Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-1972 SMAGENDA Maplewood Village Council 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, November 14, 1972 Municipal Administration Building Meeting 72 - 42 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Planned Unit Development - Condor Corporation (Londin Lane) (7:30 P.M.) 2. Special Use Permit (Refuse Transfer Station) - Century disposal systems (8:00 P.M.) 3. Zone Change (R -1 to R -3) - Terrace Enterprises Incorporated (Northeast corner of County Road B and English Street) (8:45 P.M.) (D) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 1973 3udget (E) ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, November 14, 1972 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 72 -42 A,, CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Village Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building and was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Mayor Axdahl. B. ROLL CALL Lester G. Axdahl, Mayor Present John C. Greavu, Councilman Present Harald L. Haugan, Councilman Present Donald E. Olmstead, Councilman Present Donald J. Wiegert, Councilman Present C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Planned Unit Development - Condor Corporation ( Londin Lane) 7:30 P.M. a. Mayor Axdahl convened the meeting for a public hearing on the application of Condor Corporation for a Planned Unit Development of 396 dwelling units to be located on the south side of Lower Afton Road, north of Londin Lane. The Clerk read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. b. Manager Miller presented the staff report. (see attached Addendum No. 1) c. Chairman Lyman Coombs presented the following Planning Commission recom- mendation: Commissioner Fischer moved: The Planning Commission would recommend approval of a Planned Unit Development on this site for 2 buildings of 99 units each based on the Staff Report Items 1 through 4 and 7 through 14 and the recommendations that follow. The Commission further suggests that Item 5 "Density" be accomplished as follows: If after development and occupation of these two buildings it is apparent that an additional building or buildings could be constructed within the density guidelines as set forth in the "Plan" this Planned Unit Development could be re- considered for such additional construction at that time. In regard to Item #7 it is understood that the final assessment for recreation pur- poses would be based on the establishment of a Village policy. Commissioner Mogren seconded. Motion carried by following vote: Ayes - all. d. Mr. James Larkin, representing Condor Corporation, spoke on behalf of the proposal. e. Mr. Cal Lundquist, Lundquist Architects, Inc., presented the specifics of the proposal. - I - 11/14 f. Mr. Nick Nichols, president of Condor Corporation, further explained the specifics of the type of units. g. Mayor Axdahl asked if there were any persons who wished to speak in opposition to the proposal. The following were heard: Mr. Richard C. Keller, 2497 Londin Lane, asked that the minutes reflect a notice that he sent to the Village, August 18th, registering object- ions to the development. The objections were reviewed by Mr. Keller, which included objections to density, availability to city water, traf- fic, city sewer, obstruction of view from his building site, degradation of his property, privacy, noise, aesthics of the area, public transpor- tation, schools, police, etc. Andy Johnson, 2299 Londin Lane, owns property to the west of the property in question. He is afraid that any amount of excavating on the proposed property would cause excess silt to go on his property. He is also con- cerned that no concern is being given to what might happen to his proper- ty. h. Mayor Axdahl asked if anyone wished to register formal objections to the proposed project. The following were heard: Mr. Richard Keller, 2497 Londin Lane. Mr. Johnson, 2299 Londin Lane, does not wish to a formal objector if he is guaranteed that no harm will come to his property. i. Mayor Axdahl closed the public hearing portion. j. Councilman Wiegert moved that the Council is in the position of being favorably disposed towards this develonment in terms of three buildines. Dort be resolved and that further substantiation of the developers sueQested density be provided and that this project then be tabled until such time as sufficient resolution is apparent and the staff can bring it back to Council. Seconded by Councilman Haugan. Ayes - Mayor Axdahl, Councilmen Haugan, Greavu and Wiegert. Nays - Councilman Olmstead. Motion carried. 2. Special Use Permit ( Refuse Transfer Station ) - Century Disposal Systems 8:00 P.M. a. Mayor Axdahl convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a spec- ial use permit to locate a transfer dumping station on Century Avenue east of the closed Maplewood Landfill Site, lying south of the Chicago Northwest- ern Railroad Line. The Clerk read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. b. Manager Miller presented the staff report. (attached addendum No. 2) - 2 - 11/14 c. Councilman Wiegert asked if this was the case that the applicants have - filed legal action regarding this special use permit and are asking the court to order us to issue a special use permit. Attorney Lais stated that they have asked for a hearing which is being given now and to obtain the permit by virtue of court order. Mr. Lais read the complaint. His suggest- ion was to hold the hearing as scheduled. d. Chairman Lyman Coombs, Planning Commission, presented the following Planning Commission report: Commissioner Prew: Moved that the Planning Commission advise the Vil- lage Council that the Commission concurs with the staff report and it is the Commission's recommendation that the request be denied. Commissioner Kishel seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes - all. e. Mayor Axdahl called for proponents to make their presentation. 1. Mr. Sohn Daubney, attorney representing the applicants, Roger Kuef- fner and Lowell Vanderhoff, spoke on behalf of the request. 2. Mrs. Roger Kueffner spoke regarding the proposed transfer station. 3. Mr. Dennis Brown, with the firm of Milnar Carley and Associates, con- sulting engineers, explained the specifics of the engineering aspects of the proposed project. He explained the method of operation they intended to use and the hours. There would be no unauthorized dumping allowed in the hopper. This is intended primarily for refuse, junk and trash. It is not intended to be a garbage station. f. Bailey Seida reviewed the ordinances, section 602.030, which he read to clarify why staff administrated as they did, g. Manager Miller stated that the expiration of the moratorium was September 1st and the report on this matter was forwarded to his office late in August and forwarded to Council for their meeting of September 7, 1972. The hearing date of November 14, 1972 was established on the night of September 7th. The hearing date was established before the Village received notification of legal action. h. Mayor Axdahl asked if there were persons who wished to be heard on this matter. The following were heard: Mr. Wolf requested Council to place on record the letter written by Mr. Donald Peterson opposing this proposal. Mr. Norman Anderson, 1603 Frost Avenue. i. Mr. Dan Schodt, Environmental Services Engineer for Ramsey County, stated that one of his duties is administration of the solid waste program. He pointed out that solid waste is something that each and everyone of us gen- erate on the order of about four or five pounds per day and somebody has to take the responsibility for disposing of it. There are no facilities in this area to take of this. This is the chief reason why the County has gone on - 3 - 11/14 record of approving the concept of the transfer station in this area. j. Councilman Greavu moved that the Special Use Permit be granted, s to something being worked out with the staff and proponents as far as is concerned, hours and charges or fees. Seconded by Councilman Olmstead. k. Councilman Wiegert moved an amendment that a serious attempt be m relocate this facility, possibility to the north, but some attempt be to recognize its impact upon existing and proposed residential operat road Mayor Axdahl stated he did not think this was a proper amendment and would be defeating the purpose of the original motion. He ruled the motion out of order. Vote now taken on original motion. Motion failed. Ayes - Councilmen Greavu and Olmstead. Nays - Mayor Axdahl, Councilmen Haugan and Wiegert. Councilman Wiegert stated that he voted 'no' on the basis of the Planning Commission recommendation. 3. Zone Change (R -1 to R -3) Terraces Enterprises Incorporated (Northeast Corner of County Road B and English Street) 8:45 P.M. a. Mayor Axdahl convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a zone change from R -1 to R -3 for the property located at the northeast corner of County Road B and English Street. The zone change was petitioned by Terrace: Enterprises, Inc. The Clerk read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. b. Manager Miller presented the staff report. (attached addendum No. 3) c. Chairman Lyman Coombs, Planning Commission, presented the Commission's following recommendation: Commissioner Prew: Moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that it concurs with the Staff report and the Commission recommends that the request be denied. Commissioner Stolzman seconded. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes - all. d. Mayor Axdahl called for proponents. The following were heard: 1. Mr. Sheldon Caswell, attorney representing the applicants, spoke on behalf of the proposal. 2. Mr. Robert Johnson, Architect for the development, explained the specifics of the proposal. - 4 - 11/14 e. Mayor Axdahl called for opponents. The following were heard: 1. Mr. Warren Peterson, 2257 English Street, presented a petition signed by 40 residents of the area opposing the rezoning. 2. Mr. Charles Cody, 1294 Cope Avenue. 3. Mr. John McNulty, 2029 Duluth Street. f. Mayor Axdahl called for formal objections. The following were 'registered as opposing the zone change: The 40 residents who signed the petition. Mr. Warren Peterson, 2257 English Street. Mr. Charles Cody, 1294 Cope Avenue. Mr. John McNulty, 2029 Duluth Street. g. Councilman Greavu moved to table the zone change for two months. Motion died for lack of a second. h. Councilman Olmstead moved to deny the request of Terrace Enterprises, Inc. for the zone change without prejudice. Seconded by Councilman Wiegert. Motion carried. i. Councilman Wiegert Countv Road B area.as Ayes - Mayor Axdahl, Councilmen Haugan, Olmstead and Wiegert. Nays - Councilman Greavu. rece Seconded by Councilman Greavu. Ayes - all. c j. Councilman Wiegert moved to request of the Highway Department whether or not they will be reaching a decision on the type of interchange at English and Highway 36, because the Council has development requests pending in the area. Seconded by Councilman Haugan. Ayes - all. D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 1973 Budget a. Manager Miller stated staff has reviewed the bond sinking funds and nor - mally have accepted the auditor's estimate of what the mill levy would have to be. This year the finance director has gone into this with the auditor and have determined that we can safely reduce the levies for the bond sinking funds, which would result in a reduction of 9.95 down to 7.01, which is a reduction of 2.94 mills. Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted which the attorney will be preparing to establish the amount of certified - 5 - 11/14 taxes down to the lower figure, $239,376.00. Also, the question of the - sewer levy comes up. We have reviewed the sewer fund and feel that we can safely operate with or without the tax levy. What it would reduce is the amount of money available for sewer projects which would be non - assessable. We feel that there will be sufficient amount left in there to carry out any - thing we have planned at this time. The Council would still have the alter- nate, even iT.::the SAC Charge were deleted from the Metro Sewer bill, charg- ing a SAC charge ourselves, would be about half of what they are proposing, to meet the bill coming in to us. Staff recommends that the tax levy of $100,000.00 for the Metro Sewer Board debt be eliminated, also. b. Councilman Haugan moved approval of the reduction in the utility fund. Seconded by Councilman Wiegert. Ayes - all. c. Councilman Olmstead introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 72 - 11 - 243 A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO TAXES LEVIED FOR DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS OF VARIOUS IMPROVE- MENT BONDS BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Village of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is on hand in the following sinking funds excess amounts as indicated after each fund and shall be used to pay on the appropriate obligations of the Village, to wit: Description: 1958 Sanitary Sewer Bonds 1958 Sanitary Sewer Bonds, Ser. 2 1960 Sanitary Sewer Imp. Bonds, Ser. 4 1961 Sanitary Sewer and Street Impr. Bonds 1962 Sanitary Sewer, Water Improvement and Street Improvement Bonds 1964 Water Main Extension Improvement Bonds 1964 Consolidated Improvement Bonds 1965 Improvement Bonds 1966 General Obligation Improvements Bonds Total Reductions Reduction in Levy: $18,100.00 22,400.00 5,000.00 1,600.00 3,200.00 3,200,00 1,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 $60,000,00 2. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 475.61 and 273.13, Subd. 18 (3), (a), (b), (c) and Chapter 297a and Chapter 162 of Minnesota Statutes, the County Auditor of Ramsey County is hereby authorized and directed to reduce by the amounts above mentioned the tax that would be otherwise in- cluded in the rolls for the year 1972 and collectible in 1973. 3. The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to furnish a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Ramsey County forthwith. Seconded by Councilman Greavu. Ayes - all. - 6 - 11/14 d. Councilman Wiegert introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 72 - 11 - 244 BE IT RESOLVED by the Village Council of the Village of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for the current year, collectible in 1973, upon the taxable property in said Village of Maplewood, for the following purposes: General Fund ....... ....................$919,600.00 Debt Redemption ........................ 239,376.00 Seconded by Councilman Greavu. Ayes - all. E. PRESENTATIONS: 1. Manager Miller stated that he had mentioned in an interim report that we would not go for bids on the shoofly, a date which Council had already estab- lished. Staff requests the Council to recind the action calling for bids on the shoofly. Councilman Greavu moved to recind the motion calling for bids on the shoo- fly construction for Beam Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Wiegert. Ayes - all. 2. Councilman Greavu asked Manager Miller to send him a wage schedule of last year's wages. 3. Councilman Greavu also stated that he has received complaints from people who reside off of Brookview Drive; there are two houses up there, one has been raided for the last two nights. They have been driving on the boulevards, there are cans and whiskey bottles all over the neighborhood. There are about four or five men renting the place and living there. What can be done about this? Attorney Lais stated that this could perhaps come under the nuisance law or there is a provision under the old liquor laws where you enter the dwelling and arrest them and lock them up. A housing code could regulate the number of occupants, bedrooms and the size of them, etc. Staff will investigate. F. ADJOURNMENT 12:32 A.M. L- G , City'Clerk - 7 - 11/14 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Village Manager SUBJECT: Planned Unit Residential Development Special Use Permit Report LOCATION: South side of Lower Afton Road - 2495 Londin Lane DATE: October 29, 1972 1. Initiated by: Condor Corporation 2. Request: Special Use Permit for Planned Residential Unit Development for 396 dwelling units. 3. Existing Zoning: FR (Farm Residence District) 4. Land Area Involved: 23.99 acres according to Ramsey County taxing records (not 26.9 acres as indicated in the applicant report) Planning Considerations: 1. Applicant's Written Presentation: It is unusual that requests submitted to the Village make as much of an effort to provide information in writing as this one has. This office compliments the applicants for their submitted report and acknowledges in this report that they have made an honest and forthright presentation of their case. 2. Utilities: (1) Water: Currently project extending this property and last year. As of primary reason fo Londin Lane which ordered, there is no public water serving the site. A water public water east on Londin Lane which would serve others was heard and ordered by the Village Council this report the project has not commenced. The extension was a subdivision on the south side of never materialized but yet the water line has been The status of the ordered but not begun water improvement project needs to be evaluated by the Village in terms of engineering and safety demands and then the Village should resolve the status of the ordered project as to whether to install or abandon at this time so that this specific request can be decided as to water, as well as informing those property owners who were lead to believe that water was coming but now they should be informed of the project status and changed costs, if any, to them. The Municipal Code of the Village requires that public water is required to service any multiple dwelling building with 3 or more 'dwelling units within it. The result !.a that this site if approved by Special Permit would under code be required to be served by public water. 1 (2) Sanitar�Sewer: Along the north side of the site along Lower Afton Road is an existing installed sanitary sewer trunk line controlled by the Metropolitan Sewer Board. The Sewer Board has indicated in writing that there is sufficient sewer reserve capacity in the line to serve this area of Maplewood. The topography of the.site is such that the entire site would gravity drain to the Lower Afton side for connection into the trunk sewer. The Village should anticipate sanitary sewer problems to this site should the Village extend sanitary sewer further east on Londin Lane so as to pass this property. The anticipated problem would occur in the instance of the Village resolving assessment cost problems because the sitecwould drain to Lower Afton Road and thereby not benefit by sewer in Londin Lane. Consequently the cost of sewer crossing 1210 feet of frontage on Londin Lane would result in future cost allocation problems for sewer extension in terms of both assessable footage and cost assignment policies and practices. This issue is surfaced in this report with this request because this office believes that should there be an approval of the permit and not relating to this matter will result in confusion at some later time. (3) Streets: Lower Afton is designated as a "Major Arterial" is under the Londin Lane is a Village Street and the site in question. Further west street of gravel and chuck holes. on the Commission's adopted "Plan" jurisdiction of Ramsey County. is 2 lane oil based street along Londin Lane is a deteriorated The proposed site plan indicates access to Londin Lane which would attract traffic to and from Londin Lane. The current degree of its improvement is in this office's opinion, grossly insufficient to accommodate the demands of traffic resulting from this site. Should a Special Use Permit be approved then before activating the Permit by allowing any development permits requesting access on Londin Lane there should be Village ordering and guarantee of a total Londin Lane Street improvement to accommodate the abutting planned land use traffics. (4) Drainage: The site is bisected by 2 natural drainage ways - one flows from the east and the other from the south - they both deposit into a pond (at the northwest corner of the site) which extends onto the property to the west. The majority of the pond is on the westerly property. The proposed site development storm water run -off should be calculated and related to the proposed site plan to determine the increased rate and volume of run -off that will occur in the downstream pond. Deter- mination should be made by the Village to see to it that the increase run- - off into the pond on the downstream property does not occur at a rate or volume than is the case today in an undeveloped state. The drainage basin served by the pond and streams crossing the site serve a basin which should be closely scrutinized by the Village particularly the drainage to the south towards Londin Lane. Areas south of Mailand Road now under preliminary subdivision consideration, as well as, the Wiensch Construction townhouses and undeveloped lands east of Wiensch's site all drain to this property. The Village should recognize the public responsibilities to downstream properties affected by storm water run -off when the Village approves up- stream land uses 2 which result in increased drainage run -off without securing ways and means for accommodating the increased drainage onto downstream properties. Thd subject site drainage ways should be secured by the public for increased basin drainage which will occur through and on this site. Secondly the property to the west where the private pond provides collection should be publicly dealt with and secured simultaneously but prior to allowing more upstream drainage to increase. (5) Adopted Plan Density: The Commission's adopted Land Use Plan indicates a maximum density of 22 people /net residential acre within the site. Converted, this site would be according to the "Plan" allowed a maximum planned population of 527 people. Utilizing the population /dwelling unit assignments advanced in the Community "Plan" for purposes of calculating project population it would be projected that this project would generate the following populations: 1 Bedroom units - 160 units @ 1.5 = 240 population 2 Bedroom units - 172 units @ 2.5 = 430 population 3 Bedroom units - 64 units @ 3.3 - 211 population 396 881 population According to the "Plan" conversion populations /dwelling unit the proposed development would generate population to the site that would result in 36.72 people /net residential acre on site. The applicant report claims that the densities indicated in the "Plan" conform closely to densities found in apartment rentals in the Twin City area. However, the proposal here would be condominium in nature and would therefore be individually owned. Consequently, the applicants claim is that due to ownership versus rental the density per dwelling unit will be substantially reduced. Utilizing the applicant's density assignments per dwelling unit type results in a total site population of 576 people or a net residential density of 24 people /net acre. It- should be remembered that the proposal by the applicants represents their belief and has not been founded or sufficiently demonstrated as a factual density that can be documented as opposed to the "Plan" densities reflecting actual experience and census densities. The observation by this office would be that the proposed project development proposes too many units regardless of density standard used. Further, it is this office's view that the Commission's "Plan" density for the area should be followed and utilized as the guide for establishing a maximum population. (6) Housing 0ppor.tunity Mix: The Commission adopted "Plan" indicates a goal of achieving a balance and mix for housing opportunities for low and moderate income on a decentralized basis throughout the Village. Following the adopted "Plan" this office believes a portion of the housing units within this project should be made available and eligible for low and moderate income persons or families. The "Plan" suggests that the amount of low- moderate income housing should be distributed 3 throughout the Village utilizing the rate of total housing mix as a guide towards achieving that mix advanced in the "Plan ". This office believes that this "Plan" issue should be addressed to in all housing development_ proposals made within the Village to determine what efforts each housing development is going to make towards accomplishing the "Plan" goal advanced in the Commission's adopted "Plan ". The applicant proposal indicates a price range of units which would provide opportunity for low- moderate income families to be considered. What needs to be answered is what is the total number of units and bedroom type that will fall in price range of $22,000 to $25,500. Such revealing should be made so that better "Plan" evaluation can be made. (7) Neighborhood Park: The adopted "Plan" provides that neighborhood parks should be provided cr calculated on a basis of 10 ac /1000 population. Based upon the "Plan" density designated for the site this site would have a community responsibility of 5.32 acres for neighborhood parks. Since the adopted "Plan" does not designate neighborhood park on the subject site. Therefore, it would be desired that equivalent renumer- ation be provided to the Village in order to secure lands within the neighborhood in accordance with the adopted "Plan ". This report recognizes that open space and recreation proposed facilities on site. However, the demands of developments of this type are just like other residential developments in terms of needing neighborhood playground space and facilities including ball fields, hockey.rinks, playgrounds, etc. (8) _Open Parking: The open parking area along the south side of Lower Afton Road is too expansive and should be broken up with landscaped islands. Further, there should be provided a landscape technique to berm and screen all parking open areas from both street and residential unit views. Anticipated parking problems will occur parallel to the residential buildings along the curb side adjacent to the buildings thus creating parking lot blockage problems and impairing fire lane move- ment for safety equipment. Efforts in the site planning should be made to provide service delivery and depositing or pickup bays for each building without creating parking lot blockage problems. (9) C arkin_g: The underground garage parking proposal presents flow obstacles in that the entrance to the garage is also the exit. Consegent- ly, the flow presents problems when exiting traffic and entering traffic occur simultaneously. Desirably there should be a separate ingress and egress for all underground garaging (particularly in linear designed buildings). In addition, the sloped ramps leading from all underground garages should have underground electric heating coils installed to eliminate icing, and provide maximum traction during snow, sleet and icing conditions. 4 (10)Building Over Drainage Ways: The proposed building in the northeast area of the site would be so located that an existing drainage course would be passing underneath the structure. Relocation of the drainage course would be recommended. Foundation and building shifting pro- blems will result in garage drainage infiltration problems. (11) Proposed Pond: The site proposes a retaining pond on the site with a retaining wall dam having a head wall of 10 feet high and an upstream secondary headwall of 8 feet above the lower pond level. This water system requires a hydrologic engineer certified plans for all daming structures on site designed to retain water. (12) Develo mp ent 'Timing Execution: Any approval of the proposed develop- ment should be` restricted and qualified as to start of physical develonment. Previous experience with developments in this specific geographic area of the Village have shown themselves to have difficulty performing to imposed timing conditions. This office believes that a 12 month time limit to start- construction is reasonable regardless of conditions. Inability to start within that time indicates premature request by applicants. This time is advanced knowing of the lack of public water to the site which would be required prior to any con- sideration of actual building permits being issued. (13)Busing Facility and Accommodations: The proposed site plan generates substantial enough persons in one concentrated area that the site plan should be designed to accommodate bus station pickup and dropoff service by having reserved bus demarcated area. The site should then provide sidewalk facility to such area. (14) Compatible Adjacent Land: the lot at the southeast corner of the site represents a parcel that will be incompatible with the site development and its future development as Rm Planned Usage will be difficult by itself. If this project is approved, then condition should be included to require that this parcel be secured and included in the applicant's total planned development. Recommendation The general land use approach to developing the site is endorsed by this office however, the Village Planning Commission adopted "Plan" should be upheld as the guide to density allowance and this particular proposal for the site should be revised to be brought into conformance with the "Plan" density. Secondly, the Village should defer final action on this request until resolve to poirts advanced in this report under Planning Considerations can be clarified more fully both by the applicant, as well as, the Village. v b 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Village Manager SUBJECT: Special Use Permit for Refuse Transfer Station LOCATION: South of the Chicago -- Northwestern Railroad Tracks east of the Closed Maplewood Sanitary Landfill near Century Avenue. DATE: October 31, 1972 1. Initiated by: Century Disposal Systems 2. Land Area Involved: .44 acres 3. Existing Zoning: M -2 (Heavy Manufacturing) 4. Proposal: To locate a refuse transfer station on site designed to accommodate the general public on an individual basis. (see attached applicant's report for elaboration of detail) 5. History: This matter has been before the Village since approximately February 1971 at which time 2 individuals presented themselves to the administration with their proposal. The administration informed them of the local requirements code wise, as well as, the necessary state, county and metropolitan agency reviews required. The matter has been before the various agencies for review and action now that completion of that process has been accomplished the request is before the local community for final review and action. Planning Considerations: 1, Adopted Land Use Plan: The Planning Commission's adopted land use plan for the area.indicates usage of the site and general. area for residential medium density use rather than utility activity which would encompass this type use. The earlier draft proposals for land use before the Commission indicated utility land use for this site area with the thought that transfer station capability would exist here. However, in the process of public review and considerations of all factors the Commission acted to declare residential_ land use for this area. Such land use (residential) was publicly heard for the area and subsequently endorsed and approved by the Commission on October 9, 1972 thus establishing the Commission's official land use plan policy for the area. Based upon the Commission's adopted Land Use Plan this proposed use would be incompatible and contradictory to the neighborhood land use plan for this area. 2. Existing Conditions: The area is classified in terms of usage as being vacant in terms of land devel.opment.but used as farm land. The closed Maplewood Landfill. area is going through a process of final closing and site restoration work. 1 3. Utility Services: The site is not served by public water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, or an improved paved public street. To adequately service this site this office believes that public water should serve the site directly so as to provide fire protection, as well as, ability to clean and rinse containers, bins, and floor dumping areas within the site and proposed building. This office anticipates the applicants will respond that they would install a well. A check with the Village Public Safety Office indicated that with a private well a reservoir capacity of 30,000 gallons would be needed for fire safety purposes. The question of streets is relative and direct to the discussion of the site use. The site would require usage of the previous landfill haulroad for a distance of 1030 feet from Century Avenue west to the site. The street serving the site is an 80 foot right -of -way graveled street having a distance of 1290 feet extending westward from Century Avenue and deadending in terms of legal right -of -way. The street should be surfaced and capable of servicing hauling traffic to and from the transfer station from Century Avenue. The issue of improvement cost maintenance wise as the road is now constituted would appear to become a Village wide obligation. Such allowance of street as built for traffic attracted to the site would, in this office's opinion, create innumerable street maintenance problems which would be unnecessarily expensive to the general taxpaying public of Maplewood. Further, intersection development and design would be required at Century Avenue with turning lanes, etc. At a minimum, an intersection similar in nature to the one at Larpenteur and Century would be required. The approval, cost, etc, of such should be resolved prior to any approving action on this use request. 4. Existing_ Ordinances: The existing Village Ordinance No. 7.69 regulates the removal of all solid waste from all properties in the Village. Specifically, the Ordinance indicates that removal may only be conducted by persons licensed by the Village and thereby prohibits private citizen removal from their property to any off -site disposal facility. The resultant effect is that the specific proposal is designed to accom- modate individual. citizen depositing at this site of their refuse and /or solid wastes. The proposed use, if approved, would be in conflict with Village Code in that it would attract and encourage people within this Village to violate a previously adopted Village Council Ordinance. To consider this use favorably would require an amendment to Ordinance 269 prior to operational use of the proposed use or site. 5. Geographic Area Served: The proposed use indicates a service area of 17.5 square miles encompassing an estimated population of approximately 25,000 to 30,000 people and extending service capability to portions of St. Paul, Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale and all of Landfall.. 2 R 7 Operational Factors: Concerns too numerous for this office to involve itself in should be considered at the time of use allowance such as: (1) Rates: Because of this use serving in a public utility nature, the rates charged should be subject to review and approval by the direct governing body in which it is located. Further, consideration might need to be given to such an operation being both licensed as well as franchised with the governmental areas being served. (2) Refuse Removal_: Clarity on where collected refuse at the site will be removed to approval. to relocate it at some specific site by the proper auth- orities involved, the names or individuals involved in removing refuse from the transfer site and the nature and quality of their removal equipment. (3) village Licensing: Provisions under which such activity should be licensed insurance guarantees, etc. (4) Hours of Operation: Limitation of hours of operation (5) Maximum Storage Time on Site: Based upon the nature of materials collected storage times should be established as it relates to public health and safety. (6) Solid Waste and P.efuse Only: Clarification on types or materials collected or accepted should be regulated. For example: decomposable food stuffs or plant materials should be highly regulated as well as such items pre- senting difficult storage or further problems of removal like large applicances, automobiles, tires, etc. (7) On Site Storage: Clarification should be made as to on site storage - whether storage of an open nature outside of enclosed building will be allowed. (8) Fencing and Screening: Type, height of fencing to be used to capture wind blow (9) Phasing: The proposed plan for site development indicates phasing or staged development with initial start of providing one 40 cubic yards open top roll -off container. Final phase indicates three 60 cubic yards trailer type containers served by compactors. The issue is the time involved on developing these phases. (10) Odor Control: With open containers in the initial phase the question of odor control as related to types of material collected, length of storage time and temperature become relevant- to public concern. Site Development Comments (1) Buildi�jg: The proposed building would be shell type. Its architectural design and exterior has not been revealed in any plans. Final 3 phase has but its time of actual development is removed into the future. The here and the now is not capable of being evaluated by'this office without any plans. (2) Drive Areas On Site: The improvement character of the service drive areas on the proposed site plans are not specifically indicated. This office would not expect anything less than hard surface pavement of bituminous asphalt or concrete. 3 (3) Drainage Run -Off: The surfacing of the site would result in storm water run -off onto private property not owned by the applicant. Resolve for securing drainage permission onto adjoining property must be achieved prior to actual development of the site. (4) Storage Bin Reserves: The lst phase site plan indicates one bin on site. Concern is raised about when bin on site is either filled or removed - what efforts will be provided to place additional bins. This office would suggest that a minimum of two bins be provided in 1st phase to act either as a reserve back up on site when the other bin is either full or removed from site to be emptied at remote location. (5) Recycling Facilities: The site should be maximized in terms of function so as to act as a collection station for recyclable materials. Transfer stations designed to service directly the citizen consumer should capitalize on the fact that experience tends to support the conclusion that items collected on site are capable of both separation and in some cases recycling. If, the site and use is considered favorably then the question of facilities for accommodating recyclable materials should not only be discussed but required. (6) Oakdale water: The applicant refers to Oakdale water for fire service but that no indication of water is made until final phase development. Should the use and site be approved as proposed then there should be an intergovenmental agreement entered into between Maplewood and Oakdale on water use of the Oakdale system for fire protection reserve back up. (7) Village Closed Landfill. Site: Because of the closeness and proximity of the closed Village ^landfill there would be anticipation that clue to persons previous familiarity of the site as a landfill that they would begin depositing refuse when they are on the site when finding the Transfer Station closed. tment Recommendation: This office believes that the adopted "Plan" by the Village Planning Commission should be followed for land use guidance in the area. As regards the specific question of a transfer station for the site it seems to this office that the fathers of this Village had the foresight to specify that the location of all dumping areas involving public use should be regulated on the basis of a Special Use Permit because of the need to insure that facilities and controls are adequately developed relating to the peculiarities of such a use. Despite the social necessity of a possible refuse transfer station in the area there also goes the public responsibility to see that any proposed site and use development not only meets the local community's plan of development for compatible land use but that equally important is the need to have sufficient public service capacity to serve the site and use at the time of approving a Special Use Permit for a public use refuse transfer station. It is this office's report conclusion that this proposed use is out of conformance with the Planning Commission's adopted Land Use Plan for the Community at this specific location. Further, this office concludes that an insufficient level of public service availability exists to adequately service the site in order to adequately secure the public health, safety and general welfare needed for such a use facility X1 4 !f DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO: Village Manager SUBJECT: Rezone Report LOCATION: Northeast corner of County Road B and English Street DATE: October 27, 1972 1. Initiated By: "Tbr —Yam Enterprices, Inc. 2. Rezone Area: 10.02 Acres 3. Existing Zoning: R -1 (Single Dwelling Residence District) 4. Proposed Zoning: R -3 ( Multiple Dwelling Residence District) (see public hearing notice for further explanation) Planning Considerations: 1. Adopted Land Use Plan: The Planning Commission adopted land use plan indicates that this area should be planned and used for residential purposes at a density not to exceed an overall net property density of 22 people /net acre. Based upon the Commission adopted maximum density planned for the area in which the site is located the maximum number of people allowable within the rezone site for residence purposes would be 220 people. Converting the plan population density of 220 people according to the adopted "Plan" would or could result in the following types of numbers of dwelling units based upon the "Plan" dwelling unit densities: (1) Single Dwelling Units: Approximately 53 units on about 7000 square foot lots. (2) Double Dwelling Units: Approximately 26 double dwelling structures or 52 dwelling units with each structure having about 12,000 square foot lots. (3) Apartment Dwelling_ units: a. Efficiency units: approximately 200 dwelling units. b. I bedroom units: Approximately 157 dwelling units C. 2 bedroom units: approximately 88 dwelling units d. 3 bedroom units: approximately 66 dwelling units. (4) Townhouse dwelling units: a. 2 bedroom units: approximately 66 dwelling units .b. 3 bedroom units: approximately 55 dwelling units 1 2. Zoning District Dwelling Unit and Population Density: Utilizing the existing R -3 zoning district standards adopted in Ordinance 245 the fol- lowing maximum dwelling unit amounts and resultant populations could occur only when all dwelling units were contained within one building only on the entire 10.02 acre tract: (1) Efficiency Units: 280 units - 308 people (2) 1 bedroom units: 280 units - 392 people (3) 2 bedroom units: 210 units - 525 people. The maximum building coverage of total site allows up to 35% coverage. Therefore, if the dwelling unit structure design is for multiple buildings rather than 1 building on site any any combination of dwelling unit bedroom mix will automatically result in lesser density of both numbers of dwelling units and population on the site. The calculations on maximum zoning R -3 district density of units and population are provided in this report to better grasp the correlation of "Plan" density and "zoning" density for the same area. In the case of townhouses, the zoning code would allow for a maximum of 104 dwelling units which could result in approximately 403 people. 3. Utilities: The Public Works Department reports that sufficient water and sanitary sewer facilities exist to service the site if rezoned. However, the Department notes that the site cannot be serviced adequately for storm water drainage if rezoned or developed at a rate in excess of a density of double dwellings to the site area. They claim that the improvement of Cope Avenue only provided storm drainage facilities to accommodate the improved street and abutting lands on a low density basis. The reason for such was that the drainage entails crossing Highway 36 with piping which has or is not yet installed. Thus the allowance of land uses which generate increased run -off in excess of the current ability to service the site would result in problems needing public attention to commence resolving a major drainage basin within this Village. 4. Streets:. Highway 36 - English Street Interchange: This subject affects this site substantially both in. terms of use planning as well as, site planning. The Commission adopted "Plan" indicates an interchange at English and Highway 36. The influence of that facility obviously influences the land use adjoining it to be planned as a medium density for residential purposes. The Commission's adopted "Plan" for this interchange location has received "in house staff" opposition. However, Village Council action to designate this location as an interchange point has not been refuted or rejected by either the Metropolitan Council or Minnesota State Highway Department both of which have had the matter referred to them for recommendation and response for nearly 1 year now and still no response on the Village Council's interchange recommendation taken. Based upon the above, the Commission "Plan" has.taken into account this location for an interchange. The relationship considerations between the proposed rezone site and the interchange are: (1) Confirmation of an interchange needed so as to not have planned land uses developing and then have those agencies who approve and develop State highway interchanges later inform the Village that such inter- 2 change will not be allowed. Thus resulting in land use traffics occurring at locations which then create interior neighborhood traffic flow and distribution problems. (2) Interchange physical design and its effect upon the site and conversely the sites increased traffic responsibilities to provide additional street right -of -way on such streets as Cope Avenue and English Street which abut the site. (3) Recognition of the time lag between interchange plan designation and actual reality of construction or functional operation. Further, recognition by local officials of the interim effects on the existing English - Highway 36 access traffic problems should rezone be allowed and development occur on the site which would generate traffic flows on the existing intersection as built. .county Road B Status: This street is indicated on the Commission's adopted "Plan" as a "Minor collector street ". However, the real concern is the fact that this street is a County Road and under Ramsey County Board of Commissioners policy and legal jurisdiction. Recently, the Ramsey County Commissioners officially adopted a policy resolution which indicates and implies that any improvement of Ramsey County Roads under their juris- diction should be considered for 4 traffic lanes of improvement. The implication of this policy would suggest that if County Road B is improved under the current County policy then such improvement should be 4 lanes of traffic opportunity on County Road B As related to the rezone site the County Policy needs further resolve by the County to the Village in order to: (1) Determine whether County Road B should and is to be planned and developed as a 4 lane County Road as their current adopted policy would appear to indicate. (2) Determine when such improvement of County Road B could be expected. (3) Determine what right -of -way widths are contemplated. The response by the County on their policy seems to this office, to be a needed consideration by this Community in evaluating the proposed zone change and its resultant traffics. Cope Avenue: The Commission's adopted "Plan" designates this street as a "Major collector street ". It has been improved between Atlantic Street (on the west) to White Bear Avenue (on the east). However, the improvement between Atlantic and Hazelwood is of a lesser width both in improvement and right -of -way than is the case between Hazelwood and White Bear Avenue. Of concern to the rezone site as it relates to Cope Avenue is where the improvement and right -of -way is narrower is the question of whether the Village will re- improve Cope to a wider width similar to the Hazelwood - White Bear Avenue stretch particularly with the advent of an interchange at English and Highway 36. If such action is in the cards and this office would anticipate such then an additional 15 feet of right of way along the north property line of the rezone tract should be surrendered to the Village should the zone change be approved in order to accommodate site generated traffics. 3 Secondly, the Village should designate access points to the site from all streets to the site of rezoned at the time of rezoning. Such access points should relate to improvements planned. Platted Streets: Within the rezone area are platted streets and alleys that are unimproved. The applicant's have submitted proper street vacation petition but hearing date has not yet been set. Department of _Go Development Recommendation The concern with zoning changes should be to determine that the proposed use or district is not only consistent with the Planning Commission's adopted land use plan but that the level of services needed to serve the proposed land use zoning district are either available or can be provided within -reasonableness. The issues clearly visible as related to this request revolve around the: 1. "Plan" maximum population density approved and resultant rezone population if approved. 2. Unavailable storm water drainage system to accommodate run -off from the site if developed under the proposed rezone. 3. Insufficient resolve of the surrounding street and Highway 36 interchange question since to pre- decide and legally commit allowance of land uses needing certain traffic improvement without sufficient committment could result- in disruptive land uses to the neighborhood and community. The applicant's request should not be considered as merely shrugging off by the Village because of the concerns surfaced in this report. But rather, the Village should strive to get firm and committed answers regarding the street and interchange questions from those agencies concerned. Further, the Village should come to realize that the physical development and methods used to control such like zoning need to be closely related in terms of storm water run -off. In this particular case, the Village must develop the drainage system and program before and in order to start chang- ing land uses which allow for more intensive use with increased run -off. Otherwise, the allowance of zone changes without sufficient service capabil- ity for example like a storm water run -off system inadequacy can and has already resulted in problems in this Village which continue to be unresolved but known to the Village and which adversely effects property owners and residents of the community. This office would judge this specific request as fore should be denied due to insufficient street capability at this time. . G+ !9 being premature and there - and utility storm drainage v p.