Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2000AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 19, 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: August 22, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Countryside VVV/Saab, 1180 Highway 36 East - John Schmelz b. Birch Glen, Ariel Street and County Road D - Specialty Development Corporation Emma's Place Townhomes, County Road B and Van Dyke Street - Emma Norton Residence . 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB volunteer needed for city council meeting on September 25, 2000. Item to be reviewed is Countryside VW showroom addition. b. Reminder of meeting changes: We will hold one meeting in October on October 17. 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. o o 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\forms~lrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA AUGUST 22, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Absent Tim Johnson Absent Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Jorgenson moved approval of the minutes of August 8, 2000, with one revision on page 4, paragraph 4, line 5. The line shall read "the steep slope and allow pedestrians access to Roselawn Avenue without having to traverse that..." Boardmember LaCasse seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember LaCasse moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Jorgenson seconded. The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ayes--all VI. There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW MTC Transit Hub, Maplewood Mall - Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates. Mr. Ekstrand, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval to expand the MTC Transit Hub at the Maplewood Mall. The existing Transit Hub is a bus pick-up/drop-off site with a Park and Ride area. The facility is comprised of open benches and one glass enclosed bus shelter. It is located east of the Maplewood Mall near Applebee's. The proposal is to expand the facility by adding six enclosed shelters and a men's and women's lavatory building. The proposed bus shelters would be glass enclosed. The applicant would also plant four trees surrounded by tree grates along the median strip where these will be located. The lavatory building would have an exterior of metal siding with a metal-sided cornice at the top. The building would be colored sandstone and dark bronze - in beige and brown tones. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 08-22-00 -2- The proposal would eliminate 29 parking spaces. Staff does not feel that will be a problem since there is a surplus of 308 extra spaces at the Mall presently. Staff has no problem with the proposed traffic hub; it looks like a nice addition to the Mall. Staff recommends approval subject to no conditions only compliance to the existing plans. The applicant, Stuart Krahn of Bonestroo, Rosene, Andedik and Associates addressed the Board. He stated that no changes have been made to the plans that have been submitted to staff. Chairperson Ledvina questioned Mr. Krahn regarding any traffic changes in relation to the movement of buses in and around the Mall as a result of this improvement. Mr. Krahn indicated that no changes are anticipated. Currently there is circulation of buses through this site; buses will circulate on both sides of the island so there will be a slight change to the existing traffic pattern. He stated overall the impact to the traffic at the Mall will not be different than what they are today. Chairperson Ledvina requested samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the Hub. Mr. Krahn presented samples of the dark bronze and sandstone colored siding and the aluminum tubing for the canopy. He informed the Board that the colors of the lavatory doors would be sandstone. He also noted that the lavatory facilities is strictly for drivers and employees and not for the general public. Mr. Krahn indicated that the glass on the facility is a transparent tempered glass, with no tinting. The Board briefly discussed the assets of this facility and felt that it would be an amenity to the Mall and help increase the number of people using the buses there. Boardmember Jorgenson moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plans date stamped August 2, 2000 for the proposed MTC Transit Hub expansion at the Maplewood Mall. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - All VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. There were no visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS There were no Board presentations. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Ekstrand requested a CDRB volunteer for the City Council Meeting on September 11, 2000. Chairperson Ledvina volunteered. Mr. Ekstrand reminded the Board that the CDRB meeting in September will be on the 19th, and the meeting in October will be on the 17% X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:11 p.m. ' MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Countryside Volkswagen Building Addition 1180 Highway 36 East September 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Schmelz is proposing to add onto the north (front) and west sides of the Countryside Volkswagen building. Refer to the maps on pages 8-10. The building addition would have an extedor of Extedor Insolation Finish System (E.I.F.S.) and glass set in aluminum framing. There would be a new front entrance on the north side of the building. The existing showroom doors on the sides of the showroom would be eliminated. The applicant would use the additional space for enlarging the showroom and providing more office and parts-department space. Requests Mr. Schmelz is requesting that the city council approve: An 11-foot front setback variance. The front wall of the proposed building addition would be setback 22 feet from the front lot line. The front door vestibule, however, would extend another three feet toward the street. The code requires a 30 foot setback. Refer to the applicant's letter on page 11. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the proposed changes to the previously approved site plan. The code requires a CUP revision to chang,e a site plan that the council has approved by CUP. 3. Architectural and site plans. Review Procedure Since this proposal effects the building design and site plan, and the use of the property is not changing, staff is submitting these requirements to the community design review board (CDRB) only. The CDRB should make a recommendation on each of the issues involving this project. BACKGROUND Refer to Past Actions on page 6. DISCUSSION Setback Variance There are two circumstances affecting this proposal which justify the reduced front setback. The first point is that neighboring Embers is set back only 20 feet from their front lot line which gives credence to reducing the setback of the VVV building. Secondly, as the applicant stated, the roadway in front curves so that buildings along the south side of the frontage road cannot always be seen in alignment. This is particularly true for east bound traffic. Diffedng setbacks are more noticeable along a straight roadway but are not as noticeable along a curved street. Menards, furthermore, will be starting their building addition soon (they have applied for their permit) for the north side of their site. Their building addition will have a 30 foot setback from the north lot line, which though it meets the setback requirement, will also be quite massivc 300 linear feet of exposure on the north end. This building would create a much greater visual impact at the approved minimum setback than the applicant's proposed showroom addition at 76 linear feet of front exposure. With these considerations in mind, the applicant's proposed setback vadance would create little visual impact. Conditional Use Permit Revision Staff sees no problem with approving a revision to the applicant's CUP. The addition would not adversely effect any neighbor nor would it look out of place. Building Appearance The exterior of the proposed addition would be attractive. Parking The construction of this addition would cause the loss of 29 parking spaces on the west side of the building and six in front. These spaces are presently used for inventory parking not for customers. This loss of 35 inventory-parking spaces would not effect code compliance. There is considerable area on the site for additional customer-parking spaces should the need arise for more. The applicant can always redesignate spaces as well for customer use. Compliance with Previous Conditions Parkin.q on the Grass In 1995 the city council stipulated that the applicant shall not park cars on the grass. This was not a problem at that time, but now the applicant's inventory has grown to the point that they are parking cars beyond their paved parking lot on the grass in the back lot. The applicant should either comply with this condition (also a code requirement) and remove cars from the grass or pave and curb this back lot. Paving must be kept 20 feet from the abutting residential property and five feet from any abutting non-residential property. The applicant has the opportunity to request that the city waive the curbing requirement based on staff's proposed curbing-code amendment. ('l'his amendment is currently being reviewed by the city council. If approved, would allow the elimination of curbing if it is determined that sheet drainage from pavement would improve stormwater quality.) If the applicant chooses to pave the 2 back lot instead of removing all cars from the grass, they must submit a drainage plan with runoff calculations for this new paving. Screenina In 1995, the city council required that the CDRB review a screening plan along the abutting residential lot lines on the south. Staff has considered whether additional screening is needed now. The code states that 'the city may require screening between differing types of land use, such as between commercial and residential uses." Staff feels that there is sufficient screening next to 2255 Duluth Street by virtue of the thick tree and shrub growth next to that property. The home across the street at 2266 Duluth Street has their own screening fence so no additional screening is warranted there. The remaining residential neighbor is the apartments which are positioned so much higher than the VW site that a six-foot-tall screening fence would not do any good. Staff, therefore, is not recommending any additional screening. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 12-13 approving an 11-foot front setback vadance for John Schmelz's proposed addition to the Countryside Volkswagen showroom. Approval is because: The proposed setback would be compatible with the neighboring Ember's Restaurant which is set back 20 feet from the front lot line. The majodty of the proposed VW building front elevation would have a 22 foot setback--the entrance vestibule would be set back 19 feet. The proposed building addition would create less visual impact than the approved Menard's building addition to the west which would comply with the 30 foot front setback requirement. · Bo Adopt the resolution on pages 14-15 approving a revision to the conditional use permit for John Schmelz at Countryside Volkswagen to add onto the Volkswagen showroom. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined; deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The l~'epeeed construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of council approval or the approval for this addition ~ shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city waives the required number of parking spaces, provided that all vehicles shall be parked on a paved parking lot. (This is a code requirement.) If the property owner chooses to continue parking cars in the back lot, he shall pave it to comply with city code. The property owner shall submit a paving plan to staff for-approval. This Dian shall include a detailed Grading/drainage plan showing runoff calculations for the expanded parking area. Curbing may be waived if the city council approves the curbing-cod~ change and if the city determine that it improves stormwater quality. ~ °~'~' ....... y ~' .......... ~, ....... u .... ~'~'-~'~ ~' ...... u ..... Th~ -: ...... ':--:' th~ The property owner shall install and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board must .review eppreve the screening plan. 5. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 6_~.The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approval of plans, date-stamped August 7, 2000, for the proposed building addition to Countryside VVV, 1180 Highway 36. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Paving and curbing the back lot if they wish to keep parking on the grass (code requirement). The parking lot shall be at least 20 feet from any residential property and five feet from any nonresidential property. The applicant shall submit a paving, grading and drainage plan to staff showing runoff calculations for the expanded parking lot. Curbing may be waived if the city council approves the curbing-code change and if the city determines that waiving the curbing would improve stormwater quality. 3. 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 spdng or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.45 acres Existing land use: Countryside VW/Saab SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Frontage Road and Highway 36 South: Houses and apartments on Duluth Street, Lark Avenue and Atlantic Street West: Menard's East: Embers Restaurant PAST ACTION January 9, 1995: The city council granted the applicant's CUP. By this CUP they approved the expansion of Countryside VVV's maintenance, service, sales and showroom space. The council also approved a right-of-way vacation resolution assigning an 84- by 17.5-foot section of frontage along Highway 36 to Countryside VW. February 12, 1996: The city council reviewed the CUP and required review again in one year. March 25, 1996: The city council granted sign variances to Countryside VW to install two additional freestanding signs and one freestanding sign that would be 3.5 feet taller than the allowed height of 25 feet. February 10, 1997 and September 8, 1997: The city council reviewed the CUP and required a later inspection to check on the progress. November 23, 1998: The city council reviewed this CUP and moved to review it again only if a problem develops or if the applicant proposes a change to the building or site. PLANNING Land use plan designation: M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the resolution on pages 14-15. CHteHa for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: 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 connection with the 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. Application Date We received the applicant's requests on August 7, 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 October 7, 2000. p:sec9\vwsaab.800 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's letter of vadance request 5. Variance Resolution 6. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 7 Plans date-stamped August 7, 2000 (separate attachment) 7 Atta~h~ 1 CER'VNS COPE VIKING .~4£RR£N AV~. NG DR. BURKE DRID¢£ UONI' (~) CHA~BOK"~ ~I' rRtsBq£ &V~. ~ ELD~ BELUOm SKILL LOCATION MAP Attac 1145 1167 --- ~,.~o~.) ,1195 1211 1255 0 ,0 HIGHWAY 36 15 2280 MENARDS EMBERS ("0 1,4 2303, 1233 '~1. (s) 2255 I.tl &c -I I,Ola~. . ! 1143 "('~.) I LARK/"'."':';:' 1255 1270 · % Attachment 3 [I imm !1 SITE PLAN 10 l! Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT TO VARIANCE APPLICATION INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST The applicant wishes to receive a setback variance reducing the front yard requirement from 30'-0" as required by Maplewood Code item 36-28 (c)(6)(a) to a distance varying from 22'-5" to 17'-4" (inclusive of overhangs). If approved, this request will allow the applicant to construct the addition to his automobile showroom shown on the attached drawi ng s. RATIONALE FOR REQUEST Strict enforcement of the City ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to applicant's property: The applicant cannot put his property to a reasonable use under City ordinances, since building expansion space is limited The applicant is upgrading his facilities to comply with requirements set by his franchiser, Volkswagen. These standardized requirements necessitate an addition to the Volkswagen showroom in order to apply a circular display concept. The projecting entry portal and boat- shaped overhang are also design elements required by Volkswagen (see attached drawings and photos). The Applicant's other needs necessitate an addition to the general offices and parts department. · The applicant did not cause the circumstances leading to this variance request. The existing showroom wall is constructed approximately 41'-0" behind the setback line with a 6'-3" overhang for a net setback of 34'-9"; the adjacent service department is constructed approximately 85'-0" behind the setback line with a 4'-0" overhang for a net setback of 81'-0". Since the Applicant did not construct these buildings, it is unknown why they are positioned where they are. · The variance would not alter the essential character of the area There is no perceptible common building face location in the immediate area; each building along the street observes a different setback. Since the road curves, most buildings cannot be seen in alignment. The setback of the neighbor to the east, Embers, is 20'-0" (see survey). Also note that the elevation of Embers is approximately 6'-0" higher than the applicant's property. The proposed work will not negatively affect driveway visibility ATTACH MEN TS · Certificate of Survey (dated 7/21/00) by Carley Torgersen, Inc. · Floor Plan 3-1 and Exterior Elevations (dated 7/24/00) 5-2 by Charles Levin Architects · Photographs of a similar Volkswagen facility (note: photos show a two story showroom - Countryside will be a one story showroom as shown on drawings) · Abstracter's certificate and mailing labels n.~L,L,.j.,~.,l=~_t.~..~ .AUG 0 '/2000 ATTACHMENT TO ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION COUNTRYSIDE VW/SAAB 7/24/00 Attachment 5 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. John Schmelz, of Countryside Volkswagen/Saab, applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to 1180 East Highway 36. The legal description is: The west 105.00 feet of the east 135.00 feet of the north 30.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition and vacated street accruing. The east 240.00 feet of Block 15, Clifton Addition, except the south 30.00 feet lying west of the east 135.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The east 240.00 feet of that part of Block 16, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of that part of Block 17, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of Block 14, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The west 225,00 feet of east 255.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Duluth Street accruing, except the south 174.00 feet and except the north 30.00 feet thereof. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(6)(a) requires buildings to be setback 30 feet from a front property line. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct his building addition with a 22-foot front setback. . WHEREAS, this requires a variance of eight feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On , the planning commission recommended that the city council this variance. 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 written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: The proposed setback would be compatible with the neighboring Ember's Restaurant which is set back 20 feet from the front lot line. The majodty of the proposed VW building front elevation would have a 22 foot setback--the entrance vestibule would be set back 19 feet. 2. The proposed building addition would create less visual impact than the approved Menard's building addition to the west which would comply with the 30 foot front setback requirement. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz applied for a conditional use permit revision to add onto the Countryside Volkswagen building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Countryside Volkswagen at 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: Subject to roads and easements; the West 110 feet of Blocks 14 and 17 and the East 240 feet of Blocks 15 and 16, Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, and Except the North 30 feet; and except the South 174 feet, the West 225 feet of the East 255 feet of Block 10 and also the West 105 feet of the East 135 feet of the North 30 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On , the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. 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 revision, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 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. 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. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. There would not be a significant affect on the development of the parcel as zoned. 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 construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city waives the required number of parking spaces, provided that all vehicles shall be parked on a paved parking lot. (This is a code requirement.) If the property owner chooses to continue parking cars in the back lot, he shall pave it to comply with city code. The property owner shall submit a paving plan to staff for approval. This plan shall include a detailed grading/drainage plan showing runoff calculations for the expanded parking area. Curbing may be waived if the city council approves the curbing-code change and if the city determine that it improves stormwater quality. 4. The property owner shall install and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board must review the screening plan. 5. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 15 TO: FROM: SUBJEGT: LOGATION: APPLIGANT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Birch Glen Ariel Street, between VVoodlynn Avenue and County Road D Specialty Development Corporation (Bob Bankers) August 30, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bob Bankers, representing Specialty Development Corporation, is proposing to build a 60- unit apartment building, tie is proposing this project on a 3.2-acre site on the east side of Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D. (See the location map on page 14 and the property line/zoning map on page 15.) The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 66 cars. There also would be a detached garage with nine parking stalls and 64 surface parking spaces on the site. The building would have a mix of about 48 two-bedroom units, 12 three-bedroom units, and a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. (See the proposed building floor plans and the developer's project statement on page 23 and 24.) Requests To build the development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) (residential high density). (See, the existing and proposed land use plan maps on pages 16 and 17.) , 2. ^ conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 60-unit apartment development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the F (farm residence) zoning district limits the uses in the district to single dwellings and farm activities and prohibits multiple-family residential uses. (See the property line/zoning map on page 15.) 3. Design approval. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build the proposed apartment building, Mr. Bankers wants the city to change the land use plan for the site. This change would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H ) (residential high density). (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 16 and 17.) The city intends R-3(H) areas for a variety of housing including double dwellings, town houses or apartments of up to 16.3 units per gross acre. For BC (business commercial) areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, restaurants, day care centers and retail businesses. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including: Provide for orderly development. Minimize conflicts between land uses. · Provide a wide variety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. Include a variety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: · Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households, o · The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. This is a good site for apartment-style housing. It is near a major collector street (County Road D) and between two arterial streets (White Bear Avenue and McKnight Road), open space and, of course, shopping. One advantage of this proposal is that an area that the city once thought would be good for commercial development would become residential. This should be beneficial to the existing nearby residential properties. Having apartments near existing residences should be better neighbors than commercial or retail uses that the existing land use designation would allow. In addition, this property would not be a great site for a commercial or retail business. It is too far away and hidden from the main commercial area along White Bear Avenue to make it desirable for a commercial or retail business. As proposed, the 60 units on the 3.2-acre site means there would be 18.75 units per gross acre. However, with the density credits as allowed by Section 36-114 of the code (for underground parking and open space), the developer could add 0.64 acres to the site. This brings the site total to 3.84 gross acres which calculates to a project density of about 15.7 units per gross acre. This is consistent with the maximum density standard (16.3 units per acre) in the comprehensive plan for apartment buildings with more than 50 units. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development and Site Plan The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 60-unit apartment development. They are requesting the CUP because the F (farm residence) zoning limits the uses to single dwellings and farm activities. Section 36-438 of the city code lists the city's purpose, intent and requirements for planned unit developments in Maplewood. Specifically, the code says that the intent of this section is to provide a means to allow flexibility by deviations from provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: (1) Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. (2) The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (3) The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. (4) The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. (5) The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. .' The proposed site plan has two areas with deviations from the code standards - the building setback from the east property line and the parking lot setback from Ariel Street. Section 36- 28(c)(6) of the city code requires a commercial or multiple-family residential building with a wall area of more than 3,000 square feet to have a 100-foot setback from a residential lot line. In this case, the east property line of the site is a residential lot line. This is because the adjacent property has a single dwelling on it and because the city is planning it for residential (R-2) uses. The developer is proposing that the apartment building have a 50-foot setback from the east property line and has shown the proposed building on the largest buildable part of the property. The shape of the property (165 feet by 831 feet) and the existing pipelines and power lines across the middle of the site limit the location and shape of what one might build on this property. This unique shape, along with the pipeline and power line easements, provides a basis for approval. Staff also supports the proposed parking lot layout. As with the building, the shape of the lot limits the building placement and the location of the front parking lot. It is important to have parking spaces and access to the front of the building. The part of the parking lot that would encroach into the 15-foot setback by Ariel Street should not cause any problems on this site or to the neighbors. 3 In reviewing the above-list of criteria for deviations, the proposed PUD would meet these criteria. Specifically, the proposal would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, it would produce a development of equal or superior quality, the deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the neighbors and the deviations would be reasonable and are not for financial purposes. Compatibility is a concern with this development proposal. That is, is a 60-unit apartment building in this location compatible with the nearby land uses, including the residential uses? In this case, the nearest areas that the city has planned residentially to the site are the properties to the east and to the south across Woodlynn Avenue. Specifically, the proposed apartment building would be about 225 feet from the nearest house to the east. The city council should consider methods such as screening and light-glare control to help protect these nearby residents from possible disturbances. The city should approve the CUP since the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. These criteria include conforming with the comprehensive plan and codes, would not change the character of the area, would not depreciate property values and would generate minimal traffic on local streets. (See the criteria in the resolution on page 27.) Design Approval Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed building would be attractive and would have three stories above grade and an underground parking area. As proposed, the building would have an exterior of face brick, gable ends with shakes, horizontal vinyl siding and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the elevation drawings on pages 21 and 22 and the proposed project plans). The developer has proposed a mix of building colors with earth-toned rusts and creams (red, brown and herringbone (tan)) with white trim and accents. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Ariel'Street and Woodlynn Avenue to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the storm sewer in Woodlynn Avenue was designed and installed to accommodate drainage from a large area north of Woodlynn Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Wetland and Drainage The project plans show a wetland on the southeast corner of the site. This wetland serves as a natural storm water collection and absorption area for this site and for some of the surrounding area. The Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed District classified this wetland as a Class Five (highly impacted) wetland. These are the wetlands that humans have impacted the most and have the least diverse types of vegetation and the least community resource significance. Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance does not require a buffer around a Class Five wetland. However, the building foundations must be at least ten feet from the edge of the wetland. The proposed grading plan would meet the wetland ordinance requirements. The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into the wetland. In times of large storms, storm water may overflow out of the wetland into the existing city storm water system. The city will need a drainage and utility easement over the wetland area. This project will need a permit from the watershed district. Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan looks very nice and shows at least 84 new trees including red oaks, birch and Austrian Pine. The proposed plans (pages 19 and 20) show most of the site being graded. This will remove much of the existing vegetation and many of the existing mature trees on the property. However, the proposed plans keep many of the existing mature cottonwood and aspen trees on the north end of the site. The city should require the developer to preserve most of the existing vegetation along the north side of the site near County Road D and near the wetland on the southeast corner of the property. This existing vegetation in these areas will protect existing slopes, are in and near the wetland and will help provide screening of the building. 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. Sidewalk Staff is recommending that the developer install a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D. This sidewalk would provide the residents of this building off-street pedestrian access to the shopping area and church to the south and to the business on County Road D. A sidewalk along Ariel Street also would provide a pedestrian link to the existing sidewalk along Woodlynn Avenue and to the sidewalk along Ariel Street south of Woodlynn Avenue. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Approve the resolution on page 25. This resolution changes the land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) (residential high density) for the 3.2-acre site of the Birch Glen housing development. The city bases these changes on the following findings: This site is proper for and consistent with' t'he city's goals, objectives and policies for high-density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. bo It is near a collector street, open space and shopping and is between two arterial streets. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: The on-site pond and large setback from Woodlynn Avenue will separate the apartment building from the residences to the south. bo There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences. 5 Bo This change would eliminate a planned commercial area that would have been next to residential areas. Approve the resolution starting on page 26. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Birch Glen apartment development on Ariel Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped August 15, 2000. The city council may approve major changes. 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 end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, tree and driveway and parking lot plans. The design of the pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall provide the city an easement for this pond that shall cover at least all the area within the 942 contour. The developer also shall provide the city a 20- foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer pipe between the pond and the Woodlynn Avenue right-of-way. 5. The developer or contractor shall: Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk and garbage from the site. do Install a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Ariel Street between County Road D and VVoodlynn Avenue. 6. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. Co Approve the plans date-stamped August 15, 2000 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Birch Glen. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: aoW Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and lO0-year highwater elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than 4 feet tall require a building permit from the city. (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) These plans shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan. (4) (5) The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: (7) (8) (9) 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 32-foot width--parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. The developer shall not disturb the boulevard and slope along the south side of County Road D north of the building. The developer shall install a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D. The developer's engineer shall verify that the catch basin in Woodlynn Avenue is sized large enough to receive a 30-inch pipe. As an alternative, consider constructing a new catch basin manhole on Woodlynn Avenue directly south of the pond. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. Revise (1) the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) along the northern property line and around the wetland preserved as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the south side of the apartment building around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture above the 942 contour and shall use a lowland mixture below the 942 contour. (3) The planting of native grasses and flowering plants around the proposed storm water pond shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. 8 e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. f. Submit a site lighting plan for city staff approval showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from nearby homes. g. The developer shall record with Ramsey County: (1) A drainage and utility easement for the proposed ponding and wetland area. This easement shall be for all property within and below the proposed 942 contour and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. (2) A 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the storm water pipe between the pond and the Woodlynn Avenue right-of-way. h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. i. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back of the building for firefighting needs. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install wetland buffer and no parking signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manger would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. f. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street to match each of the driveways. g. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. jo Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from nearby homes. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. (4) Post the west side of the driveway to the front door with no parking signs. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: ao The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo 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. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. l0 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 13 property owners within 350 feet of the site about the proposal and received no responses. REFERENCE Site Description The site is undeveloped. Surrounding Land Uses North: First Financial office building and two single dwellings across County Road D. East: A single dwelling and city open space. South: Salvation Army worship center and Cottages of Maplewood across Woodlynn Avenue. West: Day care center, undeveloped property and the Rock across Ariel Street. Reasons for the Requests This proposal needs a land use plan change because: 1. State law does not allow a city to adopt any regulation that conflicts with its comprehensive plan. 2. One of the findings required by code for a CUP is that the use is in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan. The land use plan shows this site for BC (business commercial) uses, which do not include multiple-family housing. The developer is applying for a C~JP because the zoning on this site is F (farm residence). The F zone allows single dwellings and farm uses. The developer chose to apply for a CUP, rather than a zone change. A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific use and site plan. A rezoning to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of multiple-dwelling uses and plans. Planning Considerations Existing Land Use Plan Designation: BC (business commercial) Proposed Land Use Plan Designation: R-3(H) (residential high density) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Land Use Plan Change There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. 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 26 and 27. Criteria for Design Approval Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB 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. 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. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: Transitions between distinctly differing types of ladd uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. 12. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Application Date We received this application on August 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 October 15, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. kdp: Sec 2N/birchgln. 2 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Existing Land Use Plan Map 4. Proposed Land Use Plan 5. Site Plan 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Proposed Landscape Plan 8. Building elevations (2 pages) 9. Developer's statement date-stamped August 15, 2000 10. Resolution: Land Use Plan Change 11. Resolution: CUP for PUD 12. Project Plans date-stamped August 15, 2000 (Separate Attachment) Attachment 1 WHITE B~_AR LAKE LOCATION 14 D AV~.. ~ AV~. AVE. NORTH SAINT PAUL O' 1700' 3400' 5 O" 1" 2" SCALE MAP Attachment 2 Ce) AMOCO PERKINSi 207,~' DAY CARE CENTER : ~.~..~,~ A L0 · PIPELINES POWERLINES WOODLY'.NN AVENUE SALVATIC CHURCH COTTAGES FARM 2170 F WOO D LY_ ~__N_ N{ & PLAZA m m mime-m-mm PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 15 interchange Coun[y D arterial White R-1 A~[~chmen[ 3' Bear Lake 694 Lydia R-3(M) P ae~ imm P North St Paul KEY P = PARK C = CHURCH OS = OPEN SPACE R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R-2 -- SINGLE OR DOUBLE DWELLINGS R-3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BC -- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) 16 Attachment interchange arterial White Bear Lake R4 694 Coun[y D \ Lydia R-3(M) P LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) North St Paul KEY P = PARK C = CHURCH OS = OPEN SPACE R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R-2 = SINGLE OR DOUBLE DWELLINGS R-3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL N 17 SITE PLAN 18 Attachment 5 l Attachment 6 '1 I/ t.," "-i -I- I I / PROPOSED GRADING PLAN il., 19 ~ttachment 7 Ii I ' :: l! [ I: ~tII I I I I I I I ! I 20 ~chment 8 ii J I! i Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Specialty Development Corporation 1725 Tower Drive West, Suite #160 Stillwater, MN 55082-7512 651-430-071'1 Fax 651-450-0807 Birch Glen Apartments Maplewood Minnesota Project Overview We are proposing to construct a t AUG'§2000i market rate three story 60 u~nt.huilding~th underground garages. The site consists of 3.2 acres running along ,ariel Street from County Road D to Woodlyn Ave. BUILDING The building will be constructed to resemble two 30 unit buildings connected by a common three story atrium area containing the main entrance and elevator. This main entrance area will feature an expanded covered porch with a railing system to create a casual atmosphere. The basement level will be heated and consist of a parking garage for 64 cars as well as the mechanical rooms and storage areas. The building makeup will consist of two and three bedroom units with approximately 80% of the units containing two bedrooms. All units will contain high speed intemet access, balconies, two baths, laundries, ducted heating and air conditioning, and other modem conveniences. The exterior of the building will start with brick on the ground level and transition to vinyl siding at differing heights depending on the location. The colors will be earth toned rusts and creams for which samples have been provided. The grounds will be extensively landscaped with additional emphasis given to Pine and Birch trees to produce an "up- north" feel. " LOCATION The building will sit on the northern half of the property. The southern half will contain additional surface parking and surface garages. There will be 12 additional garages and 64 surface parking stalls. For a total of 140 parking spaces. This area also contains a small wetland ( approximately 3,000 square feet ) which, at the request of city staff'will be dug approximately 4 ft deeper to enhance water quality but will not othenvise be disturbed. The wetland will be incorporated into the landscaping plan as is. Approximately 54% of the site will be left green with an extensive landscaping plan to maximize the tranquil nature of the site. 23 MARKET In researching Maplewood we discovered that, ( excluding housing for the elderly), there have been no new market-rate apartment buildings built in the area for over 10 years. A resent study of the area conducted for us by a market research firm showed a vacancy rate of less than 1%, or virtually nonexistent. Since the last apartments were built the area has grown substantially. Employment in the Hospital, Maplewood Mall, and the surrounding businesses has greatly increased with no comparable increase in rental housing. There also is a segment of the local population ~ empty nesters ~ who no longer want the maintenance associated with home ownership, but are not ready for a senior housing complex. These people are looking for units with elevators, two baths, in unit laundries, high speed internet access, and other amenities which are not available in the area. These along with other factors have produced a need for this type of housing. We believe there is a strong demand in this area for the many amenities that have become standard in new properties over the last ten years. By providing these amenities along with exceptional exterior finishes, and large ( 54% of the lot ) extensively landscaped green space, we feel that Birch Glen will be an asset to the community. CHANGES This property is listed on the long range plans as BC, we are requesting a change to Ro 3H. We have owned this land for several years and have looked at many uses during that time, including a hotel, strip mall, offices and a restaurant. A_qer consideration we feel this use is both the most needed and the most compatible with the surrounding area. Our property is the transition piece from business commercial uses across the road to the West to the residential use adjoining the property to the East. The commercial uses on the West side of the Ariel are very low in intensity. They consi6]; of the side yard ora daycare center and the outlot of a bar/restaurant parking lot. After our building is built we feel it will create a smoother transition to the residential use planned to the East than would have been encountered if this property were used as commercial. This zoning change also allows us to leave over half the lot as green space which will create a more desirable neighborhood. The lot is 894 feet long and only 165 feet wide. The East elevation of the building we are proposing will occupy only 392 feet of the 894 foot lot length. The remaining 502 feet will not have buildings at the East setback. Because of this unusual shape we are requesting a setback of 50 feet in the rear yard area behind the building and would like to position our front drive on the front property line. We would build a four foot high brick and metal fence in front of the front drive and, with city approval, landscape the area in front of the fence. We have also proposed to install extensive plantings of trees to act as a screen between this building and the neighboring properties. Allowing these changes will enable us to produce a nicer development more compatible with the neighborhood and with much more open green space. Being able to leave over half the property as green space adds immensely to the project desirability. Attachement 11 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bob Bankers, representing Specialty Development Corporation, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) (residential high density). WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the east side of Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On September 7, 2000, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On ,2000, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described changes for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high- density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: ao Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. It is near a collector street, open space and shopping and is between two arterial streets. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on-site pond and large setback from Woodlynn Avenue will separate the apartment building from the residences to the south. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences. This change would eliminate a planned commercial area that would have been next to residential areas. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2000. 25 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bob Bankers, representing Specialty Development Corporation, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Birch Glen apartment planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property on the east side of Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is: That part North of the centerline of Woodlynn Avenue of the East 197.958 feet of the West 527.268 feet (subject to roads and pipe line easement) in the NE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22. (PIN 02-29-22-12-0007) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 7, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On ,2000, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. 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. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 26 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped August 15, 2000. The city council may approve major 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.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, tree and driveway and parking lot plans. 4. The design of the pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall provide the city an easement for this pond that shall cover at least all the area within the 942 contour. The developer also shall provide the city a 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer pipe between the pond and the Woodlynn Avenue right-of-way. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk and garbage from the site. d. Install a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Ariel Street between County Road D and Woodlynn Avenue. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that. they do not need for day-to-day transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. The city council shall review this permit in one year. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. o o o The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2000. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review- Emma's Place Northwest Comer of County Road B and Van Dyke Street September 12, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Nelda Rhoades Clarke is proposing to build a 13-unit townhome development at the northwest comer of County Road B and Van Dyke Street. Refer to the maps on pages 10-12. This development, called Emma's Place, would be for Iow-income families with children. It would provide common space for after school activities and support services for the families who reside there. There would also be on-site management staff. Thera would be a six- and a seven-unit townhouse building. There would also be two seven-stall garages and a commons building. The site would have 18 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap siding made from a "cementitious' material and vinyl siding. The applicant would connect the dwellings and garages with a five-foot-tall fence sided with the same cementifious siding. The dwellings and garages would have gable roofs, the commons building would have a flat roof. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for that part of the development that would be on property zoned BC (business commercial). The code allows multi-dwellings on BC-zoned land by CUP. (The easterly portion of the site is zoned R3 [multiple dwelling residential]. The westedy portion is zoned BC.) Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 11 and the applicant's letter on pages 16-19. 2. Building, site and landscape plans. Land Use Plan Provision The land use definitions in the land use plan state that "most of the land use plan categories coordinate with the city's zoning categories. The uses permitted in these land use categories are the same as those in the corresponding zoning district." Because the BC use provisions in the zoning code allow multi dwellings by CUP in a BC district, the city attorney has determined that the applicant is not required to request a land use plan change to R3M for the BC portion of this site. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The comments we received from the neighbors of this site were concerns about compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood, the potential for nuisances, traffic increase, effect on property values, loss of open space and concerns relative to the management of this complex. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with compatibility in terms of land use. Townhomes are often built next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. We have many other examples in Maplewood where this is the case as well. Nuisances Some neighbors were concerned about unsupervised children hanging around. This is a potential concern with children from any development. Monitoring this depends on parental and management supervision. The applicant is planning after-school activities in the commons building which should give the resident children opportunities to keep busy. Traffi~ Traffic-generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of five vehicle trips per day--the applicant's data predicts four. In either case, with 13 townhouse units proposed, there would not be a large impact on the number of cars added to this neighborhood. Property_ Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual reviews of the conditional use permit process is a built-in safeguard to ensure that the city council will regularly review this development. As stated above, it is common that residential developers mix single dwellings and townhomes in their projects which is an indication of compatibility. Loss of Open Space Preserving this property as open space is not feasible. In 1992, Maplewood citizens voted to approve a $5 million referendum to purchase land throughout the city to hold as open space. This property was not one of the target sites the city council and open space committee considered to save for open space. Management The applicant will have on-site staff during business hours as well as the after-school programs and tutoring available for their residents. 2 Other Concerns · There are too many similar facilities in this area already. · Would this property go off of the tax rolls? · Would this lead to a similar development or an expansion of this one [o [he north? Proximity to similar facilities: One neighbor stated that there is already the methadone clinic on White Bear Avenue, the Ramsey County Family Service Center by Alddch Arena, a battered woman's shelter within a half mile, a troubled boys home within 1/4 mile and housing projects by Phalen Lake. They feel that there 'may be too many havens for people with problems so close together." Staff does not agree that the proximity of these mentioned facilities are close enough to create a ~loading up" of such facilities in this area. Taxable: According to the applicant, the property will not go off of the tax rolls. Rental property is taxable. Expansion to the north: This property is planned for R-3 and BC. The city recently acquired this property which was tax forfeit. We are planning medium density residential for this property. Building Design, Site Layout and Landscaping Buildi~ The building design could be improved to be more attractive and compatible with the surrounding homes. The elevations should be designed to have more character and detailing. The north and south elevations of the residential buildings, fences and garages are essentially a long flat surface. The bay windows and cantilevered second story help but do not provide enough architectural detailing on these long elevations. A revised building design where the units are offset with some variation in the roof plane would give character and interest to these elevations ospecially the side facing County Road B which will be very visible. The fence could also be offset (forward or back) to give a break in the long expanse. Another option would be .varying materials and colors. The front elevations of the units are also somewhat plain. Staff feels that the applicant should provide architectural detailing like dormers and more decorative columns and canopies over the front doors, for example. The commons building also should be enhanced with a pitched roof to give it more of a residential appearance. With its flat roof, it has the look of a commercial building. This building would be the most prominent structure as viewed by the neighbors. It should be designed to be more aesthetic and compatible with the neighborhood. The prominent materials proposed (vinyl horizontal-lap siding and cementitious horizontal-lap siding) may be acceptable, but in use with the proposed long extedor walls would create too much of a repetitive appearance. Another concern is that the back elevations of multiple dwellings are often used for utilities like gas and electric meters and air conditioners. These are unattractive elements, especially from the County Road B view. The applicant has not stated where the meters and air conditioners would be placed. These should face the interior of the site and not neighbors or streets. 3 Site Concerns Trash Enclosure Location In addition to site-plan alterations that would occur by adding architectural-relief to the buildings and fencing, staff recommends the following changes. The applicant should relocate the trash enclosures. These are proposed at the eastedy ends of the garages and would be in clear view by the neighbors. These would be unsightly if the enclosure gates are left open and on pick-up day. The applicant should find a more suitable place for these. As proposed, they would also not be very accessible to the residents. Northerly Ddveway The northerly driveway aims directly toward a dwelling across the street--this should be eliminated. This driveway, in fact, does not seem warranted for a development with only 13 units. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the site plan with only one driveway. Sidewalk and Crosswalk The applicant should construct a sidewalk from the edge of the southerly driveway to County Road B. This sidewalk should then extend from that point to the westerly edge of the site along the County Road B frontage. This would facilitate pedestrian traffic to the Oasis Market and White Bear Avenue. The applicant should also stripe a crosswalk from the site across County Road B to aid foot traffic to the community center. Landscaping The landscape plan should be further developed to increase the amount of plantings along the Van Dyke Street and County Road B frontages. Staff recommends substantial evergreen plantings along Van Dyke Street to soften the view of the site from the single dwelling homes across the street. The County Road B side should also be treated with a generous amount of trees and perhaps foundation plantings for appropriate curb appeal. Watershed District Permit Required The RamseyANashington Metro Watershed District has stated that this development will require a permit from their office. The applicant must contact Kad Hammers of the watershed distdct at (651) 704-2089 to inquire about their plan review and permitting requirements. Fire Marshal's Comment Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the fire department must have clear passage to the buildings. The final site plan should be reviewed by Mr. Gervais to ensure fire safety needs are met. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 24-25 approving a conditional use permit for a 13-unit townhouse development at the northwest comer of County Road B and Van Dyke Street. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 4 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. Bo Table approval of the plans date stamped August 8, 2000 for the proposed Emma's Place townhome development at the northwest comer of County Road B and Van Dyke Street. The applicant shall resubmit the site, architectural and landscape plans to the community design review board incorporating the following revisions: .1. The site plan shall include the relocation of the trash enclosures to a spot further inside the site, elimination of the northerly driveway and a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from the southerly driveway to County Road B and from Van Dyke street to the westerly lot line. The building elevations shall have architectural detailing such as varying materials and colors, relief in the roof lines and exterior wall elevations, roof dormers, no electric and gas meters on the street sides of buildings and more decorative columns and canopies at the front entrances of the units. 3. The landscape plan shall include a relatively thick planting row of evergreens for buffering along the Van Dyke Street frontage and additional trees and possibly foundation plantings on the County Road B side. If the community design review board approves these or revised plans, staff recommends 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 provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The fire marshal shall also review the site plan to make sure that fire-safety access needs would be met. This plan shall be subject to the fire marshal's approval. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). b. Construct a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from the southerly driveway to County Road B and from Van Dyke street to the westerly lot line. c. Screen any roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible from any neighborhood homes that may be placed on the commons building. 5 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% of the cost of the unfinished work. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. The director of community development may C= All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 21 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. the seven replies, two had no comment, four objected and one had a miscellaneous question/comment. Of Opposed 1. I do not want this townhome project here because of too much traffic, more people, cars, depreciation of home value, loss of wildlife, seclusion and privacy. (Miller, 2172 Van Dyke Street) 2. We would have no problem with the proposed development or its location if not for the fact that in our area we already have a battered woman's shelter (% mile), a methadone clinic (1/4 mile), a troubled boys home (1/4 mile), and the housing projects by Phalen lake (3 miles). We think it may become counterproductive to place so many havens for people with problems so close together, and despite assurances, we have some concern over the ability of management to control or evict troublesome tenants. (Hardwick, 2182 Van Dyke Street) 3. Refer to the letter on pages 20-21 (Stout, 2215 Hazel Street) and the one on pages 22-23 (Bjork, 1849 County Road B). A summary of the concerns expressed in these letters are: · Disagreement that the plans address the neighbor's concerns. · Would the property go off of the tax rolls? · Will this project lead to an expansion or similar development to the north? · How would more kids in the area affect the community center?. · Effect of trespassing on neighboring property. · This development would hurt property values. · This development will put a burden on the local schools. · Save the trees. This plan would bulldoze them all. · Townhomes are not compatible with the single dwellings in the area. · Kids hanging around, loitering, being noisy. .. · Preserve this space. There should be a better use of this property than this proposal. Miscellaneous Question I Comment Will this have any effect on the status of the zoning on White Bear Avenue? (Tait, G.A.C. Auto Body, 2210 White Bear Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size (project area): 2.25 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed facility) North: South: West: East: Undeveloped property planned and zoned for multiple dwellings and commercial County Road B and Maplewood City Hall, Parks Maintenance and Community Center Oasis Market and Finalube Van Dyke Street and single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R3-M (medium density residential) and BC Zoning: R3and BC Land Use Plan Provision The land use plan provides that "most of the land use plan categories coordinate with the city's zoning categories. The uses permitted in these land use categories are the same as those in the corresponding zoning district." Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(1) allows multiple dwellings in a BC distdct by CUP. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of CUPs on the nine findings stipulated in the resolution on pages 25-25. Application Date We received the applicant's requests on August 8, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. The applicant, however, has requested an extension of this time limit beyond the October 8 deadline to fit their scheduling needs, provided this request is reviewed by the city council by November 13, 2000. p:secl l~emma.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevation Reductions 5. Conditional Use Permit Justification 6. Letter from George and Karen Stout 7. Letter from Susanne Bjork 8. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 9. Site and Architectural Plans date-stamped August 8, 2000 (separate attachments) 9 Attachment 1 mAG AG && .J LOCATION 10 MAP PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP 11 Attachment 3 o county road B SITE PLAN 12 Attachment 4 Z Z Z Z W Z 15 Z IJ.I Attachment 5 ATTACHMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EMMA'S PLACE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Emma's Place is a proposed housing development with 13 townhomes (8 four- bedroom units and 5 three-bedroom units) for Iow-income families with children. Emma's Place will provide common space for after school activities and support services for the families who reside there. On site management staff will be provided. A portion of the property is R-3 (M) classification and another portion appears that it may be zoned BC. The intended use of the property is permitted in an R-3 district. The use is permitted in a BC district with a Conditional Use Permit. Because of what appears to be the split zoning of the property, the Applicant is willing to make application for a Conditional Use Permit. The Application meets all of the criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT CRITERIA (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. This standard is met. The project will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated in conformity with the Maplewood Plan and the Code. It is also located in conformity with the Plan because a Business Commercial district permits residential use and residential uses are intended to be the major land use within the City. The Comprehensive Plan sets out an objective to have residential uses as the major land use within the City. The Zoning Code implements that objective by permitting multi-family residential use in districts zoned BC. The Code allows the City to issue a Conditional Use Permit for residential uses in a BC category. (2) The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The project will not change the planned character of the surrounding area but rather be a buffer area between the single family residential to the east and business commercial to the west. To the north is multi-family and business commercial, and the property to the south has as its current use City offices, community center and open space. (3) The use would not depreciate the property values. This standard is met. A residential development of this vacant parcel would not depreciate property values. Durable quality exterior building surfaces and generous landscaping will provide a product quality equal to the residences nearby. 16 (4) The use would not involve any activity, process, mater/a/s, 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 of air pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. This standard is met. The residential use of the property does not generate any of the nuisances set forth. (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. This standard is met. A residential use would certainly generate less traffic than alcommercial use. The development is planned to take into account normal r(~sidential traffic. Each unit with 1 car will generate on average 4 tdps per 24 hours and each staff person 2 trips each. It is assumed that there will be one car per family. City records indicate the following traffic counts for the White Bear Avenue area: 1997 ADT (averaRe daily traffic) White Bear Ave. south of City B White Bear Ave. north of Cty. B County Road B west of WB Ave. County Road B east of VVB Ave. The increase in the traffic count will be negligible. 25,550 26,900 5,550 6,100 (6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. This standard is met. All public services are presently available to the property. The intended use would not burden the public facilities and services. Streets: Two driveways are locat~'d off Van Dyke Street to minimize the number of entrances onto County Road B. Police and fire protection: The central police station is located across the street from the property and the nearest fire station is located on Frost at English Street about 1 mile away. ~ Drainage structures: Storm sewer is located along County Road B and also along Van Dyke. Water and sewer systems: A 6' water main is located in Van Dyke Street and sanitary sewer is in both County Road B and Van Dyke. Schools: The property is in the Webster Elementary, John Glen Middle, and North High public schools service areas. According to 17 school officials of District 622, the school system will serve all children within their district. Parks: Phalen-Keller Regional Park including Keller Golf Course and picnic area is located 1 mile west. City parks include: Sherwood Park about % mile straight west, Goodrich Golf Course 1/8 mile south and just beyond that Goodrich Park. Gateway Trail, an 18-mile trail for biking and hiking, starts in downtown St. Paul goes right past Maplewood City Hall and ends at Marine on the St Croix. The property is located across the street from City Hall. (7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. This standard is met. The use will not create additional costs for the City more than any development would. There are no higher costs associated with this multi-family residential use than any other multi-family residential use or commercial use. (8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. This standard is met. The property is fiat, vacant land. The design will incorporate significant open space. It will improve the scenic features of the property by adding significant landscaping including trees and shrubs along County Road B and Van Dyke. (9) The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. This standard is met. There will be no adverse environmental effects from this development. PUBLIC INPUT Input from neighbors was obtained in 3 different ways. 1. The seller sent a letter of introduction to all businesses in the block and on the west side of White Bear Avenue. Mr. Jim Uden of Emma Norton Residence then visited all of them and left literature explaining what is being proposed. Most were neutral; a number very supportive and only one opposed the development. 2. A neighbor and supporter of the project, who lives within a block of the property on County Road B, held an information meeting May 20th for the immediate residential neighbors. From that meeting several concerns were raised that we have addressed in the plans submitted to the Community Design Review Board: · No exterior lights shinning towards Van Dyke; · A sidewalk along County Road B; and · The project will have good quality siding that's durable like stucco, brick, cementboard or rock face block. 18 3. Notices were sent to neighbors within 350' and calls were made to personally invite Maplewood residents outside the 350' area and the Maplewood Planning staff to an open information meeting that was held at Arlington Heights Methodist Church in Maplewood on June 8a. Those who attended had many questions about the project but nothing that wasn't already addressed on the plans. There was a concern about children's activities after school. After school programs will be provided on site to residents to improve learning skills and provide organized activities for children after school. 19 Attachment 6. August11,2000 Together We Can George Stout Karen Stout 2215 Hazel St N Maplewo0d MN 55109-2716 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY - EMMA NORTON RESIDENCE, NW CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD B AND VAN DYKE STREET This is to get your opinion on an application the city has received for property in your neighborhood. Ms. Nelda Rhoades Clarke is requesting that the Maplewood City Council approve a 13-unit townhouse development at the northwest corner of County Road B and Van Dyke Street. Refer to the attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below. Return this letter (and any attachments on which you have written comments) to me in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by August 18, 2000. If you want further information, please call me at (651) 770-4563 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. I will send you a notice of any public hearings on the application. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. THOMAS EKSTRAND - ASSOCIATE PLANNER dt Enclosure No comment I ha~e the following comments: (Project: )(Section: OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-770-4560 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD · 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B · MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 '' 20 Attachment 7 22 23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION Attachment 8 WHEREAS, Ms. Nelda Rhoades Clarke, of the Emma Norton Residence, applied for a conditional use permit to build a 13-unit townhome development known as Emma's Place. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at the northwest comer of County Road B and Van Dyke Street. The legal description is: THE EAST 332.50 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED ALLEY THAT ACCRUED TO SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF AND TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF VACATED SANDHURST DRIVE THAT ACCRUED TO SAID LOT 1 BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 332.50 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 ALL IN BLOCK 29, SMITH AND TAILOR'S ADDITION TO NORTH ST. PAUL, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, AND SITUATED IN RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On , the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On , the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written 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 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. o 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. 24 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. ,2000. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 25 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 I. CALLTO ORDER Acting Chairperson Frost called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Absent Present Present Absent Present Present Present (arrived at 7:14 p.m.) Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Community Development Director Ken Haider, Acting City Manager (left meeting at 7:45 p.m.) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin Melinda Coleman made a presentation to the Commission regarding staffing changes. She introduced JoAnn Morin as the temporary Recording Secretary. The Community Development Department has created a new part-time clerk/typist position that will be responsible to record minutes for the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. The new clerk/typist will begin recording minutes beginning at the September 18th meeting. Ms. Coleman also explained staffing changes that have occurred in the department. Two members of the staff have taken positions in the City Clerk's office. Their positions in the Community Development Department have been filled, and the new employees will begin within the next few weeks. She requested if the Commissioners have any comments on the content, or how the minutes are done, please let her know. II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 6, 2000 Commission Pearson moved approval of the minutes of July 6, 2000. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. Ayes - 4 Abstention-1 (Rossbach) The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -2- Ao Birch Glen Apartment Complex (Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D) Land Use Plan Change (BC to R-3(H)) and Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The project is proposed by Specialty Development Corporation to build a 60-unit apartment building on a vacant property along Ariel Street. The project would be a three-story apartment building with underground parking for approximately 66 vehicles. There would also be a detached garage with nine parking stalls and an additional 64 surface parking spaces on the site. There would be a mix of approximately 48 two- bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. There would also be a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. To build this development, the applicant asks the City for three approvals, two for which require the Planning Commission to act upon. First is the change to the land use plan. The site is currently planned BC (Business Commercial). The proposal is to change the site to R-3(H) (Residential High Density). The adjacent property is currently zoned R2 (Single/Double Dwellings) and will remain in that zoning district. The R-3(H) area is intended for a variety of housing types including townhouses, double dwellings, and apartments of up to 16.3 units per acre. The current BC zone is general commercial areas that are intended for offices, clinics, restaurants, daycare centers and retail businesses. There were several things in the Plan that both Staff and the Commission and ultimately the Council should consider. These include our general land use plan goals and our residential development policies that are in the Plan as well as our housing policies that are in the Plan. It is staff's opinion that this would be a good site for this apartment style housing. It is near a major collective street (County Road D) and between two arterial streets (White Bear Avenue and McKnight Road), near open space and the shopping area and services area along White Bear Avenue. An advantage of this proposal is that it changes this strip of land from commercial to residential. It is staffs opinion the site does not look like a good site for commercial or retail business, which tends to want to be right along White Bear Avenue or much closer to White Bear Avenue. This site is really too hidden, or too far from the main stdp of activity along White Bear Avenue to make it desirable for retail type businesses. Mr. Roberts explained the density credits that are allowed by the City Code for open space and underground parking in the building. This project calculates to about 15.7 units per acre, slightly under the 16.3 that is allowed for apartment buildings with 50 units in our high density area. The applicant is also asking for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 60-unit development. The proposed plan has two areas that deviate from code standards. The city may allow deviations for planned unit developments provided it meets the following cdtefia: (1) Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. (2) The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (3) The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. (4) The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. (5) The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. Mr. Roberts pointed out that the building as proposed would be 50-feet from the east property line. A large building such as this next to residential would normally have a 100-foot setback. The Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -3- second area of deviation is for the parking lot in front of the building. The west edge of the parking lot is right up to the right-of-way line. Normal setback requirement would be 15-feet. ' The site is quite long and not very wide. It is 830-feet long from north to south, and 165-feet wide. With the power lines and easements through the middle area, there is a large area that cannot be built on. The buildable part of the site is the north area where the proposed apartment building has been placed. Because of those factors, the shape, the power lines and pipelines, and the wetlands, Mr. Roberts feels that there is not much else that could be done with this site for putting on an apartment building on. Because of these factors, and the quality of the project before the Commission, Staff recommends approval of the PUD with the two deviations. Staff also recommends approval of the CUP for the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Roberts stated there are two recommendations to take action on. The first is for the Land Use Plan change, from BC (Business Commercial) to R3(H) (Residential High Density) for this project and the site. The second item is approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the PUD for the Birch Glen apartment development subject to nine conditions that are outlined on page 6 of the staff report. Mr. Roberts also stated that staff is recommending that the developer install a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Arial to serve both the people coming and going from the building to connect to the sidewalks along Woodland. Commissioner Trippler stated concerns regarding planting Birch trees in the area. The developer is proposing to plant 84 trees, using three different varieties. He questioned the prospect of having a larger variety of trees to avoid having some type of tree disease wipe them out. He also was concerned whether Birch trees would do very well and would it be problematic to keep that species of tree growing in that particular area. He also stated he was concerned about the residential structure that is within 150-feet of the proposed development, which is a three-story structure. He asked if it would be possible to develop lighting that will light the east side of the structure that would not be problematic for the people that live on that side of it. Commission Trippler understands that the applicant is proposing to plant trees to provide a barrier between the apartment complex and the house. Over a long period of time this would probably be an effective solution, but in the short run he questioned whether that would be effective or not. Mr. Haider stated that Commissioner Trippler's concerns are a Design Review Board consideration and Commission Ledvina would forward these concerns to the Design Review Board. Commission Ledvina agreed. Commission Rossbach stated that in a lot of cases Commissioner Trippler's comments would be Design Review Board considerations, but this is a Planned Unit Development and the Planning Commission is looking at the specific plan, so he feels that the Commission is not limited to dealing with land use issues. Commission Pearson asked Mr. Haider what the depth of the Williams petroleum lines running across the property was. He also asked if when a parking lot is placed above a pipeline, what typically is done to be sure the frost does not go down into the lines. Mr. Haider replied that he was not sure how deep the pipelines lie. Williams would come out and locate them both horizontally and vertically before there was construction on the site. He indicated that these pipelines would not typically freeze, therefore, the depth is not necessarily a big issue. In fact, they create a significant amount of heat when product is going through them because there is a lot of friction from the line. He stated that he understands that there are three lines going through this site. One line is not being used, one is dedicated for fiber optics, and one is actively transporting petroleum product. Commission Trippler questioned the Land Use Plan resolution, on page 25 of the staff report. He questioned that since there is a 50-foot setback variance, should that be stated in the resolution. Mr. Roberts stated that if it is not an item for the Land Use Plan change, it is covered in the text of the report under the PUD conditional use permit resolution starting on page 26. He also stated that Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -4- on the top of page 27 it is stated that construction has to follow the plans dated August 15, 2000. Those plans show the two setback variances. If the Commission wishes to add language into that section, pointing out those two deviations or variances to the Code, it could be done. However, Mr. Roberts felt that it would not be necessary. Commissioner Frost commented that he would be interested in staff's knowledge regarding what could be done to County Road D to make it a more ddveable road. Mr. Haider stated that there was an attempt to upgrade the road a number of years ago. The residence at that time felt that upgrading was necessary and the Council agreed. Mr. Haider stated that it may be time to ask that question again. It is currently not on the Capital improvement Plan at this point. The applicant, Bob Bankers of Specialty Development Corporation addressed the Commission. He stated that the pipeline company has located the pipeline. It is between five and twelve feet below the existing grade. He stated that the parking lot was designed so that no pavement would be over that pipeline. There is approximately ten unpaved feet on each side of the pipeline. Mr. Bankers stated that he agreed upon all of the conditions set forth by the staff report. He stated that he feels that there is a need for this type of housing in Maplewood. Surveys show that there is less than 1% vacancy in that area for comparable apartment buildings. He stated that this project was not specifically targeted to the eldedy, but a prime market target is the empty nester. He also stated that this is not a subsidized project. Commission Rossbach questioned Mr. Bankers as to what the return to the City of Maplewood will be in exchange for granting the PUD variances. Mr. Bankers stated that the City will get an apartment building that they do not currently have. The project is also allowing 54% of the land to remain green, which is a high percentage in comparison to other projects in the area. The wetland will be largely undisturbed, except for digging it deeper at staff's request to hold drainage for the property to the east when that is developed. Commission Rossbach question Mr. Bankers as to why the garage in the proposed project is L- shaped. Mr. Bankers stated that it was designed in this shape to achieve additional space in the back part of the garage for apartment maintenance equipment. He stated that there is actually space for 82 underground parking spaces. However, t~e plan is to have 66 designated spaces and there will also be storage rooms. Commission Frost invited any other members of the audience to make any comments regarding the Birch Glen proposal. Mr. Housey, whom lives on the east side of the proposed project addressed the Commission. He questioned what the setback variance would do to future building on the east side. Mr. Roberts stated that the proposal is to have the building 50-feet off the property line instead of 100-feet, which would normally be required by the size of the building. He stated he felt that it will not affect the lot to the east at all as far as building. He stated the setbacks for that property would be a minimum of 50-feet or for a large building it could be 100-feet. Commissioner Rossbach commented that he feels that there is nothing appealing to this particular proposal. Granted the lot is a long narrow lot, but it does not appear to him that any effort has been made in design to accommodate that. He stated that the proposed project has some attractive features, however it is a tremendously long building and he feels that the project may demise the property values of the adjacent property. He also stated concern as to if the adjacent property owner decided to also make their property R3 and put in an equally large building, how could the Commission deny them that request based upon granting this proposal. He agreed with the applicant that we probably have a shortage of market rate apartments, and agrees that this is a good area for high density residential, but feels that this proposed building is not a large asset to the City of Maplewood. By granting the PUD request, the Commission is basically saying that they agree that this is a good plan and that it is a asset to the City of Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he strongly suggests that the Commission vote against this application. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -5- Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the City Council denial for the Resolution to change the Land Use Plan from BC to R3(H) and further moved that the same action be taken in regards to the Conditional Use Permit for Birch Glen Apartment Building. He included in his motion that he does not feel that this is an appealing enough plan to offset the variances that would be needed to be granted for the construction of the building. There was no second. The motion did not carry. Commissioner Pearson stated that he felt that the chance of commercial development in that area would probably not be seen for that site based upon the reasons staff pointed out. He also added that there is a distinct shortage of apartments in the Maplewood area and rents in the Maplewood area are starting to escalate considerably. He feels that the best way to maintain some equilibrium on rents is to have enough of a supply. He stated that he feels that the area is terrific for the people who will settle there, traffic would not be a problem, and he supports the project. Commission Pearson moved the Planning Commission approve the Land Use Plan Change Resolution changing the city's land use plan from BC (Business Commercial) to R3(H) (Residential High Density) for the 3.2 acre site of the Birch Glen housing development. The city bases these changes on the following findings. 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high-density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. b. It is near a collector street, open space and shopping and is between two arterial streets. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: ao The on-site pond and large setback, from Woodlynn Avenue will separate the apartment building from the residences to the south. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences. 3. This change would eliminate a planned commercial area that would have been next to residential areas. Commission Pearson also recommend to approve the resolution to approve the conditional use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the Birch Glen apartment development on Ariel Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped August 15, 2000. The city council may approve major 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.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, tree and driveway and parking lot plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -6- The design of the pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall provide the city an easement for this pond that shall cover at least all the area within the 942 contour. The developer also shall provide the city a 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer pipe between the pond and the Woodlynn Avenue right-of-way. o The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public improvements and meet ali city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk and garbage from the site. d. Install a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Ariel Street between County Road D and VVoodlynn Avenue. 6. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on site. if the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he was concerned about the size of the building, but understands the economics of a development such as this in terms of making the project financially viable. In terms of the land use, he feels it is a good change and supports the change. He stated that there are some draw backs in terms of the size of the building but feels that the other positive features of the proposal outweigh those drawbacks. Commissioner Pearson added that he was not just proposing approval on this application because someone else has to live with it. He also lives in the area where a senior housing development has gone in and also looks at a three-story building with similar setbacks. He does not feel this as a terrible imposing presence. Discussion continued regarding the size and setbacks of the project Commissioner Pearson described. Commission Rossbach agreed that the proposed spot is good, and we need the housing. However, he stated that he feels the proposed plan is bad, and the City could do better. Commissioner Trippler agreed that yes, we could always do better. But given the situation and the proposal before the Commission, it seems that there isn't really anything that could be done with the shape of the lot. His pdmary concern was with the property owner to the east of the site, and how they felt regarding the proposed project. It appears that the property owners are not opposed to this development and it indicates to Commissioner Trippler that the 50-foot setback is not an issue. Ayes - 4 Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -7- Nayes- 1 (Rossbach) Abstention - 1 (Thompson) The motion passed. This item will be on the October 9, 2000 City Council agenda, and on the September 19, 2000 Design Review Board agenda. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. AT & T Monopole Conditional Use Permit (1745 Cope Avenue) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner presented the staff report for this request. The request is for AT&T to install a 125-foot tall monopole and an equipment building for their telecommunication equipment on the southwest corner of the existing parking lot south of the Taste of India building at 1745 Cope Avenue. The applicant is requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit and design approval for the site project plans. AT&T did perform a site search in the area for existing structures that possibly would work for their facilities. They looked at the U.S. West (Quest) site located on Jarvis Court which has an existing 90-foot monopole with antennas on it. However, AT&T would be at a 57-foot height, which would not be sufficient for their needs. AT&T also checked the city's water tower on Cope Avenue and concluded that it was outside their search area, it is too far east. The other monopole in the area is located at English and Jarvis which has two sets of antennas and is not structurally capable to allow additional equipment and may be too far west for AT&T's purposes. Mr. Roberts indicated that there has been some discussions with the owners of the monopole located at English and Jarvis about possibly trying to re-do it into a larger, taller monopole to allow more antennas. Mr. Roberts indicated that he has not received a reply to that request yet. Mr. Roberts stated that by putting the equipment building and monopole on the corner of the site it will have no effect on the Taste of India business or the parking lot. Staff was concerned about the view from the existing insurance building, and were not sure of the property line. Staff was hoping to get additional landscaping in the area to help screen the building in the base area, but that may not be possible. This proposal does meet the requirements of our tower ordinance, it does meet the requirements for a conditional use permit and Mr. Roberts recommends approval of the conditional use permit for this request. ° Commissioner Ledvina questioned staff if the location north of the restaurant, closer to 36, was considered. Mr. Roberts indicated that he was not aware of that site consideration, but the applicant could address that question. Julie Townsend, representing AT&T, addressed the Commission. She stated that the location north of the restaurant is in a grassy area and there is a potential of slight flooding. The equipment shelter would not be conducive for that particular location. She stated that tucked back into the corner of the south side, the structure would be hidden by some trees, therefore from the highway view, it was best hidden. Another consideration that was taken by the construction individuals of AT&T was the distance to a power source. If the monopole was located to the north, a considerable amount of the parking lot would have to be torn up in order to get to the power source. Commissioner Pearson questioned why the AT&T monopole had to be 122-foot pole in comparison to the other monopoles being installed at 90-feet or less. Ms. Townsend stated that it had much to do with the type of technology being used. AT&T wireless services an analog system at the 850- megahertz level whereas the other cellular telephone towers are PCS carriers and are on the 1850- megahertz level. What that means is that the PCS carriers are placing their towers approximately every two to three miles, whereas AT&T, having more height, can space out their towers - sometimes ten to fifteen miles. Commissioner Pearson questioned if the 122-foot pole would be able to accommodate more than Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -8- one or two additional carriers. Ms. Townsend indicated that the tower was being built to accommodate at least two additional carriers. Commissioner Ledvina stated that on some of the other monopoles the antennas have been located very close to the pole and that reduces the negatiVe aesthetics of the pole in his opinion. He asked Ms. Townsend if this would be possible with this antenna arrangement. Ms. Townsend stated that AT&T does not have an option at this point to position their antennas, it is a function of the technology. She shared with the Commission photographs of existing AT&T monopoles. She stated that the exterior shelter is 12-feet by 28-feet and the color of the exterior shelter would be whatever the staff recommends. She also displayed a photograph of the Quest monopole located nearby. She stated that Quest indicates that they claim they have co-locatable poles, meaning they can take on additional carders. However, they have used up three sectors of the monopole. Other carders need to have separation both horizontally and vertically. Therefore, there is not an opportunity for another carder to go onto that pole. Commissioner Frest questioned staff if when we approved these monopoles that we communicated that they needed to be co-locatable and was it known at the time of appreval that there would be three or more antennas on the poles. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not recall and the technology or design of the monopole may have changed. Commission Frost questioned staff as to whether the companies can add to the monopoles without coming back to the City Council. Mr. Roberts indicated that they could add and change antennas around without city approval. Commissioner Frost suggested that we consider this topic in a future ordinance revision. Mr. Roberts indicated that would be possible. Commissioner Thompson cladfied that U.S. West is now known as Quest. He asked Ms. Townsend if there were a 125-foot tower at that location, would it be practical for AT&T to use that tower. Ms. Townsend indicated that if there were a 125-foot tower at the existing Quest location, and if AT&T had the opportunity to have the height necessary based upon the elevation of that site, yes they would co-locate. Commissioner Thompson pointed out that the existing Quest monopole was designed for co-location, however, it does not currently look as if it has multiple users. Commissioner Thompson is interested in testing the ethics of this issue. Commissioner Rossbach questioned Ms. Townsend regarding AT&T's future plans for additional poles in the area. Ms. Townsend indicated that she believed the next location nearest this site would be Woodbury. Commissioner Rossbach asked Ms. Townsend if she were aware of the proposed locations to the south. Ms. Townsend indicated that she did have a map indicating what poles AT&T currently have. Mr. Roberts asked Ms. Townsend if AT&T was co-located on any sites in the area. She indicated that the sites she pointed out includes all antennas, including any co- located poles or antennas located on top of buildings. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to explain how they arrived at the conclusion of question number nine on page f'~een of the staff report. "The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.' Mr. Roberts indicated that page 15 of the report was submitted by the applicant as their response to city criteria. Commissioner Trippler directed his question to Ms. Townsend. Ms. Townsend explained that environmental effects are based upon what is necessary when building a site. They look into NEPA Phase I, they look at aesthetics, and also take into consideration the area and the topography. The pole will not be placed in a highly residential area, and it will be in a district that the city ordinance states that monopoles are allowed. Commissioner Trippler asked if this would be a non-negative environmental impact for the area. Ms. Townsend indicated that the this location would be best suited for a monopole in the area. Ms. Coleman questioned the applicant if there was any expected life span for the monopoles. She also asked if technology is expected to advance to the stage where there will not be monopoles Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -9- every quarter mile down the street. Ms. Townsend stated that is not a question she could answer. Commissioner Tdppler asked if the tower emitted energy. Ms. Townsend indicated that she would not be able to answer that question apprOpriately. Commissioner Trippler asked if the cellular phones emitted energy. Ms. Townsend took the position not to answer that question. Ms. Coleman stated that in some other applications that have come before the Planning Commission the applicants have stated that all the energy that is emitted from them are no more than a microwave oven. She also indicated that those are the things that are regulated by the FCC and are not in our domain to regulate. Commissioner Trippler felt that if it causes adverse health effects that the Planning Commission has the authority to question whether it is adversely impacting our citizens. Ms. Coleman indicated that based upon the research that was available to staff in the past, there was not conclusive evidence indicating health concerns from the monopoles. The research that she had reviewed indicated that the effect of these poles is comparable to using a cellular phone or a microwave oven. She went on to say that the Federal and State courts have indicated to cities that it is not the city's place or business. Ms. Coleman agrees that she does not like the tower, and perhaps it is time to look at a moratorium in order to get a grip on how many more poles will be placed in our community. She also indicated that the city has gone to court on this issue in the past and have lost and feels this is not a reason that we could deny this application. She suggests efforts be put towards looking at a comprehensive coverage plan, or hiring a consultant to work with the different providers and the city to look at where these poles are absolutely needed and compile our own plan. She stated that some cities around the United States are doing that. It becomes a policy issue for cities to decide if they want to spend money hiring their own consultants and making their own plan. Commissioner Thompson stated that he understands from what is presented that there is no further consideration regarding the Quest site. He asked staff if the Commission could delay approval or recommendation of this application while a 120-foot tower might be considered at the Quest site. Ms. Coleman indicated that it would be difficult to tell Quest to build a pole for AT&T. She also questions whether or not Quest put up the three antennas that they have in such a fashion to prohibit co-location, because the City does require that. She indicated that there may be some repercussions to Quest for not following the city ordinance. However, it is a legal issue and an issue that would not warrant denial of this application, o Ms. Coleman clarified that Quest has told AT&T they cannot accommodate another antenna. Commissioner Thompson asked if a 120-foot pole at the Quest location was serviceable. Mr. Roberts indicated that Quest has not been approached and asked about installing a larger pole at their existing facility. Commissioner Thompson asked staff if it is in the Commissions domain to request a delay pending on that question being presented to Quest. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant if this issue has been discussed with Quest. Ms. Townsend indicated that AT&T has talked with Quest about building larger facilities at other sites. However, at this particular location a few things are unique. The land is owned by Quest, therefore they do not have to lease AT&T land space to go onto their property and there is a space restriction at this particular property. Ms. Townsend indicated that there is a scenario called "one up, one down". This is when a carrier will build a brand new tower right next to the existing tower. Once the new tower is up, AT&T puts their antenna's on, Quest then has to take off their antennas and move their equipment, replace their antennas and go onto the new site, then the other site goes down. The problem that would be faced at this particular Maplewood location is the space restriction. Construction would require a large enough foundation to accommodate a 120-foot monopole, which may not fit next to the existing monopole. Ms. Townsend stated that it would be quite a bit for AT&T to ask Quest to take down their existing tower, remove all their equipment, and put it back up onto the new ^T&T monopole. Commissioner Thompson asked Ms. Townsend if she did not feel that it was quite a bit for AT&T to ask the city for permissiOn to locate an additional monopole at this new site as well. Ms. Townsend indicated that Quest has made it very clear in the past that they want nothing to do with Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 07-09-00 this type of scenario. Commis~mpson reiterated that Quest is not amenable to co-location if at all possible. Ms. Townsen~ stat_~3tfiat on other towers where there is space availab!e at a conducive height, Quest does allow for co-location. She also indicated that all carriers (3o. She indicated that if AT&T were to approach Quest at this location and request co-location at 50-feet, that Quest would be agreeable if the space is open. Unfortunately, this particular tower does not meet AT&Ts needs with height. Commissioner Thompson moved to table this application until there are answers regarding potential co-location at the Quest site. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. 5 - Ayes I - Nay (Frost) Motion carries. The motion is to table the AT&T Wireless monopole application until the possibility of co-location at the Quest location is expressed. Commissioner Ledvina added that he would like to have the issues related to the property boundary and the possibility of screening and locating some plant material added be resolved in the interim. He also stated that he was still not convinced that a location north of the restaurant closer to Highway 36 would not be a good location. He requested that the applicant reconsider if indeed the selected location of the monopole is the only location for the pole. Commissioner Frost indicated to Ms. Townsend that she work with staff to resolve the Commissions concerns and welcomes her back in a few weeks. Commissioner Rossbach stated that after this discussion regarding monopole's located in the City it has become apparent that our ordinance currently on the books are not really doing what we thought they would do. He stated that the Commission should recommend to the City Council that they impose a moratorium on the construction of towers. He added that it would not affect this application. He stated that he feels that the city needs to reflect what the current ordinances are doing and what we should do to change them or upgrade them in order to get more uniform disbursement throughout the city. He also agreed with Ms. Coleman regarding the possibility of bringing the carriers together and discuss with them what the city's wants, desires and needs are and also allow the carriers to spend time figuring out what their needs are going to be in the future in Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Commission recommend to the City council that a moratorium be imposed regarding monopoles in the City of Maplewood. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Commissioner Ledvina added that perhaps the city should strongly consider developing a detailed comprehensive plan as well as evaluating the ordinance looking at the whole area. If necessary hire their own engineer to help the city to provide an unbiased prospective on the need for towers and where towers should be located. Ayes - All Motion carries. B. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study- Summary Recommendation Ms. Coleman present the overview of the review that was done by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 07-09-00 Planning Commission on their findings on the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. Ms. Coleman indicated that she would like the Commission to let her know if anything was forgotten that was discussed. She indicated that if this meets the Commissions approval it will be taken to the Council for their review on October 9. Commissioner Thompson indicated concern regarding lack of comment on transportation in this study: He requested that transportation issues should be included in the study. Ms. Coleman asked Commissioner Thompson to clarify his request. He indicated that specifically he was trying to address public transit on White Bear Avenue. He stated that the public transportation atmosphere could be improved without spending big dollars. He offered an example, instead of having a commercial on the rear-end of a bus, a sign is placed there saying "Yield to Buses" giving buses a little bit more privilege. He stated the goal is to have legislation conducive to more rapid public transit. Ms. Coleman stated that with the money that was spent on this study, we did not necessarily get what we were all looking for. She explained that what she was looking for this evening is things that we could pull out of the study and apply to our work here. She agreed that what Commissioner Thompson discussed was not in the study. Commissioner Thompson requested that the study reflect the absence of the transit issue. Ms. Coleman stated that she could put language into~he study regarding the absence of any discussion on public transit and that we will still be c..ogfiition of it. Commissioner Rossbach motioned to move the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Summary onto City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Ayes - All Motion carries. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. July 10 Council Meeting: Commissioner Trippler reported on this meeting. He informed the Commission that the Goodrich Clubhouse passed, Ayes all. He also reported that the Amusement City Permit was passed with the deletion of all guns on the premises. The pizza parlor and the additional racetrack was approved. There was also discussion regarding the clearing out of the used car lot. He indicated that there was concern regarding the High Point Ridge development. This application was tabled. B. July 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. She indicated that the U.S. West monopole was approved at County Road C. They also approved the Super America project with a change to the setback requirements. Highpoint was reconsidered. They followed the Planning Commission's recommendation and did not approve the apartment part of the project. C. August 14 Council Meeting: Commissioner Trippler reported on this meeting. Ms. Coleman indicated that the comprehensive plan update for the historic resources management plan was approved with very little discussion. Ms. Coleman stated that the zoning code change for the business commercial district was approved. D. August 28 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman stated that Council approved the first reading on a curbing ordinance amendment to the zoning code and will be doing second the reading next Monday night. E. September 11: Ms. Coleman indicated that representation from the Planning Commission was not needed at that meeting. F. September 25: Commissioner Frost will attend this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -12- Commissioner Thompson commented on the used car lot just north of Amusement City. He indicated that the chain link fence is down, and posts are there with chains between them. The parking lot is black topped. The buildings have been dressed up considerable. The sign is painted and the owner hopes to have between 50 and 75 used cars on the lot. There will be no more used cars stored on the lot. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ao Ms. Coleman discussed the residential off-street parking. She indicated that the plan is to start from ground zero with the new council and try to define issue areas. Staff has come up with four to six items that they wa k~ok at. Ms. Coleman also stated that the public has been invited to come in and comment on the items. She stated that they have received numem..~.us phone calls and letters. She indicated that almost all responses have been u~dVema~ in favor~addressing the issue of parking in front yards. Any kind of ordinance amendments that would be changed would be brought before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Trippler asked that the staff screen any responses received by the public, particularly looking for any suggestions on what they want to see in a parking ordinance. He also indicated that he would like to see how many people suggested certain things..,__. Ms. Coleman indicated that staff is keeping t,l;a~k of the letters and phone calls and their major area of concems. She stated that a large amou,Ft of the responses indicated that they were concerned with parking on the street. She stated that,[he Police Department is not enforcing overnight parking on the streeL Them was also indications of concerns regarding home occupations. She indicated that the Commission will receive a summary of the responses. B. Mr. Roberts reported that Mr. Haider will be leaving the employment of the City at the end of the month. C° Ms. Coleman reported to the Commission that the City Manager's position has been offered, and a contract is being negotiated. She stated that someone should be on board mid to late October. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.