Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1994 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION December 19, 1994 7:00 P.M. Maplewood Community Center--Meeting Room C 2100 White Bear Avenue 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Public Hearings 7. New Business a. December 5, 1994 1180 Highway 36 (Countryside VW) Street Vacation Conditional Use Permit January Planning Commission Meetings 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. December 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 10. Staff Presentations 11. 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: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak deafly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will dose the public diseussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Plarming Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. kd/misc\pcagd Revised: 6-18-93 I. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION December 5, 1994 7 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 1830 East County Road B Chairperson Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Mary Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Todd Sandell Commissioner Marvin Sigmundik Commissioner Milo Thompson III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. A. November 21, 1994 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present - arrived at 7:05 p.m. Present Present Present Present Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the minutes of November 21, 1994, as submitted. Commissioner Fischer seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Rossbach, Sandell, Thompson Abstentions-Martin, Sigmundik Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Martin seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-94 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Land Use Plan Change---Open Space Site 153A (Larpenteur and Century Avenues) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, read the hearing notice, presented the staff report, and answered questions from the Commission. Char Brooker, 2172 Woodlynn Avenue, spoke for the Open Space Committee. The public hearing was opened for comments. Peg Kohring, 1940 Wisconsin Avenue North in Golden Valley, showed pictures of the property and commented on its beauty. There were no further comments, so the public hearing was Closed. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which changes the land use plan for the area south of Larpenteur Avenue and west of Century Avenue. The changes are from R-3M (residential medium density), R-1 (single dwellings), OS (open space) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to OS (open space) and R-1 (single dwellings). This resolution also drops Hoyt Avenue as a collector street between Sterling Street and Century Avenue. The City should make these changes because: 1. The City plans to buy this site for open space. The City's Open Space Committee ranked this site first out of the 67 sites they studied. 3. This site would expand the open space corridor that the City has planned. The purchase would preserve a variety of natural features on this site, including upland grass and a wetland. Neither the City or property owner to the south plan to build Hoyt Avenue as a collector street. The City shall not make these changes until the City closes on the property. Commissioner Martin seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. The public hearing for Land Use Plan Change--Open Space Site 103C (County Road D) was scheduled for 7:20 so the Commission moved ahead to 8.a., Commission Presentations, November 28 Council Meeting: Commissioner Kittridge reported on this meeting. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 12-05-94 B. Land Use Plan Change~Open Space Site 103C (County Road D) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, read the heating notice, presented the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. Mr. Roberts said, although there are no specific setback requirements from the power line and generally no building of structures can occur within the easement, the power company may allow parking lots or driveways in the easement. However, a 100-foot setback from a pipeline is required for the closest part of a structure with living space. The public hearing was opened for comments. Howard Nelson, 2175 East County Road D, lives across the street from the site and said he was in favor of the open space area. Charlotte Brooker, 2172 Woodlynn Avenue E, is a member of the Open Space Committee and stated the Committee had not taken a position on this property because there were several open-space properties that had conflicts of interest relating to members of the Committee. Speaking as a resident of Woodlynn Avenue, Ms. Brooker thought the staff report was complete and mentioned the increasing flora and fauna on the property. She also felt the property owners had been very cooperative and were willing to sell for a fair price. She was concerned with the health issues of the power lines and urged that this land be acquired for open space. Dave Huebl, 2191 East County Road D, said there was sufficient traffic in the area and he favored this land being used as open space. Dorothy Axko, 2181 Woodlynn Avenue E., asked, ifa property was purchased as open space, what assurance did they have that it would remain so. Gretchen Maglich, Assistant City Manager, answered that the City Council passed an ordinance stating that if the City were going to sell any of the property purchased with open-space bonds, it would take three published public hearings and a 4/5 vote of the Council. The Council can change this ordinance but it would be difficult to sell this property once it was acquired for open space. John Cadwell, 2226 East County Road D, supported the change to open space. Peg Kohring of The Trust for Public Land said the owners were not willing to hold the land offthe market indefinitely. She also said she has been negotiating with other owners on the list and feels some are very reluctant to sell. Ms. Kohring also had pictures of the site and encouraged that it be purchased for open space. Jerome Sommerhauser, 2184 Woodlyma, was for open space. Since there were no further comments, the public heating was closed. Commissioner Kittridge said he couldn't imagine that the City would spend $655,000 on this property. He felt the power line and pipeline detract from the open space. Mr. Kittridge also said that if the property were developed, a 200-foot wide open space would result from meeting the pipeline setback requirement. There also is adequate park land in the area. Mr. Kittridge felt the Commission should be direct and tell the City Council not to table this purchase, but rather they should not buy it. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-94 -4- Commissioner Pearson was in agreement with Mr. Kittridge and said he preferred to acquire parcels different in topography from the Frost/English site already purchased. Commissioner Rossbach said that, according to the staff report, State law requires the Planning Commission to advise the Council whether proposed public acquisitions follow the Comprehensive Plan. He felt there was no other way than to tell the Council that this would follow the Comprehensive Plan because all the owners of the property and the testimony supported open space. He felt a second motion could state the Commission's viewpoint as to the purchase of the property. Commissioner Fischer said she was more concerned that neighborhoods with lesser percentages might not get anything and, therefore, was having trouble with this acquisition on that basis. Although not against this site per se, she would be comfortable tabling this until they learned if higher-ranked sites could be purchased. Commissioner Kittridge questioned Mr. Rossbach's comments about property owners being in favor affecting the change in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rossbach said that information and favorable testimony at a public heating indicate that this would be an appropriate change. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend: Tabling this decision until the City decides not to buy one of the higher-ranked sites. Bo If the City Council decides to buy Site 103C, they should adopt the resolution which changes the land use plan fxom R-2 (single and double dwellings) and R- 3M (multiple dwellings-medium density) to OS (open space). The City should make this change because: 1. Maplewood plans to buy this site for open space. This neighborhood has less planned open space than the average neighborhood. The pipelines and high-voltage power lines through this site make it more desirable for open space than development. The City shall not make these changes until the City closes on the property. There was no second and the motion died. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-94 -5- Commissioner Rossbach moved, if the City Council decides to buy Site 103C, the Planning Commission recommend: Tabling this decision until the higher-ranked properties have been looked at and then, when coming back to this property, would consider buying a smaller portion of this area for open space. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Kopesky, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Thompson Nays-Frost, Kittridge, Martin, Pearson, Sandell The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Bo If the City Council decides to buy Site 103C, they should adopt the resolution which changes the land use plan from R-2 (single and double dwellings) and R- 3M (multiple dwellings-medium density) to OS (open space). The City should make this change because: 1. Maplewood plans to buy this site for open space. This neighborhood has less planned open space than the average neighborhood. The pipelines and high-voltage power lines through this site make it more desirable for open space than development. The City shall not make these changes until the City closes on the property. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out, in case anyone was unclear, that this was not expressing any opinion on the Commission's part. It was simply saying that if the Council decides to purchase this property, they should change the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Kopesky, Martin, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Thompson Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-94 The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS -6- Nays-Frost, Kittridge, Sandell A. Lot-Width Variance and Lot Division: 666 Co. Rd B & 669 Eldridge Avenue Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. Sheldon Sanbom, of the City and County Employees Credit Union, gave background on the property. Commissioner Rossbach felt it was inappropriate to alter the property lines of the lots to accommodate a swimming pool. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a lot-width variance for the property at 669 Eldridge Avenue. The City should approve this variance because: The problem is due to circumstances unique to the property that the current owner did not cause. The variance would not alter the neighborhood character since it would not change the appearance of the lots. 3. The variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Approval of the lot division to move the property line between 666 County Road B and 669 Eldridge Avenue according to the recommendation of the staff report dated December 1, 1994. This approval shall be subject to the owner recording the deeds for the lot division within one year, unless the City approves a time extension. Commissioner Martin seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Frost, Kittridge, Martin, Pearson, Sandell, Sigrnundik, Thompson Nays-Kopesky, Rossbach Abstention-Fischer The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-94 -7- B. Conditional Use Permit: 2873 Beam Avenue (Maplewood Toyota) Secretary Olson presented the staff report and answered questions fxom the Commission. Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota, said they picked this spot for expansion because the impervious surface area would be affected by probably less than the 1/2%. Commissioner Rossbach said he thought it was not a good idea to keep imposing more impervious surface area into the shoreland. Commissioner Martin was also opposed to allowing this area to constantly get bigger. Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to expand a nonconforming use. Approval is based on the findings required by the Code and subject to the following conditions: Ail construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Beam Avenue shall not be used for loading or unloading. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, San&Il, Sigmundik, Thompson Nays-Frost, Martin, Rossbach The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitors. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. Report was heard earlier in meeting. Bo Representative for December 12 Council Meeting: Commissioner Pearson and Commissioner Rossbach Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-94 -8- C. Representative for December 19 Council Meeting: Commissioner Fischer IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Countryside Volkswagen Addition 1180 Highway 36 East December 15, 1994 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Schmclz is proposing to add onto Countryside Volkswagen at 1180 Highway 36. (Sec the maps on pages 9 and 10.) He represents Countryside Volkswagen. The purpose of the addition is to expand and improve their maintenance, service, sales and showroom space. Mr. Schmelz is proposing to build the addition in two phases. The first phase would include removing the existing used car sales office and adding showroom and sales space to the west side of the main building. For the second phase, Mr. Schmelz wants to add warehouse and vehicle service space between the northerly building and the body shop. (See the plan on pages 11.) The additions would replace 5,637 square feet of floor space with 36,148 square feet for a net addition of30,511 square feet. Requests To build the additions, Mr. Schnaclz is requesting that the City approve the following: 1. A street right-of-way vacation for part of the frontage road. (See the map on page 10 and the letter on page 12.) 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) The City Code prohibits maintenance garages within 350 feet of a residential zoning district. The proposed garage addition would be 126 feet from thc nearest residential district. The existing garage and body shop are nonconforming uses. This means that they do not meet the current Code, but were legal at the time the owner built them. The Code allows nonconforming uses to continue if they do not expand. The Code allows the City to approve a CLIP to expand a nonconforming use if the expansion would not have a significant effect on the development of the parcel as zoned. (See the applicants's justification for the conditional use permit on page 14.) Mr. Schmelz will apply for site and building design approval if the Council approves his CUP and street vacation requests. BACKGROUND The dealership has been at this location since 1966. Since then, the owners have done at least two remodeling projects. On February 27, 1989, the City Council vacated the Cope Avenue and Duluth Street right-of- ways next to the south side of this site. On October 23, 1989, the City approved the expansion of a maintenance garage for Fleming Oil (2271 White Bear Avenue). The garage was a nonconforming use because it was within 350 feet of a residential property line. DISCUSSION Street Vacation Mr. Schmelz is asking the City to vacate part of the frontage road right-of-way on the northwest comer of this site. The vacation would be 17.5 feet wide by 84 feet long. Maplewood plans to rebuild the frontage road in 1995. The City Engineer told me that the City does not need this right-of-way. It is a State-owned easement for the frontage mad. The State will be transferring the frontage road right-of-way to the City by July 1995 or later. Conditional Use Permit Required Findings The intent of the City Code is to prevent maintenance garages within 350 feet of residential neighborhoods. Countryside is already servicing and painting vehicles within this distance. The expanded garage would not affect neighboring properties. The nearest residential property line is about 126 feet from the new service addition. The existing body shop is closer. It is 75 feet from the residential property line. (See the map on page 11.) The only property owner opposed lives at 1199 Lark Avenue. The apartments screen this property from the dealership. The garage addition would not affect the development of the parcel as zoned, since the zoning allows garages. The City approved a similar request for Fleming Oil. Parking With the two proposed additions, the City Code requires a total of 133 parking spaces plus the vehicle display spaces. The proposed site plan shows 121 spaces. However, there is room on the south side of the site (including the grass holding lot) to expand the parking area. If the developer 2 does not want to pave more parking, they would have to ask the Council to approve fewer parking spaces than the Code requires. The City could consider this request with the Design Review Board application. Screening The applicant's architect submitted a landscape and screening proposal. (See pages 1 $ and 19.) This plan is to show how the owner would screen the proposed additions from the existing residential areas to the south. The neighbor at 2255 Duluth Street noted a concern about the screening. He commented that the existing vegetation was marginal in its ability to screen the dealership. He suggests that Countryside install a screening fence on their south end. It is clear from the proposed landscape and screening plan that there are ways for the owner to screen the dealership from the neighboring residential areas. The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) must approve a screening and landscaping plan before the City issues a building permit. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on page 20. This resolution vacates the City's interest in the 17.5-foot by 85-foot area of the frontage road right-of-way that is next to the northwest comer of the Countryside Volkswagen site. The City should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The City only needs a drainage and utility easement on this part of the right-of-way. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the City keeping a drainage and utility easement over this right- of-way. Adopt the resolution on page 21. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to expand the motor vehicle maintenance and repair garages. This permit is based on thc standards required by ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow thc site plan approved by the City. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be started within one year of Council approval or thc permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. All vehicles shall be parked on a paved parking lot. (This is a Code requirement.) The City must approve any plans for expanding the paved parking areas. The City may limit the vehicles stored or displayed on the site if the City decides that there is insufficient on-site parking. '. 4. The property owner shall install and maintain screening along the south lot line to meet the City Code. 5. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 6. All dumpsters on the site shall be enclosed as required by City Code. 7. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS We asked the nearby property owners for their opinions about these requests. We sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 24 properties, we received 9 replies. Five were for the requests, one was again~ two had no comment and one had comments. Those for the requests had the following comments: I am for this proposal but I think you better get the service (frontage) road rebuilt, so it is passable. We get so many customer complaints, they act like it's our road, not a City street. (Menards - 2280 Maplewood Drive) Good idea it will increase the tax base--looks really nice--and provides jobs. (Menards, Inc., Ear Clair, Wisconsin) 3. This seems like a nice way for Countryside to grow its business and become a better, more valuable community citizen. Good luck to them. (Embers Restaurant) 4. I am for this proposal as long as zoning conditions are carefully adhered to. (Goetzke - 1209 Lark Avenue) 5. It appears to be an upgrading of an existing facility. (Holmen - Bloomington) Those against the requests had the following comments: There is no room for expansion, let us have some privacy. We don't want to be right in their back yard. We are already pretty close---please let it be. (Hepp - 1199 Lark Avenue) Those with comments had the following: I want to be sure that Duluth Street is vacated and not used as a back entrance for cars and tracks. On the landscape and screening map on the south end of the new car storage lot the only permanent trees are the Russian Olive trees. Some of them got blown over in a straight wind storm a few years ago. The other trees mentioned are scrub trees that seeds blew in and started to grow. I cut them down every year on my property. Those growing next to the fence I don't have any jurisdiction to cut. I suggest that Countryside put a screening fence on the south end. I also would like to know how my property (2255 Duluth Street) got zoned R-37 It was R-1 even before the first Gem Store was built. When the apartments were built, the property line on the south went straight west to Menards and not that jog that you have on the map. I have made sure of that ever since this was zoned farm land and would appreciate you changing it. (Anderson- 2255 Duluth Street) 5 Staffnote: The City zoned this property M-l, light manufacturing. We have no records of the City zoning this property R-1 or R-3.' The property owner would have to apply for a rezoning or the City would have to initiate the change. In 1989, the City approved a change in the lot line that created this jog. Menards requested this change to buy the property from Mr. Sehmelz.) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.45 acres Existing land use: Countryside VW/Saab ear dealership SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Frontage Road and Highway 36 Houses and apartments on Duluth Street, Lark Avenue and Atlantic Street Menards Embers Restaurant PAST ACTIONS On April 19, 1973, the City Council approved building plans for the used-ear sales building. On March 2, 1978, the City Council approved remodeling plans for the existing used-car sales building. PLANNING Land use plan designation and zoning: M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Ordinance requirements: Sections 36-187(a)(1) and 36-151(b)(9)(c) require that automobile maintenance garages be at least 350 feet from a residential lot line. Section 36-17(e) requires that no existing building or premise devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which such building or premise is located shall be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless: (1) Required by law or government order; or (2) There would not be a significant affect, as determined by the City through a conditional use permit, on the development of the parcel as zoned. Section 36-22(e) states that "All parking lots and associated driveways shall have a surface of bituminous or concrete and single-striped parking spaces." Section 36a. a. 2(a) states that the City Council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (I have listed these standards in the resolution on pages 21-22.) Criteria for Variance Approval: State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be pm to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. PUBLIC SAFETY When the applicant applies for CDRB approval, the Director of Public Safety's recommendation will include the following: 1. The service doors should have alarms and be well lit. 2. There should be internal locks on the overhead doors. 3. There should be additional site lighting around the existing buildings and property. ENGINEERING When the applicant applies for CDRB approval, the City Engineer's recommendation will include the following: The owner installing concrete curb and gutter along the west side of the parking and display area between the ~ontage road and the south edge of the bituminous. This is to control drainage, and shall be built with the Phase I construction. The owner or contractor installing catch basins in the parking lot that will discharge to the f~ontage road ditch that is west of the site. The City Engineer must approve the plan for this before it is constructed with Phase I. 3. Record with Ramsey County all utility easemems required by the City Engineer. These include easements for the utilities in the former Cope Avenue fight-of-way. p:sec9\vwsaab.gwo A~achmen~: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Location Map Property Line/Zoning Map Proposed Site Plan Letler from John Schmelz dated August 18, 1994 Supplement to CUP application Landscaping Attachment with · Site, Landscaping and Screening Plan Frontage Road right-of-way Vacation Resolution Conditional Use Permit Resolution Colored Site Plan (separate attachment) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 ~SEb R~GHT-OF.-W~Y VACATION EMBERS 15 (.tO 1,4. 1255 2280 MENARDS 2255 1143 4 1233 2266 · KEY · R1 -- SINGLE DWELLINGS I "~ ~! ~ ~1~::.~ ~:~1 R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS LEI. AND M1 - LIGHT MANUFACTURING ;'7 "T ~,~T'::;.[71u ,,o,.,. ~.,., - 10 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Attachment 3 ,{ PHASE TWO ~, ' PROPOSED SITE PLAN August 18, 1994 Attachment 4 Mr. Michael McC-t~ Manager, City of Maplewood 1830 E. Cmmty Road B Maplcwood, Mn. 55109 Re: Schmclz Countrysidc Volkswag~ Inc. Dear Mr. McCrt~: Wc arc reques~_o revim~ to a property linc descn~ by a public right-of-way. Please refer to thc attached document. Wc recently hired an Architectural finn to deeei? improvements to our Maplcwood facility. Thc architect recommmded ~ wc acquirc a proinrty survey, that su,-vey proccss revealed several issues which should be resolved before our architects architects can proceed. One of thosc issues is the configuration of thc right-of-way linc at thc northwest corner of the propcrty. Wc cnc]osc a part of thc sutwcy print showing thc area involved. You will note thc sur~ shows a jog in thc northwest comer which curiously increases thc right-of-way for S.T.H. 36. Thc linc drawn diminishes our prolm*ty by about 17.5 feet for a length of about 84 feet, creati~ a subjcct area of about 1400 square feet. Issues which Icad to our rcqucst ar~ as follows: a. Thc city, wilign thc last two years, revised its zonin~ ordinances in such a way that "Countryside" faces a hm'gsh~p in respect to its improvk~ and further devd~ its lon~-standing and succcssful busiuess, and part of the City of Maplcwood. b. Specifically, ncarly all of om' existi~ business is conducted witlfin Maplewood's recently imposed 350 foot separation between residential and commercial and vehicle rcpair operations. Our architect is in thc processs of prepa~ an application for a Conditional Us~ Permit ~ thc problem hcr~n referred to. c. Discmsion with city staff'has r,~wcalcd no apparent value of thc jog to thc right- of-way for thc cxistin~ location of thc jog, and neither thc surf nor Countryside see any practical or ~ignifcant reasons for thc jog and/or for not re-aligning thc jog per ~ request. Our archP, ects f~el that thc jog in the propmiy is of no public value on thc adjolni~ road, but is v~n3' valuable and ~s~nfial to Counlryside's efforts to m/nim/ze thc rear properly encroachments imposed by the new ord/mmces. 12 cominuous curvc consistcnt with thc sUe, ct ccntcrlinc from cast to wcst, ~nd that thc jog to increase in right-of-way bc rcloc, etcd to bc ·northcrly cxtcnsion of our wcst M'opcrty linc. Your most prompt attention to our rcqucst will have an important cffcct on our plamfing ·nd design schedule. It is our intcnt to apply for a Conditional Usc Permit very soon so placc to coordinatc with thc street rcconsm~fion projcct. co _qv ..Tsm_ mc. Supplement to Conditional Use Application for Countryside Volkswagen, Inc. 1180 East Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55109 Telephone: (612) 484-8441 Contact: John Schmelz The following information has been prepared by Charles Levin Architects 2414 East 26th Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 Telephone: (612) 729-5333 Contact: M. Terry Lerkln Attachment 5 SUMMARY The applicant specifically requests the following Conditional Uses from the City of Maplewood: A. Relief from Ordinance Section 36-151 subparagraph (b)(9)(c) requiring a 350 foot setback from residential zones to vehicle repair; applicant requests establishment of a 75 foot setback from the R3 district and 235 feet from the R1 district (see attached drawing). B. Relief from Ordinance Section 36-28 subparagraph (c)(5)(a) requiring a 15 foot setback from front property line to parking; applicant requests elimination of the setback requirement (see attached drawing). C. Relief from the time requirement that '...construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of Council approval...'; applicant requests elimination of the time requirement since implementation of construction is to be phased in over a several year period (see attached drawing). D. Assurance from the City that any Conditional Use Permit (if granted) will remain in effect as long as the property use does not change, even ff Ownership changes. CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: M1 CURRENT USE The property is currently used for motor vehicle sales and service, as was established in 1966. Applicant does not propose any change in use. REASONS FOR APPUCATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND SCOPE OF REQUEST A. Good business practices and recent manufacturers requirements have led to the need for remodeling and expansion of the existing facility. Recent City Ordinance changes have caused a hardship on the Applicant by restricting the Applicant's ability to improve and expand their facility in order to remain competitive in their marketplace. Specifically, motor vehicle repair services are required to be set back 350 feet from residential districts. Improvement and expansion of the existing facility will not be possible without a variance from this ordinance requirement. Therefore, the aoolicant rea_uests establishment of a oermanent. 75 foot east/west setback line established at the south end of the existin_a Body_ Shoo(see attached drawinoL Application Supplement Page 1 of 4 14 1335: 9/20/94 Existing site conditions on the north side of the applicant's property include a 15 foot wide landscaped boulevard (on City property) separating the Applicant's property from the service road. The applicant historically and currently displays vehicles up to their property line. Planned improvements to the service road by the City Include increasing the road width by 5 feet toward the Applicant's property, thereby reducing the landscaped boulevard width from 15 feet to 10 feet. The Intent of the setback is to provide a landscaped area separating the roadway from parking. The new boulevard configuration, combined with a limited amount of the Applicant's property, will satisfy the spirit of the requirement as well as allowing ail signage and lighting to be located on the Applicant's property. Therefore. the aD_ plicent rea_ _ue~__s reduction of the setback reauirement from 15 feet to 3 feet. Planning for growth is good business. The attached plan shows how phased improvements will be sequenced for construction. The Applicant is committed to the construction of Phase 1, but does not have a specific time frame for the construction of Phase 2. (see affached drawing). Therefore. the ao01icant ren_uests an o_Den ended time reouirement for full imolementation (eS is oranted to PUD's with acoroved 0hasinq _plans). in lieu of the one-year im_Dlementation rea_uirement with the additional year extension _possibility. D. No one can predict the future. Therefore, the aoolicant rea_uests documented assurance from the City_ that any_ Conditional Use Permit (if granted)_ will remain in effect as Iona as the DroDerty- use does not chanoe. even if Ownershi_r) chanaes. RESPONSES TO CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL USE CONFORMITY: The existing use will not be changed. All improvements will be designed, maintained, constructed and operated in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances (subject to the requests contained herein). CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The improvements will enhance the existing character of the surrounding area by revising the site layout to include one cohesively designed building, rather than the three dissimilar buildings which exist now. New lighting fixtures will upgrade the visual quality of the site by conforming to requirements for controlling lamp visibility. New signage will will add to the unity of the site by being designed integrally and compatibly with the building esthetics. 3. PROPERTY VALUES: Since the use will not change, the Applicant suggests that adjacent properties will realize a positive effect from upgrading of the Applicant's property. Application Supplement Page 2 of 4 15 1335:9/20/94 HAZARD AND NUISANCE FACTORS: Although no change to the existing conditions will occur since planned Improvements will not be located nearer to adjacent uses than they already are (subject to the requests contained herein), the Applicant offers the following information for review by the City stall and City Council: NOISE: Modem means, methods and techniques of vehicle .repair services create substantially less noise than previously associated with this activity; noise reduction is designed into services by the industry for the comfort and safety of the inhabitants of the facility. For example, body work is primary parts replacement, rather than parts repair. Additionally, the construction will be detailed for sound control toward the residential neighborhood by maximizing the sound-deadening quality of the exterior shell. The Applicant suggests that the expanded facility will generate equal or less noise than the existing facility. GLARE: Glare is produced by vehicles and lighting fixtures. The plan for the expanded facility contains vehicular movement within the existing lines of vehicular movement. New lighting fixtures will have non-visible light sources and appropriate foot candle levels as required by code. The configuration of the proposed construction will actually provide a shield between the used car display lot and the residential neighborhood and lighting of the south portion of the property will be directed away from residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the Applicant suggests, that by expanding the facility, he will be able to improve the control of glare. SMOKE, DUST, ODOR, FUMES AND AIR POLLUTION: New environmental regulations and new vehicle services technologies create substantially improved work environments which benefit both the employees of the facility and the environment in which the facility is located. Of particular interest is the existing Body Shop which contains a 'State-of- the-Art' self-enclosed, downdraft filtering and recycling system. The proposed improvements do not include Body Shop expansion. d. WATER POLLUTION: There is no use of uncontalned contaminants. In fact, the Applicant has previously removed all underground tanks from the site. e. DRAINAGE RUNOFF: There is no planned increase in the existing amount of hard surface area. f. VIBRATION: Other than normal truck traffic for delivery of product, there is no vibration causing activity. UNSIGHTMNESS: All trash is, and will continue to be, contained within enclosures. Hazardous waste is, and will continue to be, propedy contained and stored for disposal according to local, state and federal regulations. h. ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE: There is no site activity, either existing or planned, which will cause electrical interference. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC: The primary purpose of the expansion is to better serve an existing customer base and to respond to manufacturer's insistence on individualized identity of sales and services. The anticipated increase in vehicular traffic is minimal. 16 Application Supplement Page 3 of 4 1335: 9/20/94 o PUBUC SERVICES: The Applicant is not aware of any increased demand for public services which will be caused by the proposed expansion. COST FOR PUBUC FACILITIES OR SERVICES: As stated in #6, the Applicant is not aware of any Increased demand for public services which will be caused by the proposed expansion, thus, no cost is anticipated. SITE FEATURES: New construction will be designed to coordinate with the existing pdmary structures and with existing grading, paving and natural features. Signage, lighting and building esthetics will be upgraded and coordinated into a cohesive whole which will result in an overall improved image; landscaping will be included as part of the site design. POSSIBLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFEC'~. The applicant is, and continues to be, pro- active in his desire to create an environmentally sound and safe facility for customers, employees and neighbors. Specific information on environmental concerns and actions is Application Supplement Page 4 of 4 17 1335:9/20/94 Landscaping attachment to Maplawood CUP Application Countryside Volkawagen, Inc. Page1 of 3 Attachment 6 Problem Statement 1. Maplewood has requirements for providing a landscaped perimeter where · non-residential use abuts residentially property as well as requirements regarding screening of parking lots. Goal Statement Based on Maplewood requirements as mated on the CUP application form 1. Maximize the preservation of, and incorporate, the site's natural and scenic features 2. Do not diminish value of existing or planned character of surrounding areas 3. Do not depreciate property values Exletlna Conditions 1. An existing 6'-0" high chain link fence is in place. This fence was installed to provide security for the Applicant's property. The fence is in good condition and is valued at $10,000. 2. The elevation of the adjacent apartment building is 11'-0' higher than the Applicant's property (at the perimeter). 3. As shown on the attached Landscape Screening Proposal, substantial landscaping exists on adjacent properties and provides significant existing screening. This landscaping ranges from vine covered chain link fencing to trees exceeding 50 feet in height. Proooeed Solution: The applicant desires to spend landscaping money effectively. After considering many options, the Applicant has concluded that the cost of providing 6'-0' high solid screening would be wasted money, since it will not solve the screening problem due to property elevations. Considering the existing vegetation placement, Applicant proposes to install evergreen trees to fill gaps in the existing vista. For year around screening, and to achieve the heights which would be most most effective, the spruce family appears to be the best choice. Unlike the pines, the spruce tend to hold their lower branches into maturity; the pines drop them as they age. The upright junipers (red cedar) and arborvitae (white cedar), don't typically get very tall, especially the cultivars which are readily available from the nurseries. The Applicant proposes to install primarily Black Hills Spruce, with Colorado green and blue spruce mixed in for variety of texture and color. Upon installation, these trees will be 10-12 feet in height Mature height ranges from 60-75 feet; height is expected to increase at' I 1/2 to 2 feet per year. The Applicant feels that this investment will better resolve practicle visibility issues and will enhance the natural features of his and adjacent properties. 18 z~ i I page SITE, LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING PLAN Attachment 8 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz of Countryside Volkswagen applied for the vacation of the following described street right-of-way: That part of the Highway 36 frontage road right-of-way that is 17.5-feet wide by 84-feet long next to the northwest comer of the property at 1180 Highway 36 East (PIN 09-29-22-42-009). WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On December 19, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this vacation. On January ,1995, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices 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: Subject to roads and easements; the West 110 feet of Blocks 14 and 17 and the East 240 feet of Blocks 15 and 16, Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. 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 only needs a drainage and utility easement on this part of the right-of-way. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the City keeping a drainage and utility easement over this fight-of- way. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1995. 20 Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz applied for a conditional use permit to expand a vehicle maintenance garage within 350 feet ora residential lot line. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Countryside Volkswagen at 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: Subject to roads and easements; the West 110 feet of Blocks 14 and 17 and the East 240 feet of Blocks 15 and 16, Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, and Except the North 30 feet; and except the South 174 feet, the West 225 feet of the East 255 feet of Block 10 and also the West 105 feet of the East 135 feet of the North 30 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On November 21, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council this permit. On December 12, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thc City Council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, baTardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water nm-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 21 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximi?e the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. There would not be a significant affect on the development of the parcel as zoned. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. All vehicles shall be parked on a paved parking lot. (This is a Code requirement.) The City must approve any plans for expanding the paved parking areas. The City may limit the vehicles stored or displayed on the site if the City decides that there is insufficient on-site parking. 4. The property owner shall install and maintain screening along the south lot line to meet the City Code. 5. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 6. All dumpsters on the site shall be enclosed as required by City Code. 7. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1995. 22 MEMORANDUM. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development January Planning Commission Meetings December 9, 1994 The January Planning Commission meetings fall on holidays. The Commission should reschedule these meetings. I recommend the following Tuesdays (January 3 and 17). p:miseell/meefings.gwo