment, if used, to match the building color. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Provide site security lighting that is aimed or shielded so not to shine into drivers' eyes. d. Install continuous concrete curbing around the parking lots and drives. e. Pave all driving surfaces. f. Staff will approve the design of the gates around the trash enclosure. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June I if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring and summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. The Bennigan's wall signs are approved as shown on the plans. A pylon sign may be substituted for one of the wall signs subject to the height and size requirements of the city code. The size of the wall signs approved are the ones shown on the plans. The director of community development may 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Chairperson Ledvina requested that the minutes show that the board discussion focused around the appearance of the trash enclosure. The board did not specify that the applicant use one material or another but just noted the need to improve the appearance and detailing associated with this structure. Ayes--all The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-28-00 VII, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS -4- Chairperson Ledvina mentioned that he subscribed to a newsletter for the Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network. He noted an article by a landscape architect that related to how various types of fixtures reduce and eliminate light pollution. The architect offered to speak to different groups on this subject. Mr. Ledvina thought this would be a worthwhile presentation for the board. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. CDRB Volunteer for April 10 Meeting: Mr. Ledvina will attend this meeting. B. CDRB Volunteer for April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting. C. Secretary Tom Ekstrand said that Forest Products and Fresh Paint are tentatively scheduled for the April 11 CDRB meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Setback Variances, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Forest Products Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and County Road C April 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Conrad Solberg, of Forest Products, is proposing to build an 8,400-square-foot cabinet-shop building at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. Refer to the maps on pages 9-11. (This property includes a 40-foot-wide strip of wooded land on the east side of the frontage road. The applicant would not include this strip in his development. It would remain as is.) The proposed building would be constructed of decorative concrete block with cedar trim. Refer to the building elevations. Requests The applicant is requesting approval of the following: A 22-foot building setback vadance from the Highway 61 right-of-way. The code requires a 30-foot setback. The proposed building would be placed at a setback ranging from eight to 20 feet. Refer to the letter on page 13. A seven-foot parking lot setback vadance from the frontage road right-of-way. The code requires a 15-foot setback. A corner of the proposed easterly parking lot would have an eight-foot setback. Refer to the letter on page 14. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build their building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. The nearest residential district is 100 feet to the west--the center of Highway 61. (The nearest developable property in this residential district is 750 feet away.) 4. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans. DISCUSSION Setback Variances This site is difficult to develop because of the triangular shape of the lot. This unique shape, along with a very wide highway boulevard (75 feet), provides a basis for variance approval. The typical boulevard width is 12 to 15 feet. The proposed building would end up with a setback from the highway shoulder of 83 feet. This is a much greater setback than would typically be provided. Staff also supports the proposed parking lot setback variance. The small point of parking lot that would encroach into the 15-foot setback by the frontage road would be insignificant. Staff would not support this reduction if the encroachment included the entire length of parking lot. Conditional Use Permit The intent of the code, which requires a CUP for buildings closer than 350 feet to a residential district, is to give the city an opportunity to require additional buffering to protect homeowners. In this case, the residential district near the proposed lot is the center of the highway right-of-way. The nearest developable residential land, furthermore, is 750 feet away. The proposed building would be about 200 feet from the nearest homes to the east and south. These homes, however, are on land planned and zoned for M-1 (light manufacturing). Because of the M-1 zoning, the code does not require a CUP for the proximity to these homes. The city council should consider methods like hours of operation, screening and light-glare control to protect these nearby residents from disturbances. Noise The applicant should make every attempt to keep machine noise to a minimum. Work should not be done with the doors open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. Building Design The proposed building would be attractive and would fit the character of this highway-frontage business location. Landscaping The proposed landscaping would be attractive. Staff's only suggestion, however, is that the three Black Hills Spruce trees proposed at the southwest corner of the building be switched with the nine Japanese Red Spirea shown at the southeast corner of the site. Spruce in this location would provide better screening for the homes on this side. Site Lights The applicant should provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture design. The lighting code requires a plan when near homes. The fixtures installed should be a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Shoreland Ordinance This property is within the Kohlman Lake shoreland boundary area. The code allows up to 50 percent impervious-surface coverage, if the applicant provides an on-site method for reducing storm water flow or provides for the treatment of runoff. The applicant is proposing a holding pond at the north end of the site to satisfy this requirement. In 1998, when we reviewed the Delavari convenience store proposal, the planning commission raised a question about compliance with the land coverage requirements in the shoreland ordinance. As mentioned, the ordinance allows the developer to cover 50 percent of their land if they provide a storm-water management control method. The ordinance states, though, that the impervious surface area limits shall be determined using the total developable area of the parcel (above the ordinary high-water level and suitable for development), exclusive of streets and sidewalks. The planning commission felt that the 40-foot-wide stdp of land east of the frontage road is not developable due to setback constraintsgit should not, therefore, be considered part of the site. Staff has taken a different interpretation in that the "developable area" constraint refers to land that is undevelopable because it is below the ordinary high-water level and, consequently, undevelopable. All lots have portions that could be deemed undevelopable because of setback requirements. Staff does not believe this is the intent of the ordinance. The city should not permit this 40-foot stdp to be split away from the main parcel since the development on the proposed site would then total 55 percent impervious-surface coverage. As proposed, there would be 42 percent coverage because the 10,311-square-foot strip east of the frontage road is part of the total property square footage. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 15 approving a 22-foot building setback variance from the Highway 61 right-of-way and a seven-foot parking lot setback variance from the frontage road right-of-way. The code requires 30 feet and 15 feet. These variances are based on the following findings: Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of the unusual triangular-shaped lot. The lot shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its tapered shape. Approval of the building setback vadance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard. Approval of the parking lot setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because only a point of the parking lot would encroach into the setback area. Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17 approving a conditional use permit to build a cabinet shop that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential distdct at the northeast comer of Highway 61 and County Road C. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met. Work should not be done with the doom open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. Approve the plans date-stamped March 15, 2000 for the proposed Forest Products cabinet shop at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. The owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: a. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. An oil skimming device shall be included at the outlet of the holding pond. b. Revised plans showing: (1) A handicap-parking space that is eight feet wide with an adjacent eight-foot-wide loading space. (2) Switching the three Black Hills Spruce at the southwest comer of the building with the nine Japanese Red Spirea at the southeast corner of the site. (3) A site lighting plan showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the residents. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space. c. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost part of the building. Roof-top equipment must be screened from view from the homes to the south and east if the roof design does not provide adequate screening. d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. e. Stripe all customer parking spaces at a width of 9 % feet and the employee spaces at nine feet. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for sign permits with staff. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 23 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received these two replies: 1. I think this would be a good business for this area and would have a small impact on the neighborhood. (Leonard, 2627 Duluth Street) Who the heck wants a manufacturing business there?l! If the city has previously declined a gas/convenience store, then why approve any other type of business? Absolutely not! Why doesn't the city clean it up and simply make it a "beautiful space" making a small park? (Bertelsen, 2631 Duluth Street) 3. No objections. (Genereux, 2633 Duluth Street) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 33,708 square feet (proposed site) with 10,311 square feet east of the frontage road to be left undeveloped. Total land area is 44,019 square feet (one acre). Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Highway 61 South: County Road C and Lakeview Lutheran Church West: Highway 61 - west of the highway is undeveloped property East: Frontage road and single dwellings PAST ACTIONS March 30, 1998: The city council denied the following requests by Ali Delavari to develop a convenience store with gas sales on this site: 1. A variance to build a major motor fuel station closer than 350 feet to a residentially-planned property line. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build a fuel station and car wash. Mr. Delavari later lost in court in an attempt to overturn the council's action. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 Zoning: M-1 Code Requirements Section 36-187(b) states that no building or extedor use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. Section 36-28(c)(6)(a) requires that buildings have at least a 30 foot setback from street right-of-way. Section 36-(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots have at least a 15 foot setback from street right-of-way. 7 Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 16-17. Application Date We received this application on March 15, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by May 15, 2000. p:sec4\forest.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevation Reductions 5. Variance Request Letter dated March 16, 2000 6. Conditional Use Permit Letter dated March 20, 2000 7. Variance Resolution 8. CUP Resolution 9. Building Elevations date-stamped March 15, 2000 (separate attachments) Attachment ~ ~IKING AY. ~?.AIQ AV~. VADNAIS HEIGHTS (~) c,Am~s s~ 1. SUMMIT CT. 2.. COUHTRY~EW CIR. ,3. DULUI~ CT. 4. LYDIA ST. 8F. AM AV~. k LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 F ~mmmmmmmmmmm R1 ANGUS MEATS 2694 '~ I I TIMBER F & TURF NORTH STAR AUTO BODY & 'STANDARD i ) ('°; ~ ~1216 1 ' · I~r.5 ,."-"' , · LAKEVIEW LUTHERAN PROPOSED '"ELECTRIC ~ SITE' '~' R2 K.LI__~N .F.....A. UTO WORLD (7e,) I Attachment 3 PROPOSED OFF,CF. MANUF AC. TURING 6.41)0 GSF %1~14 ~'1 lit) SITE PLAN 11 Attachment 4 FOREST PRq3OUCTS -- 12 Development, Inc. 05/16(00 15:56 FAX 6124737058 STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. t~O02 Attachment 5 Sleiner Development, Inc. 3610 COunty ROad 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 (612) 473-5650 Fax 473-7058 Ma~b 16, 2000 Tom Ekstrand Associatc Planner City of Maplewood I830 Co,.mty }load B East Maplewood Ivl~N 55109 Re: Forest Products Variance Dear Tow.: In conjtmction wi~h the Site Pla= review process wc a~ requesting set b~k ~/ances for ~ ~omst Vwduc~ project. The need fo~ a vafiaace is m~iquc to ~e s~ shap~ ~d loca~on of ~e ske, ~e site ~o~h ~,01~ St but ~ to :oad~y cascm~ o~y 33,708 SF ~ a ~ian~lar s~pc is ~itable to be built on. In a~ifion the ~gul~ site is isolated ~om s~o~d~g b~l~ngs ~d =ei~bo~ by Higkway ~1 on ~c west ~d ~o~ Maplewood Drive on ~e e~t ~d Co~ Road C on the so~. The B,400 SF proposed officc w~eho~e buil~g ~s a rehfivcly low F~ (Floor ~ea Ratio) of 19% comp~cd to no~ metro area standards of ~0%. Even ~ relative small b~$ wkh it's p~g requkc~ts of 14 spaces do~s not fit o~ ~e sim ~out cn~oac~g into ~c bt~d~g a[~d p~$ serbia. h was dete~ed ~ staff ~t fire most b~ en~oac~t would be on ~e }h~y 61 - west bo~y. engoac~ent does not i~ct ~y nei$hboHng bufld~gs and is ~ated by ~e lgge right o~ way wi~ in ~c Highway 61 co~dor. T~s encroac~nt varies ~om 10 - 22 ~ ~to thc 30 ~T setback, w~le s~ pro~d~ approxi~tcly a 70 ~ sct back fi'om fl~e Highly 61 east edge. In ad,don on ~e east proper~ l~e ~erc is an approxi~t~ 70 SF (.04% of ~e ~o~ p~g area) p~g enctoac~en~ into fl~e 15 ~ p~g setb~ ~ encroac~nt allows ~o p~g spaces lo ~ve ~e proper ~mions. ~e vadances do not ~tg ~e character o~ ~e site or neighborhood do ~ ~e ~que ~e st~d~d nature of co~ed with relatively ~1 e~croac~ts. We appreciate your cooperatlon on this matter. Sincc~cly, STEI~'ER DEVEL OP..ME N T.~llt/~. ~ice Pr,sident 13 STEINER DEVELOP~iEI~"r INC. Steiner Development, Inc. 3610 County Road 101 Wayzata, MN (612) 473-5650 Fax 473-7058 March 20, 2000 Tom Ek~trand .associate Planner City of Maplcwood 1830 County Road B Eatt Maplewood M_N $5109 ~*002/002 Attachment 6 Re: Forest Product~ Conditional Use Permit Dear Tom: In conjunction with thc Site Plan review process we sre requesting a Conditional Usc Permit for ~e Fo~st Productq Project_ The site is zoned M-1 Light Indusu'ial, but do to residential within 350 £cct a Conditional Use Per, nit is required. Thc surrounding residential is separated to the east by Maplewood Drive and a 10,311 SF out lot ~'een area. The 8,400 SF proposed office warehouse building has a relatively low FAR. (Floor Area Patio) of 19% and this relative small building with it's par 'khtg requirements of 14 spaces should meet the criteria of approval of a Conditional Usc Permit. It was determined with stall' ~hat the proposed building does meet the City's comprehcmive plan. it will not change the character ol~ the surrounding a~ea snd the project should/reprove property values. For~est Produc~s will operate a wood worki~ shop, which v,411 have limited retail customers in the range of one to four customers per hour. Service vehicles will be panel/flat bed trucks that should average one trip a day, The p~nary usg will be a wood working shop, wood storage and show room ~pace. Th/s usc will not be hazardous, a nuisance, create excessive pollution or be unsightly. Site access i~ to bc lirnitcd to one curb cut on Maplewood Drive that should provide minimal traffic on local streets and will not create traffic congestion or umafc conditions. Thc site plan indicates substantial landscaping around thc bufldit~g and an effort will be made to save the lar~er existing ~ccs on the property lines and in the existing road right of way. Thc proposed project clticicntiy utilizes existing city services and does not create any additional public costa. Wc appreciate your cooperation on this mat~er. Sincerely, icc President ~ 14 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Conrad Solberg, of Forest Products, applied for a 22-foot building setback variance to build a cabinet-shop building eight feet from the Highway 61 right-of-way and a seven-foot parking lot setback variance to build a comer of a parking lot eight feet from the frontage road right-of-way. WHEREAS, these variances apply to the undeveloped property at the northeast comer of Highway 61 and County Road C. The legal description is: THE EAST 150 FEET OF THE WEST 394.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 316.30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22; ALSO THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 349.31 FEET OF THE WEST 199.54 FEET AT SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE ORIGINAL CENTER LINE OF WHITE BEAR LAKE ROAD. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(5 and 6) requires that buildings be set back 30 feet from street right-of-way and that parking lots be set back 15 feet from street right-of-way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing that their building have an eight foot setback and that their parking lot also have an eight foot setback at one point. WHEREAS, this requires variances of 22 feet and seven feet. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On , the planning commission recommended that the city council these vadances. The city council held a public hearing on City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variances since: Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of the unusual triangular-shaped lot. The lot shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its tapered shape. Approval of the building setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard. Approval of the parking lot setback vadance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because only a point of the parking lot would encroach into the setback area. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 15 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Conrad Solberg, of Forest Products, applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building closer than 350 feet to property zoned for residential. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. The legal description is: THE EAST 150 FEET OF THE WEST 394.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 316.30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22; ALSO THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 349.31 FEET OF THE WEST 199.54 FEET AT SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE ORIGINAL CENTER LINE OF WHITE BEAR LAKE ROAD. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On , the planning commission recommended that the city council the conditional use permit for the proposed building placement. The city council held a public headng on City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council conditional use permit, because: the above-descdbed 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 16 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 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 become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met. 5. Work should not be done with the doors open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. 6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 17 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Fresh Paint 1055 Gervais Avenue April 5, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Thomas $chaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments, is proposing to build a 5,300 square- foot office/warehouse facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue. Refer to the maps and drawings on pages 9-12 and 14-16. Mr. Schaffhausen has submitted a narrative explaining this proposal. Refer to the letter on page 13. This facility would consist of a building for Fresh Paint, a commercial painting contractor. This building would have office and storage space and a garage for the indoor storage of company equipment and vehicles. Refer to the enclosed project plans (separate attachment). The proposed building would have an exterior of prefinished horizontal steel siding, brick, steel doors, windows for the offices and standing-seam roof panels. Requests Approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) because the proposed building would be about 64 feet from the residential property to the rear (north). Code requires a CUP for buildings in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. 2. Approval of building design, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Mr. Schaffhausen wants the city to allow him to keep the existing house on the property for an employee to live in as a site caretaker. Section 36-151(a)(1) of the city code says "A dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use" is a permitted use in this zoning district. However, there is some question about the city's intention by adopting this code. That is, did the city intend the dwelling unit to be in or connected to the business building or did the city intend for the dwelling unit to just be on the same property as the business? It is staff's interpretation that the city did not intend the code to allow an existing single family home to remain when there is new development. However, the applicant and his attorney believe that one could interpret the ordinance to mean that the residence and a business use on a property are permitted as long as there is connection between the residents and the business. (See the letter from Thomas Hart starting on page 18.) It would be possible for the applicant to include living quarters in the new building, if they so choose. This development proposal gives the city an opportunity to change a nonconforming land use (the single dwelling and garage) to a commercial property that fits the standards and policies of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. As such, the city should require the property owner to remove the house and the garage from the site before building the new office/warehouse. Having a new office/warehouse on this site would meet the requirements for a CUP. This project should have little effect on the adjacent single-family homes to the north due to the 64- foot setback to the building and the existing vegetation south of the existing houses. This facility also would screen and buffer the houses from the businesses on the south side of Gervais Avenue. The proposal would be compatible with the existing single-family homes to the north and the warehouses across Gervais Avenue and should not cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors. Staff does not have any concern with this proposal and operation. Traffic should only increase slightly over its present level. As for the effect on property values, city staff cannot make the determination that there would be any negative impact on property values with this request. Building Design The proposed building would be attractive. The project architect told me they have not yet picked the building colors, but expects that they will be neutral and attractive. Landscaping and Screening There are trees on the north side of the site that would provide screening between the existing houses and the proposed building. It would be advantageous to preserve these trees for ' screening purposes if the grading limits allow. The applicant proposes to leave some of the existing trees on the site, but proposes to add several new trees around the site and landscaping in front of the new building. The city code requires that the applicant replace quality trees that are eight inches or more in caliper. Poor-quality trees such as box elders, cottonwoods and poplar are exempt. The code requires that these trees be replaced up to a density of 10 trees per acre. The property to the west of this site has an occupied single-dwelling. Because of this house, there is a need for screening on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening is necessary because Sections 36-27(b)(1) and (4) of the code requires screening where: - The light from vehicle headlights and other sources would be directed into residential windows. - A parking lot is constructed next to a property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for single- or double-dwelling use. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. The community design review board (CDRB) should review this plan before the city approves a building permit for the project. The city code also requires in-ground lawn irrigation. The applicant should provide this in the front and on the sides of the new building and around all sides of the existing house. Parking The proposed site plan shows 13 parking spaces. Based on the proposed use of the building, these should adequately serve their needs. In the event a shortage develops, however, the city could require that the applicant add more spaces on the west side of the driveway. Drainage Considerations The applicant's plans show much of the site being graded to create the building pad, the driveway and the parking area. The proposed grading plan shows the storm water running off the parking lot to Gervais Avenue and possibly the loss of an infiltration area on the northwest corner of the site. Because of the proposed grades, the city engineer is suggesting that the developer direct all impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that they connect to the existing city system to the west of the site. The final plans for the storm sewer and utilities will be reviewed by and subject to the city engineer's approval upon building permit submittal. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Thomas $chaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This request needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. All commercial traffic and vehicles to and from this site shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall prohibit commercial vehicles going to or from this site from using Cypress Street. 3 7. The normal hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. 10. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. Approve the project plans date-stamped January 20, 2000, for the Fresh Paint facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner or applicant shall: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit for the new office/warehouse, complete the following: Have the community design review board (CDRB) approve a screening plan for the area on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements. The grading and storm water plans shall direct all impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that the developer connects to the existing city system to the west of the site. c. Submit a building-color scheme of neutral colors to city staff for approval. do Get a demolition permit from the city and remove the existing garage and house. If the city council allows the house to stay on the site, then get a demolition permit for the garage. 3. Complete the following before occupying the new office/warehouse building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. bo Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Restore and seed or sod any and all disturbed ground such as the areas of driveway or blacktop removal. Remove all old driveway entrances and restore with sod. c. Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. do So fo ho Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from adjacent residential properties. Such equipment visible on non-residential sides must be painted to match the building color. (code requirement) Construct a trash dumpster enclosure if there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosure must match the building in color and materials and shall have a closeable gate that is 100 percent opaque. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all lawn areas on the front and on the sides of the new office/warehouse building and on all sides of the existing house Provide site-security lighting as required by the city code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed or shielded so not to cause any nuisance to vehicle drivers or to adjacent property owners. There shall be no lighting on the back of the building unless required by the building code. Post the west side of the new driveway and the west side of the parking area for "no parking." i. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around all parking areas and the driveway. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c° The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS We had sent surveys to the 23 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received four replies. 1. I have no problem with (this). (Northernaire Motel, Inc.) 2. Absolutely not! We don't know what would go there in the future. Too much trucks in area and noise now. Do not want paint and truck fumes, either. (Karl - 1008 Sextant Avenue) o Absolutely no! This firm originally stated intended use was office only in existing building. Now they want to add a building that will add to the truck and noise and traffic that is already too loud in the area. No way - do not let them expand into a truck and equipment storage facility. (Karl - 2440 Cypress Street) 4. See the letter dated January 24, 2000 from Sherrill Benjamin on page 17. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 0.99 acres Existing land use: A single-family home and detached garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings Businesses across Gervais Avenue A single dwelling that the city has zoned and planned M-1 (light manufacturing) Undeveloped property and Sunset Realty PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or constructed within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. Section 36-151(b)(4) requires a CUP for the outdoor storage or display of goods or materials. The city may require screening of such uses provided at least 80 percent of materials are screened. Section 36-22(a) requires one parking space for every 200 square feet of office space and one parking space for every 1,000 square feet of warehouse space. Findings for Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 21 and 22 for the findings. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. ,3. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date The city received the application materials for this request on January 20, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by March 19, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. On February 22, 2000, the city received a request from the applicants attorney to delay the city's review of the proposal. On April 5, 2000, we received a request from the applicants attorney to again consider these applications. p:sec9\freshpnt.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans 5. Applicant's Letter dated 1-19-00 6. Building Elevation Reductions 7. Building Elevation Reductions 8. Building Floor Plan 9. 1-24-00 letter from Sherrill Benjamin 10. 4-5-00 letter from Thomas Hart 11. CUP Resolution (2 pages) 12. Project Plans date-stamped January 20, 2000 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 0 Li..I Lake PLAZA ALVARADO DR BEU.ECRES*T DR DEALMLLE DR ~ER~I DR BEAM AVl.~ COUNTY 1. SL~41dlT CT. 2. COUNTRY'VIEW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA AVE. BEAM KOHUdAN AVE. ROA~ ~ c 3 GERVAIS AVE. JUNCTK)N (1) CHAMBERS ST ! SKILL Et. DR LOCATION MAP ORANDV~EW ~KINO SHERREN AVE. 9 f ~ E. Attachment 2 POND AVE ~,,e,) MOTEL 10 : Attachment 3 [Jj[l ' SITE PLAN 11 Attachment 4 I I I I I I GERVAIS AVENUE PLANT LIST i SANAS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC 850 Hamline Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Attachment 5 January l9, 2000 City of Maplewood Community Development Attn: Kenneth Roberts 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 ...JAN 2.0. 2000 :' ..... I On behalf of Sanas Capital Investments, I am requesting your consideration in issuing a conditional use permit to allow us to construct up to a 6,000 sq ft building on the commercially zoned lot located at 1055 Gervais Ave. The building will be leased to Fresh Paint, a 15 year old, independently owned commercial painting contractor, currently located in the Midway area. Fresh Paint employs approximately 35 painters, and six office employees. On a daily basis, only the six office employees will be utilizing the building - the remaining staffwill be working in the field. The building will be designed to adequately provide offices and indoor storage for trailers and equipment. There will be no painting work done at the site. The building design is both modem and efficient. It's exterior design was carefully chosen to be attractive, yet unobtrusive. Considerable time was given to the interior to ensure that it would be a multiple use building in the event of a tenant change, as well as to allow for growth within the leasing company without further expansion. I am also requesting your approval to leave the existing house on the property. Fresh Paint's top supervisor is currently renting the home, acting as a caretaker of the grounds. He is prepared to accept the responsibility of acting as caretaker for both buildings and the grounds, keeping both clean and attractive to the community. We have updated the home's decorating, and this spring, plan to seal and paint the exterior, replace window sills and deteriorating wood when the weather permits. Few companies the size of Fresh Paint are fortunate enough to have a 24 hour security guard/caretaker on site. As a result, properties can deteriorate, and they can become victim to vandalism. We would appreciate the ability to avoid such problems. Thank you for your consideration. I'll be happy to discuss plans in further detail, and answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, President/CFO 13 Attachment 6 0 14 .I. NlYd HS::I~It Attachment 7 --_! 15 Attachment 8 Attachment [ ECE V, FED Janua~ 24,2000 Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 RE: Fresh Paint Office/warehouse Conditional Use Permit - 1055 Gervais Avenue Dear Mr. Roberts: I wish to submit comments concerning the noted CUP under consideration by the City of Maplewood. Originally, I received a letter from Fresh Paint noticingtheir intent to purchase the property at 1055 Gervais and offering to answer any questions or concerns. I phoned the number provided and left a message that I would like to talk with them concerning their plan. Not receiving a return call, I placed two additional calls, leaving messages each time. To Date Fresh Paint has not returned my cells. Next I spoke with several neighbors and determined that most had not received notice of the pending plans for 1055 Gervais. Lastly, I contacted City Hall by telephone and in person to find out what was occurring and get information about the company's plans. City staff said they had not applied for a CUP and expressed concern that Fresh Paint was "getting the cart before the horse" by completing the purchase without knowing if the City would grant a CUP. To date questions have neither been answered nor has adequate information been provided. Questions concerning Fresh Paint's use of property at 1055 Gervais; 1. It appears that with the removal of the existing garage, the plans could be altered slightly without losing effective use of the property, thus moving the building forward and perhaps avoiding the need for a CUP. Has this issue been addressed? 2. When Fresh Paint refers to trailers and equipment, what does this include? 3. Following up on #3 does Fresh Paint intend to store paints, solvents, thinners, etc. on this property? 4. If the answer to ~4 is yes, then what types of paints, so vents, thinners, etc., will be stored on this property, in what quantity, how will waste be disposed and how will the City monitor these materials and operations? 5. If the answer to #4 is no, then what are the Cities provisions to ensure compliance with no storage of hazardous or flammable products? 6. The plan reflects a garage with a "flammable waste trap," please explain the need for this and how this may or may not effect the wet lands in close proximity to this property. 7. The plan reveals a "repair" area, please explain the type, extent, and hours such repairs will be in progress. 8. The plan reveals stairs leading up between the garage and the storage room, why is that area missing from the plans provided to neighbors? 9. What is the purpose of this unknown area and how will this unknown area be used? 10. According to the letter provided, Fresh Paint is currently located somewhere in the Midway area. What is their current address? 11. Has the City been to the Midway property to find out what kind of residents or neighbors Fresh Paint currently is for the Midway community? 12. How much traffic, what type and what hours may we expect this traffic in our neighbor?. 13. I really must repeat City staff's question, why would this company complete the purchase of property for which they will need a CUP to use as planned before applying for or getting CUP approval? 14. Why do we have City Ordinances if variances and CUP are routinely granted? Please provide answers to the above questions and notification of the hearing date before approving this CUP. Sincerely, ~ , 2473 Adele Street Map}ewood, MN 55109 651/481-8708 cc: Mayor and City Council 9 17 FROM WINTHROP & WEINSTINEST DL.~ Mr. Ken Roberts Associate Plarmcr City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN $5109 PAUL 651-292-9347 (WED) 4, 5'00 10:30/ST, 10:25/N0. 4863010687 P 2 WINTHROP & WEINSTINE Attachment 10 A PROF~SSEONAL April 5, 2000 Re: 1055 Gervais Avenue/Application for Conditional Use Permit D~ar lVlr. Robem: As you know, our office is representing Sanas Capital hve~.enm ("Sanas'), the owner of the property located at 1055 Gervais Avenue. First of all, we would like to thank you, Pat Kelly, Melinda Coleman and Chris Cavett for meeting with Tom Schaf-/hauscn and thc undersigned re.c,~tly to discuss this matter. Second, Sanas would certainly like this matter to bt placed on the agendas of the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council at the earliest opportunity. As you know, Sanas is a partnership, the principals of which arc thc same two individuals who own Fresh Paint, Inc., a commercial painting conWactor. Sanas purchased the subject property in September of 1999 fi'om William and Julia Bedell, who had owned thc subject property for many years, and who had constructed the existing single-family residence on thc subject property. Although the ex/sting single- family residence is not a large structure, it has certainly been well maintained by Mr. And Mrs. Bed¢ll over the years. As wc have discussed with you, Sanas not only intends to maintain the residence in $ood condition, but to invest in improvements to the residence. As wu have also discussed with you, current plans would involve removal of the existing garage serving the single-family residence in order to allow appropriate access to thc commercial facility. Prior to purchasin~ the subject property, Sanas representatives met with you and other members of the City's planning staff on more than onc occasion for purposes of determining whether the proposed consiruction ora commercial office fitcility on thc subject property, in tandem with continued use ofthe existing single-family residence, was corisistent with thc City's cxpcctations. Based not only on these discussions but also on a review of City ordinances, we understood that existing city ordinances would, subject to the granting of a conditional use permit, pe, l,,it the conslruction of the additional office facility 18 FROM WINTHROP & WEINSTINEST lVlr. Ken Rob~t~ April ~, 2000 Page 2 PAUL 651-292-9347 (WED) 4, 5'00 IO:31/ST, 10:25/N0, 4863010687 P 3 and continued maintenance of the single-family residence on the site. This proposal was uniquely suited to the proposed business interests of Sanas and Fresh Paint. Accordingly, it was with some surprise, that we read your planning mcrnorandum dated February 8, 2000, wherein it was first sul~ested that the single-family residence would have to be removed. At our ~w. ent meeting, Ms. Colerrmr~ indicated fl',at this suggestion was originated with the inWat of seeking guidance from the City Council with respect to interp~tation of Ordinance Section 36-15,i. She further indicated that her primary concern was avoiding a situation wherein the single-family relidence was rented to a party urirelated to the business being conducted in the commercial facility. As Mr. Schafthausen volunteered at the meetin~ such is not the intent of Sanas and Sanas would have no objection to inclusion in the conditional use permit of such a reslriotion, as long as the residential structure is uaed for residential purposes. In fact, we believe such a restriction is consistent with a clem' reading of Section 36-151 which allows as a permitted use within a business commercial district a "dwelling trait for one family in combination with a business use". We do not bcUeve that this lan~tage requires that a dwelling unit be attached to the facility in which the business use is located since, if such were the intent, the word "attached" could essily have been used. The absence of the word "attached" seems compelling. Nevertheless, we do believe that the words "in combination" require some connection between the continued use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes and the busiuess usc. As you know, current plans are for an ¢iiiployee of Fresh Paint to reside in the existing house. This cr, iployee will act inpan as a caretaker of the entire property. It is imperative to Sanas that the house be retained on the site as Sanas projects growth not only in the business of Fresh Paint but also in the investment portfolio of Sanas and foresees future use of the residential structure for office purposes in connection with such businesses. We believe thtt the residence and thc commercial facility will be complementary, both in use and appearance. Hopefully, it is fair to say that we all agree that thc siie allows sufficient room to accommodate both structures. Allowing thc single-family residence to be retained will allow future expansion of the existing on-site businesses without need for additional off/cc structures. Certainly, allowing the single-family residence to remain on site will not harm the character of the existing nei~borhood, since single-family residences are common in this neighborhood since the neighborhood has been, is now and will continue to be in mix of both residential and commercial uses. Your planning report supports Sanas' proposed use of the property, indicating that such use "would be compatible with existing single-family homes to the north and the warehouses across Gervais Avenue and should not cause any problems for the City or for the neighbors" and that "staffdoes not have any concern with this proposal and operetion". In fact, the only basis under the existing City ordinances for a requirement of Sanas to seek a conditional use permit for its proposed use is the proximity of the subject property to a residential district. Thc only "conditions" to be applied against the property should therefore relate to public health, safety and welfare concerns relating to such residences. h summary, we believe that this particular proposal will not set an undesirable precedent for the City, since (i) the business use and the residential use will be compatible and complementary, and Sanas will n/tee to a restriction prohibiting renlal of the residence for residential purposes to a party urn'elated to the 19 FROM WINTHROP & WEINSTINEST Mr. Ken Roberts April 5, 2000 Pa~ 3 PAUL 651-292-9347 (WED) 4, 5'00 10:31/ST. 10:25/N0. 4863010687 P 4 businesa being conducted on site. We do not s~ any evidence in the plain lan~mge of the ordinance whal~oevm' that would prohibit re~ention of the single-family dwelling, and in ~act, believe that the clear lan~ma~ of So. ion 36-151 expressly allows joint residential and business use, with no r~quirement whatsoever that the stone be aiiached, Since there do not appear to be any public health, safety and welfare considerations affecting the neighbors to the north, wc would respech6111y ask that the City Council approve the proposed conditional use permit. Sanas Capital Investments and Fresh Paint both want to be good ncighbors, and to introduce a bus,ess to the City o£ Meplewood which will be a positive force both in the neighborhood and thc City fo~ many years to come. Wc look forward to meeting with the Design Review Comm~,e. the Planning Coii~ssion and the City Council and to working with you and other members of the City ~ toward successful conclusion of this project. We will follow up this letter, as we have discussed, with sug~es~:l language changes on certain of the other conditions proposed in your plannin~ report. Should you have any questions regarding a~y of thc forcgoinll, please do not hesitate to call. Very lruly yours, ZO Attachment 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tom Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments, applied for a conditional use permit to build an office/warehouse facility in an M-1 (light manufacturing) distdct closer than 350 feet to a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to Bedell Road (Gervais Avenue), the East 150 feet of the South 290 4/10 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 17, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on . , 2000. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. 'rhe use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. ?.1 o The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: = o All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. 10. The proposed construction must be substantially started 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. The city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. All commercial vehicles and traffic to and from this site shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall prohibit commercial vehicles going to or from this site from using Cypress Street. The normal hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2000. 2?.