The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/03/1994MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION October 3, 1994 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Public Hearings A. Mapleleaf Estates September 19, 1994 Land Use and Zoning Changes Street Vacations Easement Vacation Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit: Goodrich Dome (Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue) Home Occupation License Ordinance 6. New Business A. Planning Commission Resignation 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. September 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Axdahl b. October 10 Council Meeting: ? 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience ff there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 6. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will dose the public discussion portion of the meeting. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. kd/misc\pcagd Revised: 6-18-93 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Gary Gerke Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Mary Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Todd Sandell Commissioner Marvin Sigmundik Present Present Present Present Present Present Present until 9:08 p.m. Present Present Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 6, 1994 Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the amended minutes of September 6, 1994, adding to the bottom of page 2 the following: "Commissioner Fischer expressed concern that, if approved as presented, the report was contradictory and misleading because the Commission's view on prohibiting gun shops was on page 14 and the staff's recommendation allowing them was on pages 25 and 26. A person reading it might not realize these contradictions were there. It was decided that the Commissioner representing the Planning Commission before the Council would be responsible for informing the Council of the differences and concerns in this area." Commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Sandell Abstentions--Martin, Sigmundik The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Martin moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Fischer seconded The motion passed. Ayes--all -* T'--- ....................... T .................T ..............--1 ......... F ......... Planning Commission Minutes of 9-19-94 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Holiday Store (Lower Afton Road and McKnight Road) (Section 12-28) Secretary Olson presented the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. Mr. Olson said the county appraiser originally felt that this use would not significantly affect neighborhood property values. However, after visiting the site, the appraiser did feel there would be a significant negative effect to the four homes to the south. Mr. Olson felt an option would be to request that the developer do a formal appraisal, comparing the potential effect of the Holiday store versus offices. The Commissioners discussed with staff the differences between the present proposal and the past proposal which was approved by City Council. Gerald Frisch, attorney for the developer, Mark Nelson, Real Estate Manager for Holiday Stationstores, and several other representatives of Holiday Companies were present and answered questions from the Commission. Mr. Frisch gave a presentation. Mark Nelson explained plans for this proposal. Mike Sokke, 210 Brookview Court, spoke regarding the concerns of a possible increase in crime due to this project. Amie Johnson, 2299 Londin Lane, owner of the property, spoke regarding this project. John Peterson, president of Good Value Homes, 9445 East River Road, Minneapolis, spoke. The public hearing was opened for comments. Emil Sturzenegger, 2455 Londin Lane #321, spoke against this project. Jennifer Wathen, community organizer for District 1, asked the Commission to table this request for more information. Jerry Johnson, 2445 Londin Lane, and Gary Getsch, 328 South McKnight Road, spoke in opposition to this proposal. Mike Resnick, supervisor for Superamerica, spoke regarding Superamerica stations. Since there were no further comments, the public heating was closed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend the City Council table the requests for land use plan changes and zoning changes until the developer does a property value study and submits a CDRB application, along with information on the drive-through and car wash noise. Commissioner Sigmundik seconded Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik Nays--Gerke, Martin The motion passed. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Code change which allows two fuel-dispenser islands for minor fuel stations rather than one island. The number of vehicles that could be fueled at one time would still be limited to four. Planning Commission Minutes of 9-19-94 -3- Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Kittridge, Kopesky, Martin, Pearson, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik The motion passed. Commissioner Martin left the meeting at this time. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Conditional Use Permit: 1194 County Road C (Lakeview Lutheran Church) (Section 9) Secretary Olson presented the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff to comment on the drainage plan for the church. Some of the discussion concerned how the church could reduce the runoff from the additional impervious surface area. A1 Kmse, 1379 East County Road C, was present and addressed the Commission representing Lakeview Lutheran Church. Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to expand a church and parking lot at 1194 East County Road C. This permit further allows the increase of impervious surface area to 44% of the site area. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 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 end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. ?. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. B. /.~pproval of the plans (stamped June 23, 1994) for Lakeview Lutheran Church, subject to ti~e findings required by the code. The property owner 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 occupying the building: ao Screen all roof-mounted equipment on the proposed addition that would be visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) T- ..................... 1 T Planning Commission Minutes of 9-19-94 -4- b. Provide security lighting as approved by the Director of Public Safety. c. Provide at least one foot-candle of light over the entire parking lot. d. All shrubs shall be below window level and away from the building to avoid any hiding places. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The City determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo C° The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. The City receives an agreement that will allow the City to complete any unfinished work. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. Commissioner Fischer seconded Commissioner Rossbach said that the Chain of Lakes Watershed Steering Committee will send information to Lakeview Lutheran Church advising them of suggestions for alternative methods of plantings to control drainage. Mr. Kruse said the church will do whatever it can to reduce runoff from impervious surface areas, as long as it does not increase the cost of the project. The Commission voted as follows: Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik The motion passed. B. Duluth Street, South of County Road C (Section 9) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Fischer questioned whether the lot has enough area to be divided into two residential lots. Secretary Olson responded that the developer must have the property south of the utility easement surveyed to determine the wetland boundary for the south lot to verify there is enough area for a double dwelling. Planning Commission Minutes of 9-19-94 -5- Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend: Ao Adoption of the resolution which changes the zoning map for the site from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this zone change are the findings required by ordinance and: 1. The City zoned the property to the east R-2. 2. The zoning is consistent with the land use plan. B. Approval of the lot division shown on page 6 of the staff report. Before the City stamps the deeds, the following conditions must be completed: Give the City a wetland easement. This easement shall cover the wetland and the land within twenty feet surrounding the wetland. The Watershed District must approve the wetland boundaries. This easement shall prohibit any building or structures within twenty feet of the wetland or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within ten feet of the wetland or in the wetland itself. The purpose of this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer and to protect the wetland habitat from residential encroachment. The City staff must approve this deed before it is given to the County for recording. Give the City a drainage easement. This easement shall cover the land within the wetland boundaries. The City Engineer must approve this deed before it is given to the County for recording. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping. 4. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundary. 5. Record the new deeds within one year. Commissioner Kittridge seconded Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. Planning Commission Minutes of 9-19-94 -6- VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. September 12 Council Meeting: Commissioner Kittridge reported on this meeting. B. Representative for the September 26 Council Meeting: Commissioner Axdahl C. Commissioner Gerke informed the Commission of his resignation, effective this date, due to his moving out of Maplewood. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Secretary Olson informed the Commission of a directive from the City Council to draft an ordinance establishing a minimum trail setback from residential dwellings to trails. Mr. Olson notified the Commission that the City has hired an environmental intern to inventory and environmentally rank the land in the City. X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Mapleleaf Estates Forest and Cypress Streets, north of Gervais Avenue Gonyea Company, Inc. September 26, 1994 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 2 Project Description ................................................ 2 Requests ........................................................ 2 DISCUSSION ................................................................ 2 Open Space ...................................................... 2 Land Use Plan and Zoning Changes .................................. 3 Street Vacations .................................................. 3 Utility Easement Vacation .......................................... 4 Preliminary Plat ................................................... 4 Intersection of Demont Avenue and Cypress Street .................. 4 Wetlands ...................................................... 4 Drainage ...................................................... 4 Density and Lot Size ............................................ 5 Dropping a Lot ................................................. 5 Parks ......................................................... 5 Trail .......................................................... 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 6 CITIZEN COMMENTS ........................................................ 10 REFERENCE ............................................................... 14 HISTORY ....................................................... 14 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................... 14 SURROUNDING LAND USES ....................................... 15 LEGAL ......................................................... 15 PLANNING ...................................................... 15 TREES ......................................................... 15 SOILS .......................................................... 16 HOUSING POLICIES .............................................. 16 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Dennis Gonyea, representing Gonyea Company, Inc., is proposing to develop lots for 78 homes. The project's name is Mapleleaf Estates. This plat would be on a 32.5-acre site along Forest and Cyprus Streets, north of Gervais Avenue. (See the location maps on pages 18 and 22.) Requests To develop this site, Mr. Gonyea is requesting that the City: 1. Change the City's land use plan map. This change would be from R-1 S (small lot single dwellings) and M-1 (light industrial) to R-1 (single dwellings). (See the land use maps on pages 19 and 20.) 2. Change the City's zoning map. This change would be from F (farm residential), R-1S (small lot single dwellings) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-1 (single dwellings). (See the zoning maps on pages 21 and 22.) 3. Vacate the undeveloped streets within the proposed plat. (See the map on page 25.) 4. Approve a preliminary plat for 78 lots. (See the proposed plat on page 23.) The City staff is proposing the following additional changes: 1. Drop Forest Street as a major collector street from the land use plan map. (See the land use maps on pages 19-20.) 2. Vacate part of an existing utility easement between proposed Gervais Avenue and Sextant Avenue. (See the map on page 23.) DISCUSSION Open Space Many neighbors prefer to keep this property for open space or a park. The City would have to buy this property to keep it as open space. In 1992, the Maplewood Open Space Committee rated 67 sites for permanent open space. The area west of Forest Street and south of Brooks Court (site #116) was thirteenth on the list of all sites. (See the map on page 24.) The Committee ranked this site first of seven sites in the neighborhood. The Committee strongly recommended that the City buy nineteen sites. On November 2, 1993, the voters approved a $5 million bond issue for open space. The City intends to negotiate for the dark gray area on the map on page 24. The rest of the site would be within the plat and too expensive for open space purchase. The City Attorney advised me that the decision on buying this site for open space should not affect the land use plan, zoning and platting decisions. The City cannot use land use controls to get a better price on land they intend to buy. Land Use Plan and Zoning Changes The density of this plat was a concern to some neighbors. The proposed land use plan and zoning changes would reduce the possible number of housing units on part of the site. The developer could plat the land that the City has planned and zoned R-1S (small-lot single dwellings) with 7,500 square foot lots. Instead, he is proposing a zoning change to R-1 (single dwellings) with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Another neighborhood concern was the extension of Forest Street. The proposed plat has street connections to Forest and Cypress Streets. There would not be a street connection to Gervais Avenue or to Keller Parkway. This design would insure that commercial traffic from Gervais Avenue and the frontage road could not directly enter the proposed and existing residential area. This is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan to protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. The City should drop the major collector designation for Forest Street from the land use plan map. This is because it would not connect to Keller Parkway and serve as a collector street. Connecting Forest Street to Keller Parkway would provide another access out of this neighborhood. However, most of the new residents would probably use Forest Street or Cypress Street, since they are the easiest way to get to County Road C and Highway 61. Street Vacations The developer is requesting that the City vacate the following rights-of-way in the plat: 1. Connor Avenue, east of Cypress, Meadow Lane 2. Brooks Avenue A 16.5-foot-wide undeveloped public road between the east side of Meadow Lane and the east side of the proposed plat site 4. The part of the Gervais Avenue easement that is west of the end of the existing street These rights-of-way are shown on the map on page 25. They were dedicated in 1950. State law states that a city cannot vacate a street unless it is in the public interest. There is no public interest in building streets on these existing rights-of-way. The developer will be dedicating new street rights-of-way with the plat. The City should keep a 25-foot-wide utility easement for the existing watermain that runs through the Gervais Avenue right-of-way. Utility Easement Vacation The City Engineer is recommending that the developer move part of an existing watermain that is between the proposed Gervais Avenue and Sextant Avenue. (See the map on page 23.) The City Engineer prefers having the watermain in the street. The City would then not have to dig up yards to repair or maintain the main. This watermain is now in a utility easement that runs through the site. If the City requires the developer to move the watermain, then the City should vacate the part of the easement that is no longer needed. Preliminary Plat Intersection of Demont Avenue and Cypress Street The intersection of Demont Avenue and Cypress Street is a jog. The developer should redesign this intersection with a four-way design. Speeding may become a problem on Cypress Street because it would be a long straight street. Future residents may want a four-way stop at the Demont Avenue intersection. Wetlands Several of the residents were concerned about the loss of the wetlands on the site. There are several wetlands on the site. (See the preliminary plat drawing on page 23 or the larger plat drawings that are attached.) The developer will preserve most of these wetlands. He is proposing to fill the following two wetland areas: A small wetland at Demont Avenue and Cypress Street (to build Demont Avenue) The northwest comer of Outlot B (to build Cypress Street) The developer may want to reconfigure the south half of the Outlot B wetland to realign the Demont Avenue/Cypress Street intersection. The City should require wetland buffer easements to protect the wetlands. In addition, the Watershed District is reviewing the proposed development plans. They will require the developer to get plan approval and a permit from the Watershed Board before starting construction. Drainage Drainage was a concern of several of the nearby property owners. They fear that the development would hurt their property. The developer and the Watershed District are finishing the plans for the development. These will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. He told me that the developer's engineer could design the project so the drainage would not harm nearby properties. The staff is recommending that the developer acquire off-site easements for any off-site wetlands that he plans to drain into. Density and Lot Size Several neighbors thought there are too many lots in this plat. The proposed lot sizes range from 10,049 square feet to 38,483 square feet with an average lot size of 14,617 square feet. The average lot size is larger than many of the lots on Brooks Court and Demont Avenue. These range in size from 10,140-21,466 square feet. The City Code requires at least 10,000 square feet above a drainage easement and 75 feet of width. In addition, the average size of the lots within the shoreland must be at last 15,000 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed City standards. The City cannot reduce the number of lots if the developer is meeting the City's ordinances. Dropping a Lot The developer is planning to relocate the drainage channel that runs through proposed Lots 1-3, Block One. The City Code requires at least 10,000 square feet above any drainage easement. A drainage easement will be needed along the rear of the lots for the relocated channel. The easement for this channel will reduce the lot sizes below 10,000 square feet. The developer should drop a lot. The developer may have to drop a lot(s) if the City Engineer determines that the City needs more pond capacity in the wetlands on Outlots A or B. Parks A concern of several of the neighbors was the amount of park land available in the area. They feel there is a need for additional park land in the area. The City's Director of Parks and Recreation told me that Kohlman Park would serve this development. He also told me that the City is planning a trail extension and additional playground equipment to Kohlman Park in 1995. The City is also planning for a possible land purchase on the east side of the park for a tennis court. The City has listed these improvements in the 1995-1998 Maplewood Capital Improvement Program. Trail The developer should build a trail between Lots 24 and 25, south of Gervais Avenue, to Keller Parkway. The developer is proposing to build a sanitary sewer line from the proposed Gervais Avenue between Lots 24 and 25 to the south. (See the map on page 23.) This sewer would go about 500 feet south to an interceptor sanitary sewer line near Keller Parkway. The City Engineer is recommending that the developer pave an eight-foot-wide paved trail over the sewer line to Keller Parkway. This trail would provide pedestrian access from the development and the existing neighborhood to Keller Parkway and the County Regional Park at Spoon Lake. In addition to pedestrian and bicycle access, the trail would provide access to maintain the sewer. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolutionson pages 32 and 33. These resolutions change the land use plan and zoning map from R-1 S (small lot single dwellings) and Mo 1 (light industrial) to R-1 (single dwellings). This change is for the Mapleleaf Estates plat. In addition to the findings required by the Code, this change is for the following reasons: 1. The developer is proposing to develop the site for single dwellings. 2. This change would reduce the allowable intensity and traffic from this site. 3. The R-1 classification would be more compatible with the surrounding homes than the present classifications. Adopt the resolution on page 35. This resolution vacates the undeveloped street rights-of- way (Connor Avenue east of Cypress Street, Meadow Lane, Brooks Avenue, the 16.5- foot-wide undeveloped public road and the west end of Gervais Avenue). The City should vacate these street rights-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The City has no plans to build streets on these rights-of-way. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the City retaining a 25-foot-wide utility easement over the east end of Gervais Avenue. Adopt the resolution on page 36. This resolution vacates the utility easement that would be on the property line of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 6 of the proposed plat. The City should vacate this easement because: 1. It is in the public interest. The City will require the developer to move part of the existing watermain out of the easement making this part unnecessary. The developer shall file this resolution with the final plat. The City shall not release this resolution until the City approves the final plat. The developer's surveyor shall describe this easement vacation. Approve the Mapleleaf Estates preliminary plat (received by the City on July 26, 1994). Before the City Council approves the final plat, a developer shall complete the following conditions: 6 Sign an agreement with the City that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: ao Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all City requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the City for the cost of traffic-control and street identification signs. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping. e. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the wetlands, the site and the lot south of Lot 19, Block 2. go Have NSP install street lights in three locations, primarily at street intersections. The exact location and type of lights shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. h. Properly seal the abandoned well in the area of Lots 23-24, Block 2. ° The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The City Engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. Have the City Engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: ao The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Erosion and Sediment Control handbook. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. House elevations on Lots 24-27, Block 2 shall be redesigned with minimum elevations at least two foot above the 100-year flood level of Keller Lake. (2) Include contour information for the land that the street construction will disturb. (3) Show sedimentation basins as required by the watershed board. The drainage plan shall show area drain catch basins in the rear of Lots 22 and 23, Block 2 and between Lots 5 and 10, Block 3 and dedicate necessary easements for these drains and pipes. do Provide stormwater storage and/or an off-site outlet pipe between Outlots A and B, based on a drainage study done by the developer's engineer. The City Engineer shall approve the exact location, capacity and outlet for this storage. If the City requires more pond capacity, the developer may have to drop lots. eo Provide adequate stormwater capacity for the wetlands on Lots 19 and 26, Block 2. The developer's engineer shall provide a drainage study to determine adequate capacity. The City Engineer shall approve the exact location, capacity and outlet for these. If the City requires more pond capacity, the developer may have to drop lots. If the City requires more pond capacity, the developer may have to drop a lot(s). Provide a 12-inch watermain on Sextant Avenue and Cypress Street (by Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 6) to replace the existing north-south 12-inch watermain. The developer shall abandon the existing watermain pipe and easement. g. The tree plan shall show the size, species and location of any trees that the developer will plant as replacement trees. ho If the City does not buy Lots 25, 26 and 27, the developer shall pave an eight- foot-wide bituminous trail between Lots 24 and 25 in Block 2. The City shall pave the remaining trail to Keller Parkway with park funds. 4. Show the following changes on the final plat: ao A 38-foot-wide utility and trail easement or an 18-foot-wide right-of-way with a 20-foot-wide utility easement between Lots 24 and 25 in Block 2. If the developer plans to extend the sanitary sewer to the south, he shall provide a separate off-site easement for the trail to Keller Parkway and the sewer to the metropolitan interceptor. The City staff must approve the widths and location. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. 8 c. Change Street A to Gervais Avenue and change Street B to Sextant Avenue. d. Change Street C to Demont Avenue and change Street D to Adele Street. eo Drainage easements for drainage areas and wetlands that this project would affect. This shall include an easement on the lot that will be south of Lot 19, Block 2. f. Drop Lots 1,2 or 3 from Block One. go Redesign the Demont Avenue and Cypress Street intersection as a four-way intersection--with a continuous Demont Avenue. 5. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the Watershed District. 6.* Provide all easements required by the City Engineer. These shall include: (1) A street and utility easement for the west half of Forest Street outside the plat. (2) Give the City wetland easements over the wetlands. These easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within twenty feet surrounding a wetland. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within twenty feet of the wetland or any mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within ten feet of the wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from homeowners' fertilizer and to protect the wetland habitat from residential encroachment. (3) Drainage easements for the off-site drainage areas and wetlands that this project would affect. This shall include an easement on the lot that will be south of Lot 19, Block 2. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the City may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the City issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 9 CITIZEN COMMENTS We asked the nearby property owners for their opinion of these requests. We sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 102 properties, we received 31 replies. Nine were for the requests, 17 were against, four had comments and one had no comment. Those for the requests had the following comments: It meets City concerns for eliminating commercial traffic from residential areas. (Herringer - Minneapolis) As a local church, we like to see new families move into the area. (Lakeview Lutheran Church) 3. It will improve the appearance of the area. (Ambler - 1065 Viking Drive) This plan is the best one presented in the seven years I have lived here - The only thing that could possibly help would be a road connection to Gervais Avenue or Keller Parkway on the north end. Traffic flow to County Road C could present a problem. I know this has been looked at before, and the concern is the use of the frontage road on Highway 61 - some traffic would go west to Arcade if access was provided through. (Berry - 984 Brooks Court) o R-1 zoning is best for me - should keep resale of my home up. Nice expansion to tax base. Forest not connected - like keeping the isolation. If connected, Forest will turn into a freeway! Would like to see park improvement as part of the plan. (Blautuss - 962 Demont Avenue) 6. I would rather the land be used as R-1 than anything else. Comments: I would like to see stop signs and other appropriate signage to warn drivers of children playing. b. It would be nice if the trees could be left in place as much as possible until lots are sold to avoid having views of a barren wasteland until homes are in. Another concem is that the new homes be of a value that would not lower existing homes values. (Gore - 974 Demont Avenue) There are no through streets. This should promote slower speed and hopefully less crime. However, many of the lots are smaller than the current homes have. Enlarge the size of the lots to encourage similar homes to what exist. (Kiekhoeter - 969 Demont Avenue) 10 Those with comments gave the following: I do not object to the development but I would like to see some changes in the proposal. We live on County Road C between Cypress and Forest. There is already way to much unsafe traffic on County Road C. I know that it is collector road, but at some point there has to be some alternative. There is no other way out for the 100 home development next to the proposed development and for people that live north of Gervais and west of Kohlman Lake. Beam does not go through and they changed County Road D so you can't enter Highway 61 so we get all that traffic. I would like to see you punch a road out on the other side of this development, either Cypress or Forest or Gervais Avenue. You are also planning on running the traffic by a Maplewood City park (Kohlman) were children play everyday. County Road C is a hazard, someone is going to get hurt! there is no other exit for the people in the development behind us now. We were promised when they built the last development, they would put through Forest. I would just like to see at least one out exit. (Huot - 988 County Road C) We are for the rezoning to R-1 but our main objection is that we do not want Forest Street to go through. We feel access to this new neighborhood should come from other sources (such as Gervais) because of the already heavy traffic on Forest from our neighborhood. This will give the new neighborhood its own privacy and improved quality of area because of no through traffic. The streets of both neighborhoods will be safer and less busy. We also feel that some open space for a park is necessary. With the two areas (Mapleleaf Estates and Carsgrove Meadows) there will be over 150 home. Kohlman Park is at one end of Carsgrove Meadows but isn't much of a park! If Mapleleaf Estates has as many children as Carsgrove Meadows does, this is a definite need. (Wahlstrand - 972 Brooks Court) 3. See the letter on page 26 for additional comments. Those against the requests had the following comments: I would first like this space considered for open space. If that is not feasible, I would like to see Forest Street remain as is (as a dead end) fewer lots and as much wildlife and as many trees maintained as possible in the proposed development plan. Rezoning to R-1 is a must. (Peters - 948 Brooks Court) I object to this proposal because Maplewood has very few open spaces where deer and wildlife can exist. In the past we have been able to enjoy this beautiful piece of land that house fox, deer and other animals in their natural habitat. We sincerely hope the City will be able to purchase part of this land to maintain its beauty and not develop lots 9 through 15 by rezoning this piece of land OS (open space). We also oppose Forest Street as being a main traffic route to this piece of land. If possible, we prefer an entrance at Gervais Avenue to access the proposed development. (Leafgren - 954 Brooks Court) The changes are too great for the neighborhood. I would support the proposal however with a few changes as follows. The following changes to the proposal would make it acceptable to me and I believe will improve the neighborhood and still be attractive to the developer: ao Leave Forest Street as is. Do not extend it but rather add a new entrance to the new development at Gervais or somewhere else on the south side. bo Add a park to the new development. There are lots of children in the area and I presume many more in the new development. Parks and open space add a lot to a neighborhood and should be included in the proposal. I suggest lots 9-15 and on the end of Forest Street. If the area must be developed, I do favor R-1. (Varberg - 960 Brooks Court) Traffic flow, schools and parks would be greatly strained to unacceptable levels. I would not be opposed to this plan with the following changes: a. Do not let Forest go through to the new development except bike and walking path. b. Neighborhood park with no parking. c. Reduce the number of homes by making the lots bigger (15 less homes). d. Make entrance from County Road C and Gervais. I voted for the school referendum because of current student teacher ratios and facility problems. Lets not over build again. (Sargent - 965 Brooks Court) There are negatives to my neighborhood I would want addressed.. First, I very much approve of the rezone to R-1 classification. I would however disagree that 78 homes should be constructed here. Maplewood has a chance to incorporate some open space with this development, thus reducing the number of homes which would have a negative impact. The negatives of concern are: Increased traffic flow through the neighborhood putting the many children here at risk. bo Putting Forest Street through will bring traffic in and out of our neighborhood that doesn't necessarily live here. Building that many homes without leaving some type of open space will have a negative affect on the aesthetics of the community and the environment (greater pollution, too much mn-off and reduction of wildlife). 12 o To preserve the beauty and quietness of our neighborhood, I would suggest making a cul- de-sac out of Forest Street, create a community park behind the homes on Brooks Court accessible by walking path only, and exit traffic from homes along proposed Street A to either Gervais or Keller Parkway. (Dey - 966 Brooks Court) The destruction of open space and increased traffic in area. I feel that this area should not be developed. One of the reasons we built in this area was due to the open, undeveloped woods around the area. The proposed development would not only destroy these areas but drive out the wildlife that thrives there. My proposal would include the developer making a nature preserve out of this area in conjunction with the nearby chain of lakes. Another option would be to sell the area to the City as part of the open space acquisition program that our taxes were raised for. I realize the City will look at this from income stand point in the form of additional tax base. Therefore, the City will probably not consider the views of the few residents who presently live in the area. If this area is inevitably developed, I oppose the extension of Forest Street to access this area. I feel that access to this area should be made off Keller Parkway to the south of this area rather than burden the residents of Carsgrove Meadows with the increased traffic flow. (Thomalla - 971 Brooks Court) I think it would be OK to develop the theater for housing but I strongly object to the development of the little treed area directly behind my house. In that section are numerous wild life - birds, fox.., even a family of deer. It seems a shame to destroy their precious habitat with one more housing plan. The deer actually come into our yards during the early morning or evenings. Then in the day, they go right back to their quiet haven in the small forest. Destroying this last vestige of their habitat in this area is sad. My hope would be that the City would make the developers limit their plan and avoid this section, thus preserving a nature trail (many locals hike through this area) and one of the few remaining deer habitats right here in Maplewood. (Johnson - 978 Brooks Court) The details are unclear concerning the types of buffer created between existing properties and the new development. What about the City easement? Between the Farm and theater property and the current homeowners on the farthest eastem side of Carsgrove Meadows. I do not like to see Forest as a main vain disrupting a current community for another. It will be the biggest roadblock to gain neighborhood approval. (Warner - 983 Brooks Court) Demont Avenue east would no longer be a dead-end street to the east. Would increase traffic. Make Demont Avenue east a cul-de-sac or dead-end to the east of Forest. Also, decrease the number of new single family houses from the proposed 78. Fifty is much more reasonable. Finally, increase the size of Kohlman Park. (Kutrubs - 950 Demont Avenue) 1.3 10. There are approximately 20 children that are age 8 and younger that play on Demont Avenue east which would no longer be a dead-end street. (Haubrich - 980 Demont Avenue) 11. The number of lots is too dense and there isn't a provision for parks and open space. We would support it if parks or open space were incorporated into the plan and Forest were preserved. Also Forest Street should not go through to Gervais or Keller Parkway. (Seppala - 2462 Forest Street) 12. This change would make my property more difficult to use or sell. Develop within the limits of the current zoning. (Let them buy us out.) (Lund- 2411 Maplewood Drive) 13. Do not want zoning changed - leave it as it exists. (Zuercher - North St. Paul) 14. See the letters on pages 28, 29, 30 and 31 and the petition starting on page 38. REFERENCE HISTORY On September 23, 1958, the City Council approved a rezoning from F (farm residence) to BC (business commercial) for the Maple Leaf Drive-in. On May 28, 1991, the City Council approved land use plan and zoning changes for the area west of Highway 61, north of Highway 36. This was for the Comprehensive Plan update. These changes included much of the property in this proposal. The land use plan changes were from RL (low-density residential), RM (medium density residential) and LSC (limited service commercial) to RM (medium density residential) and BW (business warehousing). The zoning changes were from R-1 (single dwellings), F (farm residence) and BC (business commercial) to R-1S (small lot single dwelling) and M-1 (light manufacturing). These are the land use and zoning designations now in the area. SITE DESCRIPTION Gross Area: Net Area: Proposed Density: Existing land use: 32.5 acres 26.2 acres 2.98 homes per net acre undeveloped and drive-in movie theater SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: gouth: West: houses on Brooks Court, Cypress Street and a manufactured home park commercial properties and houses on the west side of Highway 61 undeveloped and commercial property on Gervais Avenue undeveloped property and houses in Carsgrove's Meadows LEGAL For street vacations, Chapter 412.851 of Minnesota State law states that "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so ..." PLANNING The existing R-1 (S) land use plan designation is for small lot single dwellings and the M-1 designation is for light manufacturing. The proposed R-1 (single dwellings) land use designation is for low density residential land uses like single dwellings. Lot Sizes: The average lot size in the proposed plat is 14,617 square feet. This is similar to the lot sizes (10,140- 21,466 square feet) on Brooks Court and Demont Avenue. The City Code requires at least 10,000 square feet above a drainage easement and 75 feet of width for each lot outside the shoreland zone. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed City standards. The shoreland rules require an average lot area of at least 15,000 square feet in shoreland districts. The proposed lots in the shoreland district have an average lot area of 15,190 square feet. TREES The developers tree plan shows 95 large trees of a variety of species scattered across the site. They are proposing to keep 31 of the large trees and remove 64 large trees. In addition, they are proposing to plant 64 trees to replace the 64 large trees that they would remove. The City's tree ordinance does not require that the developer replace trees under eight inches in diameter or box elder, cottonwoods or poplar trees. The developer plans to grade most of this site. 15 SOILS The Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District informed us that the soils on this site are suitable for development if the developer controls the erosion. The District recommends that the developer get specific soils data before developing the site. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven overall land use goals. Of these, four apply to this proposal. They are: provide for orderly development, protect and strengthen neighborhoods, minimize land planned for streets, and provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Whenever possible, changes in types of land uses should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. The City requires drainage and erosion control plans with new developments. Such plans shall not increase the rate of runoff and shall prevent erosion. Protect neighborhoods from activities which produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing quality that the City should consider with this development. They are: - Plan and design new housing to: - Protect existing housing, natural features and neighborhood identity and quality. - Assure there are adequate utilities, community facilities and convenient shopping. - Maintain or strengthen the character of established neighborhoods and assure that all housing units are safe, sanitary secure and free from blight. 16 go/disk in file:maplelf, mem (9) Attachments: I. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map (Existing) 3. Land Use Plan Map (Proposed) 4. Propert3' Line/Zoning Map (Existing) 5. Property Line/Zoning Map (Proposed) 6. Proposed Mapleleaf Estates Preliminary Plat 7. Property Line Map (Open Space) 8. Property Line Map (Vacations) 9. 8-11-94 letter from Moore-Foster 10. Statement from Wiermann ! 1. Statement from Kommann 12. Letter from Van Elsberg (Northernaire) 13. 8-11-94 letter from Oak Ridge Pond Rentals 14. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 15. Zoning Map Change Resolution 16. Street Vacation Resolution 17. Street Vacation Resolution (west end of Gervais Avenue) 18. Utility Easement Vacation Resolution 19. Petition 20. Project Plans (separate attachment) 3.7 E. 3 I.-: V1KING DR. BURKE BELMONT Attachment 1 KOH~ PALM COUNTY CONNOR CT ROAD NOR i.. GERVAJS ~ JUNCTION (1) C~BERS GOLF COURSE' SKILL 1. SUIdk4rT CT 2. COU NTTrCVtE, 3. DULLFI'H C'T. COPE AVl[: ELD~ LA. Attachment 2 REVISED 10/29/93 County Rd. Little Canada Vednais Heights 6 9~'" prir. cip&l arterial ~ interchange oS m minor collector mJn0r lbeam Ave. I collector Rd. C )Il KEY - P = PARK OS = OPEN SPACE M-1 = LIGHT INDUSTRIAL major cv,,e~v, ~ ~'~-; R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R-3(M) = RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ghway 36 I 19 REVISED 10/29/93 County Rd. Attachment 3 Vadnai$ Heights 694 I:)ri~cipal arteri&l ~ interchange Little Canada minor i colieclor minor collector lbeam Ave. Rd. C M-1 ' KEY P = PARK I:. £ i- OS = OPEN SPACE I ~ .'1 M-1 = LIGHT INDUSTRIAL major collector ~ l'~''~' R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS Gervais R-3(M) = RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY Highway 36 20 Attachment 4 COUNTY ROAI~ C ,. / D£MONT[ · m MANUFACTURED HOME PARK · DRIVE-IN THEATER GERVAIS AVENUE -'" m KEY F ' FARM RESIDENTIAL R1 -- SINGLE DWELLINGS "'-, ,, ~ RlS = SINGLE DWELLINGS (SMALL LO ' ? 4~ M1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING F-..~__ ...-- .~ .... _____..j HI(~HWAY 36 KELLER LAKE '":- PROPERTY LINE / ZONING ~ SITE (EXISTING) MAP ............ -- --T T- ................ T ........... -I' Attachment 5 COUNTY ROAI~ C ~ PARK MANUFACTURED HOME PARK (~) DEMONT% DRIVE-IN THEATER EY . 1~ KELLER LAKE PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP (PROPOSED) [ Nj R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS ~, ~, ~ RlS = SINGLE DWELLINGS (SMALL LOT) ,t-'---~--~, .-~, ' ~ ~ M1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING i "~--~ ....... ~,~ ~~ il i ~___~ ...... ;~-_ .~' ~ SITE 22 Attachment 6 h ~ DEMONT AVENUE/. VICINITY MAP SEXTANT A~ GERVAIS AVENUE ,'-12" WATERMAIN AND EASEMENT -~ ._ /.. :,:'/' PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE L M.A_I:)T.RT.~AF ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT (e18) 8~-oxot N 23 Attachment 7 DEMONT,~ SPOON LAKE~ PROPERTY LINE MAP OPEN SPACE SITE #116 24 Attachment 8 / '1 I0 DEMONT~ AVE ~ ~Z&c IE, o ,BROOK.5 205,9.5 ~ PROPERTY LINE MAP PROPOSED VACATIONS 25 N .................... -~ .......................... ---T- T .............. --!- ............... T .... r ....... Attachment 9 AUG Kenneth Roberts Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, Minn. 55109-2797 986 Demont Ave. East Maplewood, Minn. August 11, 1994 Mr. Roberts: We are responding to the proposal for the use of land surrounding our community by the Gonyea Corporation. We are not opposed to the building of single family dwellings but we do have some concerns/suggestions that we would like to have considered. Our first concern has to do the wetlands located on the land. The map was not very clear, but we are hoping those areas would not be tampered with and left intact. As you are probably aware, it provides a home for several different types of water fowls. In addition, our property has a substantial amount water beneath the house foundation. During and after rainfalls, our water pump runs continuously. We are afraid that if the present natural drainage system is disturbed, we may experience serious drainage problems. Our next concern has to do with the mature trees located on the land. Those trees not only help to maintain the quality of the air, but is also home to an abundance of wildlife. Including, but not limited to owls and deer. We realize that some of the trees will have to be sacrificed in order to build the homes. However, it would be greatly appreciated if the city could require that a certain percentage of the trees remain on the land. Another concern has to do with access to the community. There appears to be only two streets to gain access to the neighborhood. This will mean that the traffic to reach the new development will be routed through the existing community. We would like to see another street allowing access to the new homes that would not route them through Forest or Cypress Streets. Lastly, we would we like to ensure that the lot sizes are kept equivalent to the properties in Carsgrove Meadows. Again, due to the quality of the map it was difficult to ascertain the new lot sizes. In order to allow existing homeowners to maintain our property values, we would request that the lot sizes remain consistent with the existing homes. Thank you for listening to our concerns. We can be reached at 486-0023 if further clarifications on our suggestions are needed. ~incerely, . ~ Marcia and Walker Moore-Foster - Attachment l0 We the homeowners of Carsgrove's Meadows and surrounding areas strongly oppose Mapleleaf Estates as proposed for the following reasons: 1.) Extending Forrest beyond it's present ending point would forever change the character of one of Maplewood's most beautiful neighborhoods. Greatly increased traffic flow would diminish the safety of our neighborhood in general not to mention unnecessarily putting our children at far greater risk. 2.) Development of the entire tract of land would further the destruction of habitat and wildlife and destroy some of the natural beauty of Maplewood. 3.) The result of effectively doubling the number of homes in a small area would increase the burden on our already overcrowded schools as well as increase crime, and increase demand on public services such as police, fire, and street maintenance. Increased water pollution would also stress existing wetlands and surrounding lakes. The below signed residents would strongly support the development of Mapleleaf Estates if the plan were to be improved. We firmly believe the following refinements would help to maintain the character of the existing neighborhood and still allow the developer to create a highly marketable community. I .) Leave Forrest exactly as is. Build another entrance to the development at Gervais. This will lessen the negative impact on the safety and character of the existing community. 2.) Rezone entire tract of land es R1 (as presently proposed). 3.) Reduce the number of new lots. This will reduce the negative impact of higher density. 4.) Leave "Open Space" or build a Community Park on proposed lots 9-15 and on the end of Forrest (encourage community use only by not having a parking lot). This would enhance the livability of Maplewood by blending nicely with the existing parks along Spoon Lake and Keller Lake. 28 Attachment 11 tELL 6c.~gc~ ~o x 13s". ~ 29 YOUR Attachment 12 Northernaire Motel 2441 Hwy61 St. Paul, MN 55109 (612) 484-3336 1-800-899-7578 Reservations & Info. only Fax 484-2063 We are strongly against the projected development. All the existing Commercial properties adjoining the proposed development will lose value. If any businesses were to make improvements, along with meeting the city of Maplewoods requirements, we will need to notify our neighbom 350 fl. from our property. Currently, We wouldn't get any negative feed back from any of our neighbors, as our commel~'~sl business's won't hurt any of their properties. If this proposal goes through as projected, we will have 35 or more, residential properties to satisfy. Homeowners, once established, are not going to want: Noise, Lights, Trucks, etc., etc. Those things that are apart of operating a business. A New Business may find it easier to go else were, Then to Try to appease residential home owners with their business designs, Expansion, and revisions. Existing business's may eventually be required to meet the needs of the home owners and residential guidelines, rather then fit the needs of the business itself. An owner building a new business will not want residential ow'nm to determine their fate. The two homes on Sarvis are not marketable as residential now, if this proposal goes through they will not be marketable as commemia, for all the aforementioned reasons. Another great concern, is the Land that we have adjoining the proposed property. We would not want any new development directing any drainasc over our Property. My husband and I have been hear for 6 years, through the wettest times, there hasn't been any water in that area, and we don't want any! In respect to our thoughts for this pwperty: There should be a buffer zone next to the residential. Office buildings, Dr. clinics etc. Then our business won't disturb them, and there business won't disturb the residential. We agree with the existing zoning map. This buffer was well thought of from the city, to avoid future zoning problems, like those that now exist. This comer is already a conglomeration of zoning with residential homes overlookin8 loacting docks, 3O The Friendly Place to Stay! OAK RIDGE POND RENTALS P.O. BOX 10859 WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 (612) 433-3621 FAX {612) 433-4017 Attachment 13 August 11, 1994 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Response to Proposed Gonyea Company Development Dear Mr. Roberts: Thank you for the information you sent August 1 regarding the proposed change of zoning in our neighborhood. As I stated in the enclosed survey, I object to the proposal from Gonyea Company. Our industrial park building has tenants who are manufacturers, wholesalers and service businesses. There is traffic on our property and it is very active. In the future, our main tenant has shown serious interest in having us build an addition on to our building which would extend the building to the west, and right into the proposed new residential development. I expect we would have problems with neighbors complaining about our addition, noise, traffic and building lights at night, and this is NOT a desirable situation. Please keep me advised on this matter. I will strongly oppose any change in the zoning for this neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charisse M. Hall Property Manager cmh PS Please note our change in address: James M. Muellner dba Oak Ridge Pond Rentals P.O. Box 10859 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 31 Attachment 14 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dennis Gonyea applied for a change to the City's land use plan. This change is from R-1S (small lot single dwellings) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-1 (single dwellings). WHEREAS, the City staff is proposing to drop the collector designation on Forest Street. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property south of Brooks Court between Forest and Cypress Streets north of Gervais Avenue in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: o The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 3, 1994. 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 amendment. 2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on ,1994. 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 change for the following reasons: 1. The developer is proposing to develop the site for single dwellings. 2. This change would reduce the allowable intensity and traffic from this site. The R-1 classification would be more compatible with the surrounding homes than the present classifications. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1994. 32 Attachment 15 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Dennis Gonyea applied for a change in the zoning map from F (farm residential), R-1S (small lot single dwellings) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-1 (single dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property south of Brooks Court between Forest and Cypress Streets north of Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: The East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota except the North 396 feet thereof and except the South 290.4 feet of the East 240 feet thereof and except the South 135 feet lying West of the East 240 feet thereof, and Lots 4 through 6, Block 1; Lots 1 through 14, Block 3; vacated Brooks Avenue, Meadow Lane and the vacated Conner Avenue according to Doc. No. vacated Cypress Street. Ail in Peters Addition, according to the recorded plat, Ramsey County, Mn. and The North twenty-four (N. 24) rods of the East half of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter (E 1/2 orE 1/2 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4); and that part of the East half of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter ( E 1/2 of E 1/2 of NE 1/4 of NW 1/4) described as: beginning at the SW comer thereof, thence East to the Southeast comer thereof; thence North along the East line thereof Four (4) rods, thence Southwesterly to the place of beginning, all in Section Nine (9), Township Twenty-nine (29), Range Twenty-two (22), subject to easements of record including agreement in 41 Misc. 574, and Southwest quarter of Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and The South 321.27 feet of the East 199.10 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: l. On October 3, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the change. On October __, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. 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. 33 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. o The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on .,1994. 34 Attachment 16 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dennis Gonyea, represeming Gonyea Corporation, Inc., applied for the vacation of the following described streets: That part of Connor Avenue east of the east right-of-way line of Cypress Street, all of Meadow Lane between Connor Avenue and Brooks Avenue, and all of Brooks Avenue between Meadow Avenue and the vacated Cypress Street as dedicated as part of the Peters Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22 The 16.5-foot-wide undeveloped public road between the east side of Meadow Lane and the east side of the proposed plat site that divides PIN 09-29-22-24-0001 as noted in Book 636, Page 556. 3. The west 77 feet of the Gervais Avenue right-of-way that is west of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On October 3, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this vacation. ° On October __, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting 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. WHEREAS, after the City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 1. Lots 1-14, Block 3 of Peters Addition 2. Lot 6, Block _ of Peters Addition o The North 396 feet of part of east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 East of Peters Addition and also a triangular tract adj. on N being in and measuring 66 feet on the east line of the east 1/4 of NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 all in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22. 4. The south 10 acres of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22 35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described vacations for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The City has no plans to build streets on these rights-of-way. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the City retaining a 25-foot-wide utility easement over the east end of Gervais Avenue. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1994. Attachment 17 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City Engineer started a request for the vacation of the following described utility easement: The utility easement between the south right-of-way line of the proposed Sextant Avenue and the north right-of-way line of the proposed Gervais Avenue along the property lines of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 6 of the proposed Mapleleaf Estates in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On October 3, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this vacation. 2. On October m, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owner. 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. WHEREAS, after the City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: The south 10 acres of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The City will require the developer to move part of the existing watermain out of the easement making this part unnecessary. The developer shall file this resolution with the final plat. The City shall not release this resolution until the City approves the final plat. The developer's surveyor shall describe this easement vacation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1994. 37 Attachment 18 MAPLELEAF ESTATES PROPOSED SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS AUGUST, 1994 We, the homeowners of Carsgrove Meadows and surrounding areas strongly feel there should be modifications made to the Mapleleaf Estates proposed site plan before we can fully support that plan. The existing plan is not acceptable for the following reasons: 1.) Extending Forest Street beyond it's present ending point would forever change the character of one of Maplewood's most beautiful neighborhoods. Greatly increased traffic flow would diminish the safety of our neighborhood in general, not to mention unnecessarily putting our children at a far greater risk. 2.) Development of the entire tract of land would further the destruction of habitat and wildlife and destroy some of the natural beautY of' Maplewood. 3.) The result of effectively doubling the number of homes in a small area would increase the burden on our already overcrowded schools as well as increase crime, and increase demand on public services such as police, fire, and street maintenance. Increased water pollution would also stress existing wetlands and surrounding lakes. The below signed residents would faOll~' ~UppOr~ the development of Mapleleaf Estates only if the below mentioned modifications are made to the proposed plan We firmly believe the following refinements would help to maintain the character of the existing neighborhood and still allow the developer to create a highly marketable community. 1.) Leave For.est Street exactly as is. Build another entrance to the development at Gervais. This will lessen the negative impact on the safety and character of the existing community. 2.) Rezone entire tract of land as R1 (as presently proposed). 3.) Reduce the number of new lots. This will reduce the negative impact of higher density. ~ 38 4.) Leave "Open Space" or build a Community Park on proposed lots 9-15 and on the end of Forrest (encourage community use only by not having a parking lot). This would enhance the livability of Maplewood by blending nicely with the existing parks along Spoon Lake and Keller Lake. ^ "buffer" in this location would also help to maintain the character of the existing community. 39 I I 4O Attachment 6 ADDRESS NAME 3 7 41 i ........................ 'T- ..............'--r T ADDRESS NAME NAME ADDRESS 44 45 43 NAME ADDRESS 64 /~' 69 71 72 73 44 NAME ADDRESS 79 8O 81 45 NAME ADDRESS 106 109 46 NAME ADDRESS 47 ADDRESS NAME · / 150 J/ ./I,~ 151 152 48 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Golf Dome Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue September 28, 1994 The Planning Commission should review the conditional use permit. Thc Community Design Review Board should review the design and landscape plans. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Goodrich Dome Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue September 28, 1994 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 2 Project Description ................................................ 2 Requests ......................................................... 2 DISCUSSION ................................................................ 2 Location .......................................................... 2 Traffic ............................................................ 3 Parking .......................................................... 3 On-Street Parking Ban .............................................. 4 Building Design .................................................... 4 Landscaping and Screening ......................................... 5 In-Ground Sprinklers ............................................... 5 OPTIONS .................................................................... 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS ........................................................ 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION .................................................. 10 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................ 10 SURROUNDING LAND USES ........................................ 10 PLANNING ....................................................... 10 PUBLIC SAFETY .................................................. 11 OTHER AGENCIES ................................................ 11 · -~ INTRODUCTION Project Description Fred Paul, of Kelsey Enterprises, wants to build an inflatable dome for public golfing. The proposed location is the northwest comer of Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue, south of Aldrich Arena. (See the Location Map on page 12 and the Property Line Map on page 13.) Ramsey County owns this property. Kelsey Enterprises would build and manage the dome under a license agreement with the County. The dome would be white fabric, and 65 feet tall. The base of the dome would be 160 feet by 210 feet. The dome would have 31 hitting stalls. There would be a one-story, 46' x 50' rock-face concrete-block building on the east side of the dome. (See the proposed site plan on page 14.) This building would be the entrance to the dome (through an airlock) and would have restrooms, office space and support space for the dome. (See the building elevations and drawings on the enclosed plans.) The developer wants to operate the golf dome between 8 a.m and 9 p.m seven days a week. They may have the golf dome open for fewer hours in the winter. (See Mr. Paul's letter on page 17 and the newspaper cob,mn on page 18.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Paul and Ramsey County are requesting that the City approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) Section 36-437 of the City Code allows the City Council to approve a CUP for a public sex-vice or public building uses in any zoning district. 2. The building design, site and landscape plans DISCUSSION Location Several people have expressed concerns about the proposed location of the dome. The County statffclt that being near the existing streets, parking areas and utilities would be a benefit. In addition, the County expects the golf dome to compliment the facilities at Goodrich golf course. They want golfers to use the dome for a warm-up area before playing on Goodrich Golf Course. The County plans to have a paging system in the dome to alert golfers to their start time. Street access to the proposed site is good and there would be no need to build additional parking. This makes for a more efficient use of the existing public facilities and lessens the project costs. Another location suggested for the golf dome is the former race track area north of the County Parks building. The purpose of this location would be to hide the dome. However, thi~ site has six problems: poor access, lack of parking, lack of utilities, an existing storm water pond and the Wffiiam's Brothers pipeline. The nearest existing paved parking area is about 500 feet to south in front of the County Parks building. To use this site, the County would have to pave more parking next to the dome. In addition, access to the north site is not as convenient as the proposed site on Ripley Avenue. Vehicles would have to go north from Ripley on Van Dyke Street or east from Frost Avenue around the barn and nursing home to get to the facility. An alternative access to this area would be another driveway to White Bear Avenue near the horseshoe pits. A storm water pond is in the center of the track area. The Maplewood storm water plans (page 16) show this pond as part of the City's planned storm water system The dome could not be built in the pond. The City Engineer does not feel that the pond could be relocated. Another problem with the north site is the v~rflliam's Brothers pipeline. It crosses the site from Goodrich Golf Course on the southeast to the DNR Trail on the northwest. (See the map on page 16.) The City Code requires any new building to be at least 100 feet from the nearest pipeline. The best alternative location to the proposed site would be on the south end of the parking lot that is east of the Nursing Home. The disadvantage is the distance from the golf course entrance. Traffic Mr. Paul told me that he hopes to average about 1,000 customers a week at the golf dome. This would be an average of 143 users per day. For a twelve-hour day, this would be an average of twelve customers per hour or one every five minutes. The County traffic engineer told me that the dome should not cause any traffic problems. Parking The County and the developer are not proposing any additional parking for the dome. Dome users would use the Aldrich Arena parking lot and the lot across Van Dyke Street to the east. W'tth the lot across Van Dyke Street, the County could segregate the dome parking from Aldrich Arena parking. The City Code does not have a parking standard for a golf dome. The proposed facility would have 31 tee boxes and a 2,300 square-foot support facility building. At the most, the proposed golf dome should need no more than 74 parking spaces. This would include 62 spaces for the 31 tee boxes and 12 for the service building. The County feels that the existing parking lots are large enough for their needs. Ifa problem develops, there is a vacant area west of the proposed golf dome site to add more spaces. When the County repaved the Aldrich Arena lot, they striped the lanes but not individual parking stalls. Section 36-22(e) of City Code requires that all parking lots have single-striped parking spaces. The County should finish striping their entire parking lot as required by Code (9.5-foot- wide stalls or 9-foot-wide signed en~loyee stalls). The parking lot does not have curbing. Section 36-22(c) requires continuous concrete curbing. Since the County did not previously have curbing, they should at least curb the south side of their lot. On-Street Parking Ban The City has already posted the north side of Ripley Avenue, from White Bear Avenue to North Saint Paul Road, for no parking. The Police Department recommends that the County post both sides of Ri~ley Avenue for no parking. W'r~h the business curb cuts on the south side, the City should keep the street clear of parked cars. This will ira?rove vis~bility for cars leaving the driveways. In addition, this will help insure that fewer pedestrians will be trying to cross Ripley Avenue to the County property. The County has already posted part of Van Dyke Street north of Ripley Avenue for no parking. However, the installer put the signs parallel to the street instead ofperpendica~l~r to the curb. The County should turn these signs so they are visible from Van Dyke Street. In addition, the County should post the curve on Van Dyke Street north of Ripley for no parking. Building Design The Code requires three fmdings to approve a building design. These findings are on pages 10-11. The second finding states that '~che 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." The third finding states that '~he 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." The existing buildings around the site have a mix of exterior materials and color. They range from wood siding with fake-stone accents (South China Idsnd) to concrete block (Aldrich Arena and Mid America Bank) to stucco (Perkins). The support and service building for the dome would be built with rock-face concrete block and a standing seam metal mansard. It should be compatible with the surrounding buildings. The design of the dome would be unique to the area. It would be much taller (65 feet) than the surrounding buildings. The owner of the Perkins Restaurant complained that the dome would block the view of their sign and restaurant from White Bear Avenue. However, the dome may bring Perkin's additional business. The question is whether the design would aesthetically fit the surrounding area. This is a subjective decision that will vary with individuals, ffthe Council is not sure how the dome would look, they could require that the County hire a consultant to produce a computer generated photo. A drawing of the dome could be inserted in a photo of the background. The Council could then see how the dome would look in comparison to the surrounding uses. 4 Landscaping and Screening The developer is proposing an attractive landscaping plan. (See the plan on page 150 There is a need for more landscaping or berming on the dome's west end. This would help screen part of the dome ~om the residential area to the west. In-Ground Sprinklers The City Code requires that the developer or owner install an in-ground sprinkler system for the new landscaped areas. The City should require that the County install this system around the proposed landscaping for the dome. OPTIONS 1. Approve the requests. Table this request until the County revises their plan by moving the dome north of Aldrich Arena. Table this request for a computer-generated drawing showing how the dome would look against the existing buildings. 4. Deny the request. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a public indoor golf dome on the northwest comer of Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue. The permit is based on the findings required by Code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year at, er the Council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. If the City Council determines there is not enough on-site parking, the Council may require that the property owner or operator provide additional parking. 4. The City Council shah review this permit in one year. Approve the site and landscape plans (received September 6, 1994) and building elevations the City received on July 26, 1994 for the Goodrich Golf Dome, subject to the findings required by the Code. The developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat thi~ 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: a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan fo? ~he City engineer's approval The erosion control plan shall be consistent with th~ ~ey Soil and Water Conservation District Erosion Control Handbook. b. Revise the landscape plans for staff approvaL This plan shall show~ (a) All deciduous trees at least 2 1/2 inches in cali~er, balled and burlapped (b) All evergreen trees at least six-feet-tall (c) The plan shall show additional plantings along the west side of the dome. 3. Complete the following before occupying the dome: a. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits and an address on the building. b. Construct an enclosure as required by City Code for all outside d,,rr~ stets (including those for the arena). The enclosure(s) must match the building color. Submit plans for the enclosure(s) to stafffor approval. c. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for the landscaped areas. (Code requirement) d. Construct continuous concrete curbing along the south side of the Arena parking lot. (Code requirement) e. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. f. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. g. Sod ali turf areas. h. Install handicap-accessible parking spaces and signs that meet the requirements of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. Submit screening plans to the Design Review Board for approval. (Code requirement) Post both sides of the curve on Van Dyke Street, north of Ripley Avenue, for no parking and turn the existing no parking signs so they are perpendicular to the curb. Post the south side of Ripley Avenue, between White Bear Avenue and North St. Paul Road, for no parking. Finish striping the entire arena parking lot to meet Code requirements (9.5-foot-wide stalls or 9-foot-wide signed employee stalls) by September 1, 1995. Provide at least a 30-foot setback between the buildings and the property line along Ripley Avenue and l~om Van Dyke Street. (Code requirement) 6. This approval does not include the signs. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 8. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary occupancy if: The City determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. The City receives an agreement that will allow the City to complete any unfinished work. Appeals Anyone may appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. An appellant must notify someone in the Community Development Department within flt~een days after the Board's meeting. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the four properties within 350 feet of the proposed Golf Dome site. The owners of two of these properties replied. Both owners were against the proposal. In addition, we surveyed the 34 property owners on the west side of White Bear Avenue between Larpenteur and Frost Avenues. Of the 12 who responded, six were for the proposal, four were against the proposal and two had no comment. For 1. It is a positive addition to the other recreational facilities in the area and will bring some revenue into Ramsey County. (Hejny - 1829 White Bear Avenue) 2. A very good idea, everyone whom we talked with would enjoy going there. (Strobel - 1849 White Bear Avenue) I would rather see the land lef~ the way is now--undeveloped. But for some reason, if someone feels the need to put something there, it might as well be a golf dome. I think a golf dome is better than a lot of other things they could put there. (Schaeppi - 1899 White Bear Avenue) 4. Great--more tax dollars for Maplewood. (Mirsch - Saint Paul) Against 1. It will block our sign at Perkins and view of the restaurant from White Bear Avenue. Move the dome to the far west corner. (Tom Cory, Perkins - 1829 North Saint Paul Road) I sounds like an eyesore. It also sounds like an elitist use of taxpayer dollars that the County could put to better use. Leave it be an open space; we need more open space. Perhaps put in more trees and some flowers, or plant a prairie there for everyone to enjoy--not just golfers. (Sturm - 1759 White Bear Avenue) 3. The only concern I would have is increased traffic. (Allhiser - 1799 White Bear Avenue) 4. I don't want to look at it. Make it an outdoor driving range. (Amdt - 1783 White Bear Avenue) The City of Maplewood and Ramsey County are continually talking and bemoaning the loss of green grass and open spaces. The grass area along Ripley and White Bear Avenue makes a good border for the Aldrich Arena area. I am sure that at some future time the strip along Ripley will be needed for additional parking area for Aldrich Arena activities. An inflatable dome sure wouldn't add anything to improve the open view of the residences on White Bear 8 ...................... ~ -T-- ........................ T T ............. 1 T ....... Avenue. The County Fair has indicated its demise at the present location. The area formerly used as a racetrack and other agricultural activities should now be available. This area is more or less screened t~om the residences and traffic on White Bear Avenue by trees and soil berms. It also adjoins the golf course. (Holt - 1895 White Bear Avenue) Additional commercial projects on east side of White Bear Avenue increases traffic flow for residential owners. Consideration should be made concerning rezoning west side of White Bear Avenue for commercial use. (Gustafson - Lake Elmo) · REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 65,920 square feet (1.5 acres) Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Aldrich Arena and parking lot Goodrich Golf course and parking lot across Van Dyke Street South China Island, Perkins and bank across Ripley Avenue Vacant County property and houses across White Bear Avenue PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: P (park) Zoning: F (farm residence) Ordinance requirements: Section 36-442(a) states that the City Council may grant a CUP if based on nine findings. (See the findings in the resolution on pages 19 and 20. 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. 10 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. PUBLIC SAFETY The Police Department recommends the following: 1. The applicant should install adequate site lighting for around-the-clock. 2. There should be no parking on both sides of Ripley Avenue and Van Dyke Street. OTHER AGENCIES The Ramsey County Board has approved this proposal. go/disk in filc:golfdome.mcm (14) Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Maplewood Storm Water System Map 6. Applicant's letter dated July 26, 1994 7. Nev~spaper colunm by Hal Norgard 8. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 9. Phms stamped July 26, 1994 Md September 6, 1994 (separate attachraent) Attachment 1 ~lO~EN AVE. AVE. AV~.. AVE. $. SAINT PAUL AV~ NORTH SAINT PAUL. LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 · FROST AVE. II NEJNY RENTA ~ 1799 R,,RM,S£¥ COUN'I'"Y NURSING HOME ALDRICH ARENA ~"="="="="='~1 C,),;~3! SOUTH_ . ,~1 ;~,, ~ ~ ~ CHINA~ I ~ PERKINS -' MIDAMERICA BANK K~.) PROPERTY LINE -Dec RAt43E¥ GOODRICH GOLF COURSE BC .. 13 I BUILDERS SQUARE / ZONING MAP COU, N Attachemnt 3 SEP 6 ~ SITE PLAN 14 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 LU 0 N s c. /,,,4- COMM. i CENTER RAMSE:Y COUNTY FN:U~ VAN LP 2.'/' ¢. NURSING HOME WK~KL. AN~R'~ POND CITY HALL PUBUC WOI~CS 8272 ~ '..LP Z78 PARK BLDG. LC.O. IT 8280 LP 20 & Idr A OO~W i~~-MMAPLEWOOD STORM V:IATER SYSTEM II 1'- T T KELSEY ENTERPRISES, INC. 404 Industrial Boulevard Minneapolis, Minneapolis 55413 Attachment 6 Mr. Geoffrey Olson Commnnity Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Olson: July 26, 1994 As requested, this letter is to identify the purpose and use of the fac'dRy identified in the Request for a Conditional Use Permit. Ramsey County ( owner of the property ) and Kelsey Enterprises entered into an agreement allowing Kelsey the right to erect a dome structure solely for the purpose of operating a public golf dome adjacent to the Goodrich Golf Course. This use shah include a practice/teaching range, and services normally provided in association with the operation of such a facility. The goal of this fac'flity will be to provide an opportunity for users of all levels of playing abilities to develop and improve their golfing skills. In this joint effort between Ramsey County, Kelsey, and in the City of Maplewood it would be the goal of this project to further enhance the quality of life for this commnnJty by providing a year-round recreational fac'dRy for its residents. If you require further information, or clarification, please call me at 773-8959. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Fred P~ Paul 17 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Home Occupation License Ordinance September 29, 1994 INTRODUCTION The City Council asked staff to review the Home Occupation Ordinance (Chapter 17) of the City Code. This was after they discussed a proposal by Shannon Kimball to operate a vehicle clean-up business from his home. BACKGROUND On June 28, 1988, the City Council last changed the home occupation ordinance. The Council changed home occupations from a conditional use to a license. On July 11, 1994, the City Council reviewed a proposal by Shannon Kimball of 1652 Lakewood Drive. He was asking the City for a home occupation license to operate a car clean-up business from his home. The Code required a license because Mr. Kimball wanted the option of customers bringing their cars to his home. During the City's review of his request, Mr. Kimball decided to pick up and deliver the customers vehicles. As such, the current home occupation license requirements would not require him to get a license from the City. Mr. Kimball then withdrew his request and the Council asked staff to review the ordinance. DISCUSSION The home occupation ordinance has worked well for the City. It controls the business size by limiting the number of employees and the area of the home that the operator may use for the business. The operators of most of the approved home occupations have run their businesses without a complaint, some for many years. The main concem of the City with home businesses is their effect on the neighborhood. The City must have standards in the ordinance to insure that home businesses do not have a negative effect of the surrounding properties. Staff is proposing several language changes to the Code. These are to strengthen the protection of the neighborhood near a home business and to make the Home Occupation Code consistent with other pans of the Code. I .................... I ....... T RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached ordinance. go/disk in file:homeocc.mem Attachments: 1, Proposed Home Occupation ordinance 2. Existing Home Occupation ordinance Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CHANGING ARTICLE II, HOME OCCUPATIONS, OF THE CITY CODE The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: SECTION 1. The section changes Section 17-21 as follows: (I have underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.) Sec. 17-21. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license approved by the City Council if any of the following circumstances would occur more than thirty (30) days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. (2) Customers visiting the premises. (3) Manufacture, a~sembly or processing of products or materials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. (5) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. L63 Cleaning customers' motor vehicles, motor cycles, recreational vehicles or boats on the premises. (b) Home occupations requiring a license shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No more than one nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the premises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on-site, one off-site employee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one sign meeting the requirements of the City sign code. (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the City Council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, du~t, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, machine shops, welding, ammunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knifes or other objectionable uses as determined by the City. Machine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that operate on more than one hundred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) Any noncompliance with these requirements shall constitute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The City may waive any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential lot line. ,t. (12) The City Council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the City approves it and the official newspaper publishes it. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1994. 5 Attachment 2 ARTICLE H. HOME OCCUPATIONS* Sec. 17.21. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license if any of the fol- lowing circumstances would occur more than thirty (30) days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. (2) Customers visiting the premises. (3) Manufacture of loroducts on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupa- tion which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. (5) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which excee~ a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. (b) Home occupations requiring a license shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No more than one nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the premises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no on-site em- ployee vehicle parked on-site, one off-site employee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and ga- rage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code. (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occu- pation which creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equip- ment or process shall be used which creates visual or audi- ble interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of inter~! combustion engines, body shops, machine shops, welding, ammunition manufacturing or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Machine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that oper- ate on more t~An one hundred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) Any noncompliance with these requirements shall consti- tute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occu- pation license. (11) The city may waive any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from the property line of an adjacent residence. (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6.27-88) Sec. 17-22. Original license approval procedure. An application for home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development shall pre- pare a recommendation to the planning commission. The plan- ning commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council for a public hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the owners of all properties located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the home occupation at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall also be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Supp. No. 7 1047 Sec. 17-23. Renewal. Each license holder shall apply to the city clerk each January for renewal. Prior to issuance of a license renewal, the city shall determine that all licensing conditions and city ordinances are being met. The city clerk shall revoke the license where compli- ance with the licensing conditions or city ordinances c~nnot be obtained or where the home occupation has been discontinued. Revocation may occur at any time that compliance with license conditions or city ordinance cA_ nnot be obtained. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17.24. Appeal. The owner or his assign of a home occupation whose license has been revoked by the city clerk may appeal the decision to the city council. To request an appeal, a written letter or request must be submitted to the city clerk within thirty (30) days of the license revocation. The city council may revoke, approve or add addi- tional conditions to the license. The city council shall hold a public hearing, using the notification procedures in section 17-22, before deciding on the appeal. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27~8) Sec. 17.25. Transfer of Ucense. No license granted for a home occupation shall be transferable from person to person or place to place. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, ~27~8) 8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Resignation September 25, 1994 INTRODUCTION Gary Gerke has resigned from the Planning Commission. I have attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him_ On September 26, 1994, the City Council decided to consider Milo Thompson to fill Mr. Gerke's position. Mr. Thompson was the Commission's third choice in the previous interviews. The Council will consider Mr. Thompson's appointment on October 10, 1994. RECOMMENDATIONS l. Approve the attached resolution of appreciation for Mr. G-erke. 2. Authorize the staffto advertise for a new planning commissioner. go/c:memo3.mem (6.1 Commission T~ms) Attachments: 1. 9-12-94 letter 2. Resolution Attachment 1 September 12, 1994 Mayor Gary Bastian City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Mayor Bastian: It is with regret that I must resign from the Planning Commission for the city of Maplewood. I have sold my home in Maplewood and am relocating to Lindstrom. My resignation will be effective Septemember 30. I have enjoyed the involvement and have sincerely appreciated the opportunity given me to serve on the Commission these past years. Thank you. 1252 Cope Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55109 2 Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APP~CIATION WHEREAS, Gary Gerke has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since October 10, 1989 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens, that Gary Gerke is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on October 3, 1994. Gary Bastian, Mayor Lester Axdahl, Chairperson Attest: Lucille E. Aurelius, Clerk