Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/20031. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 21, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. April 7, 2003 5. Public Headngs a. Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment and Update 6. New Business a. Street Right-of-Way Vacations - Maplewood Middle School (HolloWay and Lakewood) b. Frontline Church Conditional Use Permit - 2055 White Bear Avenue 10. c. County Road D Extension Right-of-Way Study (Hazelwood to Highway 61) 1. Alignment Study and Options 2. Storm Water and Wetland Study 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Apd114 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai b. April 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller c. May 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour Date - June 30, 2003? 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: 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 if 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 close 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. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER There was a joint city council and planning commission workshop held in the Maplewood room from 6:00 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for March 17, 2003. The recording secretary submitted a new set of revised minutes at the planning commission meeting. Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the planning commission minutes for March 17, 2003, as distributed at the planning commission meeting. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach Abstention - Dierich VI. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 04-07-03 PUBLIC HEARING None. NEW BUSINESS a. Utility Easement Vacation - Schroeder Milk (2080 Rice Street) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bob Banken, of Schroeder Milk Company, is requesting that the city council vacate a water utility easement on the Schroeder Milk property. There was once a water main located within this easement. It has since been removed and the water main rerouted. Mr. Roberts said this easement now remains in place and lies beneath the applicant's building addition. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Bob Banken, Plant Manager for Schroeder Milk Company, 2080 Rice Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Banken said he did not have any questions for the commission. There were no questions by the commission for the applicant. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report for the vacation of the water utility easement on the Schroeder Milk property. The reason for this vacation is because the easement is no longer needed due to the rerouting of the water main. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach This item will go to the city council on April 28, 2003. VII, UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. COunty Road D Extension EAW Review - Chuck Ahl Mr. Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works said that on March 31, 2003, the city council tabled final action until April 14 on the EAW for the County Road D Extension. The city council directed that the findings of fact on the EAW be sent to the planning commission for comment. Similar to the AUAR document, this is an environmental stUdy of the proposed road alignment. The planning commission's opposition to this alignment has been noted. The commission's role is to comment on the environmental impacts should this road alignment be selected by the city council. The commission should review and provide a recommendation on the EAW as it relates to this particular road alignment. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl if this EAW is for this suggested alignment and if the cit,' council decided to go with a different alignment would the commission review another report? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -3- Mr. Ahl said that is correct. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Ahl if the desire was to have the access to the auto dealerships stay on TH 61 or come out onto County Road D instead? Mr. Ahl said MnDot noted in their letter that they are adamant about closing both access points at County Road D. Minnesota case law states closing of a median is non compensatory. In other words, a governmental unit can put a median on and provide reasonable access, which word mean a right in and a right out. However, if MnDot closed either access point to the east or the west of existing County Road D, they are opening themselves up to some type of litigation so they have carefully worded their letter. Mr. Ahl said he would anticipate that happening in the near future as MnDot proceeds and identifies the funding options for this area. Chairperson Fischer said if the access would be coming off County Road D, which would mean driveways disturbing some wetlands, has that been computed in the figures as the worse case scenario? Mr. Ahl said because there are a number of options for.access, staff has not calculated that yet. Additionally, they see that a frontage road might be necessary to provide access, however, a frontage road would be a private roadway and any mitigation and applications would be the responsibility'of the property owners. Therefore, the government funding would not be involved in that and staff has not included it. They believe a frontage road is something that would need to be a MnDot initiative. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Ahl what method the city uses to keep the sewer pipes from sinking in poor soils? Mr. Ahl said the city is currently looking at that issue. The water main would probably use restrained joints to get a longer length through that area. The city may have to go to a steel pipe system for the sanitary system. Both the city and Mr. Mogren are checking to determine if the city needs to go through the wetland area of the golf course property or not. The city may not put the piping under the roadway segment. The roadway segment will sink slowly over time. If the city keeps the sanitary sewer and water main out of the roadway embankment, the hope is that the sinking will occur in the roadway and not in the piping system. Commissioner Rossbach asked when the public would hear about this and voice any concerns? Mr. Ahl said the intent is to have this item at the April 14 city council meeting, have it come back to the planning commission on April 21, and then there will be notices sent out notifying residents of the public hearing at the city council meeting on Monday, April 28, 2003. Commissioner Rossbach said in the report there is discussion about work hours and waivers for working outside the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. timeframe. He asked what the waiver means and if this is common for the city to grant? Mr. Ahl said the waiver provision is noted in the document and it is in the code. Maplewood tries to stay within the Monday through Saturday 12-hour timeframe from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with no work done on Sunday. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -4- Mr. Ahl said, however, because of utilities and traffic impacts, the city will authorize work outside those hours. The city tries to notify the neighbors if those hours should happen to change. When, gets late in the season, and there are weather conflicts, the city occasionally grants those types of waivers. Commissioner Rossbach said he noticed in the report that the construction will begin in November 2003. He asked why construction would begin in November when the ground is hard? Mr. Ahl said to construct a roadway project through wetlands it is best to surcharge the site through a freeze-thaw cycle so there is less sinking. The goal is to get the fill material on the surface by November 2003, so it would go through the freeze-thaw cycle. Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Ahl about the evaluation of the zoning for the area west of TH 61 and when the evaluation would take place? Mr. Ahl said assuming things are approved the evaluation would be presented to city council on April 14 and to the planning commission April 21. He said those dates can change as both the city council and the planning commission request more time to review these particular items. Commissioner Dierich said on page 9 of the EAW states there is a possibility that the city would be denied a stop light by MnDot at the intersection of County Road D and TH 61. Mr. Ahl said MnDot said they would deny a stoplight at the current intersection of County Road D and TH 61. However, MnDot stated that they would approve a stoplight for the realignment ¢ County Road D to the south and the intersection of TH 61. Commissioner Dierich said on page 10 of the EAW it says the road would be designed to accommodate all forms of traffic. She asked Mr. Ahl what exactly did all forms of traffic mean? Mr. Ahl said all forms of traffic' means pedestrian movement, transit movements, and vehicular turning movements. He said it means that all turn lanes will be provided for the vehicles at the new intersection. Commissioner Dierich said regarding the statement on page 12 of the EAW, has MnDot given the city any decision on that interchange? Mr. Ahl said MnDot is stating that they don't have the funds available. Governor Pawlenty submitted a billion dollar proposal to move road improvement projects ahead, but it will also move some projects back. The Unweave the Weave Project will be moved forward. That project will include some improvements to the Highway 61 and Highway 694 interchange. Because that interchange will handle some detour traffic of the Unweave the Weave project (which will separate Highway 35E and Highway 694) there will be some road improvements. That project is in the MnDot work plan for the years 2011 to 2015. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -5- Commissioner Ledvina moved to recommend that the planning commission recommended to the city council adoption of the attached resolution receiving the findings of fact for the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) on the County Road D Realignment Project (city projects 02-07 and 02-08) and approving the finding of no significant impact for the projects. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach b. Legacy Village AUAR Review Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, said that on March 31,2003, the city council considered the final approval of the AUAR for the Hartford Group. After discussion, the city council tabled action until April 14 and requested that the planning commission and the five property owners along Hazelwood Avenue receive a full copy of the report and mitigation plan. Previously, planning commission members had received a staff summary of the report. The planning commission had previously stated their opposition to the current alignment of County Road D and the intensity of the density of the Hartford Group proposal for the Legacy Village site. This opposition has been noted. The planning commission's role, at this point, is to review the AUAR as the environmental review document that it is intended - not as a land use document. The assumptions of the AUAR do not imply approvals of density, only an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of such a proposal. The AUAR is intended to establish the limits of environmental impact. The planning commission's comments should be limited to review of the mitigation for the impact and the subsequent plans. The comments regarding the intensity of development and alignment of roadways will be the subject of future meetings when the. city reviews the actual proposal potential for Legacy Village. Commissioner Mueller said looking at the Hartford Group document north of the power lines it shows townhouses and condominiums for sale. He asked if those housing units were included in the total number of housing units? Mr. Ahl said yes, those are included in the total number of housing. Chairperson Fischer asked what does the water commission or the wastewater sewer board say on getting the sewage capacity under this proposal? Mr. Ahl said they are currently on their way to having those particular items resolved. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission recommended this plan that it in no way obligates the commission to approving any particular item in this proposal? Mr. Ahl said this is not a land use approval document. It is only one part of the list. It doesn't mean that if there 850 housing units and they revise it to have 1,000 housing units that it would not have to come before the commission for a review because it most definitely would need to come back for review. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -6- Commissioner Ledvina asked about the wastewater flow data. He is wondering why the applicant estimated the wastewater flow using the sewer access charge method and why it was viewed a~ inaccurate? He said on page 25 of the AUAR report there is a table of wastewater flow and the numbers they are using relates to the Woodbury meter readings. He wondered why they disagreed with the developers in the calculation of the wastewater flow calculation? Mr. Ahl said the discussion with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services was that in the year 2000 it was found that the city was estimating nearly double the amount of sewage to be generated by the city's land uses. He said in raw numbers the city was estimating 2000 gallons per acre. Mr. Ahl said what the city has found is, that the city was taking more capacity out of the interceptors or (SAC). What that does, is buy the community capacity and interceptors and the city was taking more than their share. Basically the city was using numbers that were double than that of other communities. The Metropolitan Council recommended that city staff use the Woodbury and Plymouth Comprehensive Plans and the sewage figures in those plans when developing Maplewood's numbers. Commissioner Desai said there have been environmental studies done for the Blanding's turtles and native plants but he asked what the plans were with displacing animals such as deer that live in the area? Mr. Ahl said there is a section in the report on page 11 that talks about the displacement of wildlife in the area. He said as the city urbanizes the area, they are finding many of the animals such as deer are adapting to the changes just like the Canadian goose has. Commissioner Rossbach asked what multi-family really means and what the difference is between row houses, townhouses, and multi-family residential? Mr. Roberts said it is all a combination. Row houses are connected together and town homes are typically connected, but not always, and are run by an association. Multi-family housing includes rental apartments; row houses can be rental or owner occupied, and senior housing is usually rental. Commissioner Rossbach asked because of the freeway and other noise levels, is there a need for additional insulation in the walls? He said the standard wall is 51/2 inches in depth and he asked if staff is considering requiring the developer to build thicker walls on the north side? Mr. Ahl said the city would not require a thicker wall but would require the developer to use a higher grade of insulation to provide better soundproofing. He said there would also be a requirement of the developer to use a higher quality window to reduce noise levels. Chairperson Fischer asked if the city can require developers to use a higher-level product than what is required by the UBC code or does the UBC code say you can require higher standards because of the level of noise in the area? Mr. Ahl said it is his understanding that the UBC code can require a higher class of insulation and better quality window then the normal UBC code. He said the city has the option to require that the developer follow these codes because of the noise mitigation and it is strongly recommend becaus~ of future litigation. Commissioner Mueller asked if the city is fond of this plan so far? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -7- Ms. Coleman said the plan date-stamped February 12, 2003, is only a beginning point. She said the Hartford Group has paid for an outside planning consultant, Phil Carlson from DSU to review the plans. Mr. Carlson has been working with city staff evaluating the plan that the commission sees before them. Ms. Coleman said the city staff's initial reaction is that there is too much there for the density. Staff is checking what other communities are doing in terms of density and where the density does and doesn't work. She said the first meeting between the Hartford Group and the city staff would be on Friday, April 11,2003. The first concern is there are too many units for the density and the units are too close together. Commissioner Dierich asked if the land will be developed one piece at a time or will this be an overlay district? She said she thought this area required a PUD? Ms. Coleman said this would be a PUD and the land will be developed in phases. As Mr. Ahl said, the first phase will be the row houses, senior housing, multi-family and the Ashley Furniture Store. The city does not have a corporate developer yet for the pieces of land to the north. She said the city will give an overall ballpark density and they will come in and have individual phases approved. So the city will be negotiating separate parcels as developers come forward, which is the way the .market works. She said the city wanted to see more corporate in the area and the city is disappointed that there hasn't been anyone interested in the corporate site. Commissioner Dierich said on page 31 of the AUAR it states no matter what alignment the city chooses for County Road D, the AUAR is going to be okay for the whole area. She asked if that is the case, will the city have to do new reports for sewer studies, drainage changes, ponding and mitigation pieces if a different alignment is chosen? Mr. Ahl said he would anticipate the city would be required to have new drainage studies if the alignment is changed. He said what that statement says is that all of the alignments considered provide the adequate traffic mitigation for this site. The EAW study is only for one alignment. The storm water plan Would have to be revised and the sewer and water would likely have to be redone as well. Commissioner Dierich asked what would a typical noise decibel level be? Mr. Ahl said a guess is in the 45 to 50 decibel level for a typical neighborhood, which is fairly common with normal background noise. He said an example of a higher decibel level is a lawnmower, which can get up to 65 to 70 decibels. The issue is the freeway noise that is generated, which will be a 60 to 70 decibel level of noise a day. The current state acceptable noise level for daytime noise is 65 decibels. However, that standard changes at 10:00 p.m. when it goes down to a noise decibel level of 55. Unfortunately, the freeway noise doesn't go below 55 decibels until after 11:00 p.m. when the traffic level goes down significantly. He said that is where the noise levels are at almost all the locations along the freeway systems in Maplewood. Commissioner Dierich said on page 52 of the AUAR it states the city is not anticipating substantial impacts on the Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale school system. She asked if the estimated 800 units being built there in the near future, wouldn't you estimate that possibly 50% of those families would have children? She asked if that would impact the school system and inquired what schools would those children attend school? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -8- Mr. Ahl said the information received from District 622 is that there is a declining enrollment of students at Maplewood, North St. Paul and Oakdale. The school district has been given informatio~ on the Legacy Village proposal and the district is counting on the potential of children enrolled in the school district in the near future. Commissioner Dierich said the Metropolitan Council stated in the report that they wanted a tree inventory done; she asked when the city might see that plan? Mr. Ahl said he was informed the tree inventory is currently being prepared. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item? City council member, Kathleen Juenemann, residing at 721 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said the city council would be having much discussion about the Legacy Village proposal. The city council has many questions and concerns regarding the density and the wetland issues as well. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend that the planning commission recommend that the city council adopt the resolution approving distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review Document and Mitigation Plan for Legacy Village, City Project 02-18. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on April 14, 2003 and will come back to the planning commission on May 5, 2003. c. Zoning Code Amendment - New Mixed Use District (Hillcrest Village) Mr. Roberts said the planning commission tabled this item on March 17, 2003. He is now bringing it back to the planning commission for further discussion. Mr. Roberts said last October, the Maplewood city council extended a development moratorium for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area so that staff could draft zoning and design standards based on "smart-growth" development principles. Staff's goal is to have an ordinance submitted to the city council for their acceptance before the moratorium ends on October 28, 2003. To accomplish this, staff proposes a series of meetings with the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) to receive comments and guidance from each committee in the preparation of these standards. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on land uses proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new Mixed-Use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. Commissioner Rossbach said staff must have determined that to accomplish what they wanted t~ the current zones would not work and therefore, a new zone needed to be created. His concern is creating a new zone could be used against the city. He wondered what would happen if a person came in and wanted to change the zoning for their proposal? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -9- Mr. Roberts said he does not envision the newly created zone being used against the city. He said the reason is, that when the intent and purpose is written for the newly created zone, anyone that would want to use the new zone elsewhere in the city would have to convince the city council that what they are proposing meets that intent and purpose and they would be bound by those rules. Ms. Coleman said our current zoning classifications would not fit for this redevelopment area. She said the city is trying to get a handle on what was planned years ago with the City of St. Paul and the Metropolitan Council. She said the city council has made the Hillcrest Redevelopment Area one of their top priorities. On May 5, 2003, the planning commission will review the Capital Improvement plan, which takes into account heavy investments into this neighborhood. Staff would like the Hillcrest area to redevelop but are trying to determine if the Hillcrest area or the Gladstone area should be developed first. She said there seems to be more interest from the property owners in the Gladstone neighborhood over the Hillcrest area. The city is trying to work through a new zoning classification that would apply (at least in theory) in either of those neighborhoods. Looking ahead for the Hillcrest Redevelopment area the city came up with a new mixed-use development, a denser development, which keeps with the Met Council's goals. The city's objective is when businesses get relocating some of the businesses to make room for redevelopment that those businesses could be relocated in the Gladstone area or elsewhere in the city. Staff is interested in knowing if the planning commission thinks the land use is in the right ballpark because if there are things that are objectionable, then staff needs to know if they are going down the wrong path. Commissioner Rossbach said he does not think staff is going down the wrong path. He agrees with the statement in the report that there needs to be some detailed architectural designs. Chairperson Fischer said she agrees with Mr. Rossbach's comment. She asked staff which item on the planning spectrum is the item that the planning commission will be faced with first? Mr. Roberts said it the staff's intent to have a complete ordinance with the uses and the design elements in place by the end of the moratorium in October 2003. He said the city council would adopt the ordinance, set it on the Hillcrest area stating here are the new standards and the zoning for that zoning district. He said once the moratorium goes off, any of the properties within that area will be subject to the new zoning code. Ms. Coleman said the Walgreen's proposal that was rejected by the city council was denied by Maplewood because the developers weren't willing to bring the building up to the street close enough and they did not listen to the city's concerns regarding architectural details such as windows on the street and other details that the city embraced. She said this was all addressed in the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study and the Hillcrest Redevelopment Area plan done in conjunction with the City of St. Paul. In her opinion, the most important thing would be the design characteristics. The city would want to prepare the boulevard and street-scaping and also require the buildings to be built up to the street, be pedestrian friendly, and provide for transportation. She said there could be a joint meeting between the planning commission and the community design review board to review these types of issues. Chairperson Fischer asked staff how far east or west the city is referring to for this redevelopment plan? Ms. Coleman said the redevelopment would be basically from Van Dyke Street to White Bear Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -10- Commissioner Pearson said one of the items discussed in the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study was the issue of parking on the streets. He said the City of Maplewood does not allow vehicles to b, parked on the streets overnight and the City of St. Paul does. He said he wondered which parking rules would take effect for this redevelopment. Chairperson Fischer said she did not believe there were any carriage houses in Maplewood and she wondered why they were included in the new TN2 zoning definition on page 16 of the staff report? Commissioner Rossbach said since Ms. Fischer brought up the issue of carriage houses, he said maybe he needs a better understanding of what a carriage house is. He thought a carriage house was a separate garage with living quarters above it for the servants to live in. Ms. Coleman said the way a carriage house was presented to her was that it was basically a townhouse with an accessory residence above the garage. She said in today's world this type of home could be applicable. Many adults find the need to move their elderly parents into their homes. A so-called carriage house would be a good example of that use. The carriage house idea was something that was accepted by the people in the working groups when this was written in the planning process. She said the market will drive the idea of a carriage house and if there is a developer that wants to build these carriage houses the city will entertain the idea, if they come up with an alternative plan the city will look at that as well. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the city means there will be a development of carriage houses? Ms. Coleman said no, this was only a small piece of land on the west side of Larpenteur Avenue White Bear Avenue. The carriage homes were referred to as the Mews townhome. It was defined as a row of townhomes, with a row of garages, with accessory apartments on top. Mr. Roberts said a carriage house would be subordinate. He said it would almost be an accessory use to the primary townhouse. Commissioner Mueller said he attended a meeting today and heard the new Ventura Village located in Minneapolis recently approved such carriage homes. He asked staff if the City of St. Paul has considered changes in their zoning regulations? Ms. Coleman said the City of St. Paul is in the process of approving this plan and they are looking at approving their plan sometime this fall. Planning commission members had an open discussion regarding the proposed land uses (permitted, conditional and prohibited) on pages 5 through 7 in the staff report. Planning commission members agreed with the recommended land uses in the staff report. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -11- COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the March 31, 2003, city council meeting. Mr. Trippler was absent from the planning commission meeting. Mr. Rossbach attended the March 31,2003, city council meeting and he gave a presentation on it. Items discussed included: 10. Schmelz Countryside storage/sales lot was approved 3 to 2. The applicant will no longer have the pond but they have planned on installing the ecosystem parking lot. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment area was approved ayes all. The AUAR for Legacy Village and the EAW for the County Road D Realignment was tabled. On July 26, 2003, there will be a party at Champp's Restaurant, which is a one-time event. The city council discussed the sewer, water main improvements, and lift station improvements. The city council discussed street improvements to Keller Parkway. The city council gave an update on the discussion of group homes in Maplewood. The Sibley Cove apartments will be reconsidered at the April 28, 2003, city council meeting. The city council discussed support for a local sales tax resolution for the City of Maplewood but it was tabled. The city council said they are looking for new ways to get funds for making city improvements because of all the cutbacks for the city and state the city needs a new way to replenish the funds. b. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative atthe April 14, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Home Occupation Hair Salon license on Pinkspire Lane and the Van Dyke Townhomes on Van Dyke Street. c. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the April 28, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Utility Easement Vacation for Schroeder Milk and the Sibley Cove apartment proposal will be reheard. Chairperson Fischer said there was a handout given to all planning commission members for the upcoming workshops on Land Use Planning. Ms. Coleman said money has been set aside for these workshops, so if members are interested in one of these workshops, contact Andrea Sindt or herself. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-03 -12- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Coleman said the handout given to commission members at the workshop has some action priority work plans in it. The commission should look through the handout because it relates to the redevelopment of the Gladstone and Hillcrest areas. Ms. Coleman said this would be coming before the planning commission at the May 5, 2003, meeting to discuss the capital improvement plan. With the Hartford Group and the Legacy Village proposal, the city council may have to meet on a weekly basis. Because the Legacy Village plan is so large, the city council may have to meet more then twice a month. Staff will keep the planning commission aware of discussions regarding this proposal. However, the planning commission may be asked to attend additional meetings along with the city council so all interested people can hear the discussion at one time. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update City Project 03-05 April 16, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description City staff and Jon Hom of Kimley-Hom and Associates have completed an update to the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan portion of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The city last updated the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan in November 2000. This 2003 update was necessary to address some inconsistencies in the previous update and to consider anticipated future development/redevelopment in the city. This update also was a requirement of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the proposed Legacy Village at Maplewood development, This is the project that has been proposed for the undeveloped area west of the Maplewood Mall. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION All sanitary sewage generated in Maplewood is conveyed to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor system. This system conveys the sewage to the MCES Pig's Eye Treatment Facility in St. Paul. The Metropolitan Council has established several general guidelines for the information that they require in the sewer element of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council uses this information to assist with the planning and management of all their collection and treatment systems. Staff has prepared this update consistent with the Metropolitan Council's requirements. The proposed update includes the following information: · A map showing sewer service districts, interceptor service areas and existing sanitary sewer infrastructure in the city. · Projected sewer flows for the city on an annual basis for the first five years and in five- year increments thereafter through 2020. · Maps showing the zoning and the land uses as proposed in the comprehensive plan. A proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Maplewood sanitary sewer system. We have attached a copy of the sewer district map for the city to this memorandum. The members of the planning commission may want to bdng copies of their zoning and land use maps to the meeting for reference. T ~ On January 31, 2003, the city council authorized a separate Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study of South Maplewood. This study was initiated to address land use and development issues in south Maplewood, focusing on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southern border. Short-Elliot-Henddckson (SEH), a consulting engineering firm, has completed a draft report detailing the results of this study. We have attached a copy of the draft report to this memorandum. We have incorporated the results of the South Maplewood Sewer Study into the overall Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. 2003 Study Details Staff made several assumptions when preparing the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. The following is a summary of some of these key assumptions: 1. 2003 sanitary sewer flows have been determined based on the current zoning map. Projected sanitary sewer flows for 2010 have been determined using the city's current zoning map along with assumed development/redevelopment in twelve areas of the city as follows: · Gladstone Area Redevelopment · Hillcrest Area Redevelopment · Miggler Property Redevelopment · Legacy Village Development · Mogren Golf Course Development · Kelco Development (west of Highway 61) · Sibley Cove Development · Parkway Ddve/TH 61 Redevelopment Area · Larpenteur Avenue/Adolphus Street Redevelopment Area · Van Dyke Street/County Road B Redevelopment Area · Century Avenue/Highway 5 Development Area · The South Maplewood Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study Area A map detailing these development/redevelopment areas and the assumptions made for each area is attached to this memorandum. We have used the land use and development assumptions detailed in the draft South Maplewood Sewer Study to determine the projected sewer flows for the area of Maplewood south of Linwood Avenue. Projected sanitary sewer flows for 2020 have been determined using the current Maplewood Land Use Map. It is important to note that the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update is only a planning document. In addition, the land use assumptions made above do not bind the city to any of these possible changes. Staff made the land use and sewer assumptions on a very conservative basis. Staff did this to identify the maximum sanitary sewer flows that could be generated by each of the sewer districts. The assumptions used to determine the estimated sanitary sewer flows will be discussed with the planning commission at the meeting. We are not proposing to have detailed discussions on the South Maplewood Sewer Study at the Apdl 21 planning commission meeting. Staff will schedule a separate presentation for the planning commission at a later date to review this information in greater detail. PUBLIC HEARING The city code requires that the planning commission hold a public headng when considering amendments to the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The city published the required notice for a public hearing on this matter for the planning commission meeting on Monday, April 21, 2003. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 4. This resolution approves the proposed Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update. Attachments: 1. Sewer Distdct Map 2. Draft Report for South Maplewood Sewer Study 3. Proposed Development/Redevelopment Area Map RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2003 COMPREHENSIVE SANITARY SEWER PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, an update to the Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan has been completed. WHEREAS, the update was necessary to address inconsistencies in the November 2000 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update and to consider anticipated future development/redevelopment in the city. WHEREAS, the update was also required to meet the mitigation plan requirements for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the proposed Legacy Village at Maplewood development. WHEREAS, the city code requires that the planning commission hold a public hearing when considering amendments to the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the planning commission held a public headng about this matter on Apdl 21, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update for the following reasons: The Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update provides the necessary information to meet the requirements identified in the mitigation plan for the AUAR for the Legacy Village at Maplewood development. The Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update provides the required information to allow the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to propedy plan and manage their sewage collection and treatment system. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on .,2003. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Street Vacations - Maplewood Middle School 2410 Holloway Avenue Apdl 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION Ron Parrucci, Director of Business Services for School Distdct 622, is requesting that the city council vacate two street rights-of-way on the Maplewood Middle School property. Refer to the maps on pages 3-4 and Mr. Parrucci's letter on page 5. The reason for the requested vacations is that one, Tierney Avenue right-of-way, lies in the location of the school. The other, Frisbie Avenue, lies within the athletic fields. Both are dead-end rights-of-ways that are not needed for street or utility purposes. The applicant wants to vacate these streets since there is no reason to keep them of record. BACKGROUND Maplewood Middle School was constructed in 1960 and 1961. DISCUSSION Dave Marruffo, of the St. Paul Regional Water Services, stated that they have no interest in these rights-of-way for utilities. They have no objection to their vacation. The city council should vacat® these street rights-of-way since there is no public purpose in retaining them. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page 6 for the vacation of the Tierney Avenue and Frisbie Avenue street rights-of-way at Maplewood Middle School. The reason for these vacations is that there is no public purpose in retaining them. Application Date The city received this application on March 19, 2003. this request by May 18, 2003. State law requires the city to take action on p:sec13-29~VlapMidSchoolVac.doc Attachments: 1~ Location Map 2. Property Line / Zoning Map 3. Letter from Ron Parrucci dated February 19, 2003 4. Street Vacation Resolution 2 Attachment 1 AVE. IDN"IO AVE,. PROPOSED ~RIGHT-OF-WAY~ VACATIONS }~i 1 2 ~ 3 4. BOIJC, AT LN $ COU(~R I.N AVE. IRAND · BRAND AVE. 2 ~ 3 ~ ~5 PIN~ 'rR~ 7 RO~t LOCATION MAP N Attachment 2 · · · · · · HOLLOWAY AVENUE -- RIPLEY AVENUE RI IEY 6 MAPLEWOOD~(!,) MIDDLE SCHOOL PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATIONS 103) ~,o~¥ 1 'TIERN ~/ME, RIPLE' 4 , I0 ,5/~, ,' ,, \ \ ool NORTH ST. PAUL - IVIAPLEWOOD - OAKDALE Attachment 3 District 622 THE DISTRICt 622 EDUCATION CENTER 2520 E. 12TM AVENUE, NORTH ST. PAUL, MN 55109 February 19, 2003 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Public VacatiOn Application To Whom It May Concern: Maplewood Middle School was constructed in 1960-61. The site of the school building and athletic areas are included within the two areas we are requesting for vacation. There are no additional property owners affected by this request for street vacation. Included with this application is a topographic survey done by Clark Engineering dated 10/29/01, with the requested vacation areas highlighted. Director of Busir~ss Services Enclosure A community partnership where learning and citizenship come first STREET VACATION RESOLUTION Attachment 4 WHEREAS, School Distdct 622 has applied for the vacation of the '13emey Avenue and Frisbie Avenue rights-of-way located on the Maplewood Middle School property, 2410 Holloway Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On Apdl 21, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these vacations. On , the city council I~eld 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 headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest in the property will go to the property located at 2410 Holloway Avenue, legally described as follows: All of Wiesner Park NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described street right-of-way vacations because there is no public purpose in retaining them. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Frontline Church 2055 White Bear Avenue Apdl 14, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bill Ardgoni, representing Frontline Church, is proposing to open a church in the existing ASI office/warehousing building at 2055 White Bear Avenue. (See the location and property line maps on pages 5 and 6 and the other maps on pages 7-9.) This would be a new location for the church that is now operating in Roseville on Hamline Avenue. Request To have the church in this location, Mr. Ardgoni is asking that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP). The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for churches and places of worship. (Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 10-12.) BACKGROUND On September 10, 2001, the city council approved a CUP for Sobriety High School to operate from the existing office/warehouse building on the site. DISCUSSION The proposed church meets the city's findings of approval for a conditional use permit. As proposed, the school would lease about 11,500 square feet of space in the existing 82,000 square-foot building. The church would use their space primarily on Sunday mornings and on Wednesday evenings. These times would not conflict with the other tenants in the building as they use their spaces pdmadly dudng the day on weekdays. For example, on a recent weekday, I counted 15 vehicles parked outside of the Sobdety High space. With a maximum service attendance of 350 people with about 100 vehicles occurring on Sundays, the existing parking lot should be adequate to handle the parking needs of the church and the existing tenants. There are about 170 total parking spaces on the site with 68 in the front of the building and the others around the building. In addition, Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, told me that he had no concerns with the church going into this building from a traffic perspective as the bulk of their activity would be on Sunday mornings when the traffic volume on White Bear Avenue is lower. As part of this project, the church is proposing to change a door on the east side of the building from a single-wide to a double-wide. This change is minor and will not affect the look of the building. The applicant should note that the city will require permits for any remodeling of the existing space. This will include having sprinklers and a fire alarm system that meets code requirements. Other Comments Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following conditions: 1. A fire protection (sprinkler) system is required. 2. Monitoring of all fire protection systems is required. 3. A lockbox is required for fire department access. 4. There shall be notification devices throughout the building. 5. Early warning devices (smoke detection) are required. Also see the comments from David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, on page 13 and the comments from Deputy Chief Banick on page 14. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 15 and 16. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for Frontline Church to operate in the building at 2055 White Bear Avenue. Maplewood bases this permit on the .findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans dated March 26, 2003, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed church must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The church shall meet the requirements of the city building official and the fire marshal. In addition, city staff shall determine the maximum capacity of the church upon review of the final floor and building plans. 4. The property owner or manager shall sweep and restripe the parking lot before the church occupies their space. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 38 properties within 350 feet of the site of the proposed school. Of the five replies, two were for the project, none objected and three had comments. For 1. Please approve - would be good for the city. (Berwald Investment Company - North Saint Paul) 2. Sounds great - unless the size changes (increase). (Lehmann - 2053 Prosperity) Opposed None Comments 1. My wife and I discussed this and have no objections. (Oswald - 1700 Rosewood Avenue) 2. We have no objections. (Owner - 2075 Prosperity Road) Our concern would be the large increase in traffic on Prosperity Road as it has already increased a lot these past few years. Sunday mornings most of us are going to church also! We have nothing against the church coming in. (Grealish - 2111 Prosperity Road) 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.8 acres Existing land use: Existing 82,000-square-foot office/warehouse building (17,712 square feet of office space and 64,288 square feet of warehouse/light manufacturing space) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Vacant property planned and zoned M-1 (light manufacturing) DNR Gateway Trail ^ single dwelling and Excel Air across Prosperity Road Maplewood Community Center across White Bear Avenue PLANNING Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for churches and for places of worship. Application Date We received the complete applications and materials for this proposal on March 26, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city council must act on these requests by May 24, 2003, unless the applicant requests a time extension. p:sec15/frontline church CUP.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Floor Plan 5. Proposed Floor Plan 6. Applicant's Statement 7. Apdl 1,2003 memo from David Fisher 8. Apdl 11,2003 memo from Deputy Chief Banick 9. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 4 Attachment 1 DEMONT VIKING SMERREN AVE. AVE. AVE. Loke RD. COPE RD. O~ O~ 1 AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. AVE. S. If-'ll' II I1®/~I 'l,-- ST. PAUL I~GOODRICH GOLF COURSE, RIPLEY AVE:. KINGSTON t PRICE AVE. MOLL LOCATION MAP t ~ Attachment 2 r ROAD 2032 BURKE AVE. 2080 2 .. t074.3. U 1665,~,~.o 7 ~ £WOOD ---.,, AVl 0 SITE 5, -I (48) 2055 (:],) 1721 i - t73~ $ 1732 .J PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 6 BURKE AVE E BURKE AVE E ROSEWOOD AVE N ROSEWOOD AVE S AREA MAP 1731 1732 1997 1726 7 ~tt&chm~n~t- 3 0 Attachment 4 If-- PROPOSED CHURCH AREA FLOOR PLAN PARKING LOT Attachment 5 z l March 26, 2003 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55 Dear Council Members,. Attachment 6 Frontline Church and Outreach Center Submitted for your consideration is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for Frontline Church and Outreach Center. We would appreciate your most thoughtful attention to this matter as this location is most desirous to us. Our entire congregation is elated about the prospect of relocating our church to the City of Maplewood. Use: Frontline Church is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to "lease" the property located at 2055 White Bear Avenue in Maplewood Minnesota. The property is owned by Berwald Investment Company and the portion ~e intend to lease consists of 11,530 square feet of office/warehouse space. A software development company previously occupied this space but has since vacated~ The warehouse portion (approximately 4500 sf) of the space was renovated for the lessee to be used as office space. There are no significant structu,ral changes, only the demolition of non-supporting walls t° Some larger spaces for children s classrooms and the main sanctuary. The owners have agreed to complete these changes at their own cost. The only exterior change will be to widen the main · entrance on the east side of the building to a double door entry and attach an awning that entrance. We would like to use this space to conduct Christian worship services on Sunday mornings at 10:00 am, and Wednesday evenings at 7:00 pm. We would also use the space for other traditional church functions such as weddings, social functions, and special meetings (concerts, plays) most of which would take place during evening or weekend hours. Conformity to Criteria: · The proposed Use is consistent with the venue it is located in, and will not change the character of its surroundings. There is a school; Sobriety High in the neighboring space of this property, We feel that the use ofa church is very consistent with a school since its primary functions are one and the same; assembly & education. We believe that our presence will be good for property values since our frequent activities during "off'hours" and evenings will bring activity to the area which deters crime, yet imposes no inconvenience to neighboring residential homes since the site is so far removed (over 1,000 ft) from residential homes. Frontline Church & Outreach Ce 2819 Hamline Avenue. Roseville MN ~ .3 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 651.636.2594 10 Frontline Midway Church & Outreach Center 1571 University Avenue. St Paul MN 55104 651,659.0151 None of the Church's activities will pose a nuisance to the community in terms of noise, pollution, odors, or hazards since we will not perform any type of manufacturing or handling of any hazardous materials. The only outdoor activities we would envision such as a children's class playing would be low impact in terms of noise. Any outdoor activities which are permitted by the owners of the building will only take place between the hours of 10:00 am and 8:00 pm which is consistent with city ordinances. All of our activities with the exception of weekly office functions will take place during non-business hours and therefore will not be a negative burden on vehicular traffic patterns. The existing accesses to the property are more than adequate for the capacity of the space we intend to leaSe. Currently our largest service attendance is at approximately 100 people and approximately 30 vehicles. Our total capacity if we should grow to that would be approximately 350 people which would require approximately 100 parking spaces. The parking lots on the premises provide over 175 parking spaces. · Since the property is currently used by several businesses our presence will not create any extra costs for public services which are already in place, and all of the needs of our visitors will be adequately met by the facilities contained within our proposed space, so we will put no further demand on public facilities. · Our presence will have no impact other than positive on the scenic features or environmental effects. We will have no control over exterior or landscaping changes since we will be in a lease situation, the owners are responsible for exterior maintenance and upgrades. Comments: · Churches are an asset to the communities that they serve in that we bring crucial services to the families of the community at no charge. The costs of these services are borne by the church organization thus freeing City and County Human Services from some of their financial burden. This is especially important in these times of budget cuts. I would like to also point out that most of our congregation come from various communities around the Metro area and as they attend church (many twice per week) they will patronize many of the businesses in the Maplewood community. It is also an accepted fact that some church members eventually relocate their residence to the city that their church resides in. Frontline Church was established in March of 1994 and now has a staff of five licensed and/or ordained ministers with Bible College degrees. We are experienced in dealing successfully with the gravest crisis in life. Our church has helped literal strangers who have come to us with the following problems; chemical addictions, terminal illnesses, unwed pregnancy, two refugees from Ethiopia, single parents, marriage problems, need of food, widows. We have provided toys for the poor children at Christmas, family meals at Thanksgiving and Christmas, love and training for dysfunctional children and families, 11 marriage counseling, the list could go on and on. We have risen to the occasion over and over at no cost to the individuals or the community, we are here to heal, bless, and to lead. We are well trained, experienced and ready to serve the City of Maplewood and its surrounding communities. We not only reach out to those in need but we are also here to provide "preventative medicine" by teaching and training people how to lead spiritually healthy lives so that they can avoid the pitfalls that seem to plague our society in epidemic proportions. I'm speaking of things like divorce, child abuse, chemical additions, domestic violence, sexual immorality and all of its ramifications. Consider for a moment that Churches serve as Peacekeepers in our communities like "police on the beat" and they are free of cost! We help families stay together, love one another, and lead happy successful lives. Not only are we there for the tough times but we develop a rich sense of community among those who attend where deep trusting and rewarding friendships are formed. As peoples lives unfold, Frontline is there with the wisdom of Christ to lead them in the steps of founding a healthy marriage, raising children and becoming productive, responsible and contributing members of their community. Our mission is, "we are here to help in meaningful and tangible ways." Our message is, "that everything we do as a church is an attempt to express the un-searchable riches of the love that God has for every person on the face of the earth." Thank you for the opportunity to share our vision and mission with you. We hope that you grant us this Conditional Use Permit so that we can come and be a part of your great City of Maplewood. Sinccfc,yt----~' ~ t , Bi~~'~/ ~/ Senior Pastor Frontline Church & Outreach Center 12 Attachment 7 Memorandum Toz From: Date: Re: Ken Roberts, Assoc. Planner David Fisher, Building Qfficial April 1, 2003 2055 White Bear Ave Due to the change in occupancy the building code will require total compliance for all aspects of the code. This will require an architect to design plans for the building and a mechanical engineer to design the mechanical and plumbing systems. The documents shall include a complete code analysis by the design professional. The bathrooms look undersized for assembly occupancy. The exiting does not meet code; I believe one-half of the exits for the sanctuary must exit directly outside. There are many separations required between the mixed occupancies. The fire sprinkler system may need to be upgraded. It will require a full NFPA 72 fire alarm system throughout the space. Accessible parking may need to be upgraded. 13 Attachment 8 Memo To: From: CG: Date: Re: Mr. Ken Roberts v' Deputy Chief Banick ~'~ Chief Thomalla 4/11/2003 PROJECT REVIEW - Front Line Church, 2055 White Bear Avenue RECEIVED I have reviewed the attached project proposal and currently have the following concerns: The section of White Bear Avenue from County Road B to Frost Avenue is becoming increasingly dangerous. Over the past year, we have had several serious mar-end traffic crashes in this area. Therefore, I am concerned that this project will contribute to an increase in vehicular traffic in an area that cannot accommodate a large increase without roadway improvements. I am also concemed about the safety and secudty of the patrons. Since this site is located adjacent to the Gateway Trail, I recommend that the current lighting plan be reviewed to ensure the safety of everyone. If you have questions, please contact me at ext. 4502. 14 Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bill Arfigoni, representing Frontline Church, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit for a church to operate in an existing office/warehouse building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2055 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SABIN GARDEN LOTS, SUBJECT TO ROAD; EXCEPT PART OF LOTS 4, 5 & 6 BLK 6 DESCRIBED AS COM AT SW CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 THEN NELY ON WESTERLY LINE SAID LOT 6 FOR 28 FT TO BEG; THEN SELY PAR TO SOUTHERLY LINE SAID LOT 6 FOR 391.56 FT THE NELY DEF LEFT 90 DEGREES FOR 263.26 FT THEN NWLY DEF LEFT 90 DEG FOR 270.39 FT TO POINT ON WLY LINE SAID LOT 4 SAID POINT BEING 318 FT NE OF SAID SW CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 THE SWLY TO BEGINNING; THE FOLLOWING PART OF SAID LOTS 4.5 & 6 LYING SLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT POINT ON WL SAID LOTS 368 FT NLY FROM SW CORNER SAID LOT 6 THEN SELY TO POINT ON EL OF SAID LOT 5 SAID POINT BEING 368 FT NORTH FROM SE CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 & THERE TERMINATING (PIN 15-29-22-11-0050) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On Apdl 21, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On May 12, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 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. 15 o The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. The city council may waive any of the above requirements provided the council determines that the balancing of public interest between governmental units would be best served by such a waiver. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans dated March 26, 2003, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed church must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The church shall meet the requirements of the city building official and the fire marshal. In addition, city staff shall determine the maximum capacity of the church upon review of the final floor and building plans. 4. The property owner or manager shall sweep and restripe the parking lot before the church occupies their space. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 16 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61 ) - City Project 02-07 County Road D Extension (West of TH 61 ) - City Project 02-08 Presentation and Discussion of Roadway Alignment Options and Storm Water/Wetland Issues - Discussion Only; No Action Proposed DATE: April 16, 2003 Introduction The realignment of County Road D between Hazelwood and TH 61 and also from TH 61 to Highridge Court has been discussed for over 16 months. Various alignments have been discussed and debated. There are numerous reasons that alignments will work, and won't work. There are a number of variations on each alignment that can be 'tradeoffs' to minimize impacts for one item, but may impact other issues. Our engineering team is prepared to present a number of the alignment issues and the storm water/wetland planning issues for consideration and discussion by the planning commission. The role of the commission as requested by the city council is to eventually provide a recommendation on the particulars of this alignment. This report also provides some background information on the final alignment discussion. The City Council has not provided any direction that would indicate a willingness to reconsider the current alignment discussion. The commission should limit the discussion to the issues around the options for alignment and the storm water and wetland presentations. Background On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61 at the Venburg Tire intersection and then realign County Road D west of TH 61 through the vacant property to the existing alignment on the east side of the Highridge Court development. That resolution was the culmination of many hours of discussion and debate with staff, agencies, other communities and property owners. A number of conclusions were reached in selecting the alignment and project approach. Project and Aliqnment Findinqs/Conclusions A detailed alignment study was prepared over a 16-month period. · The alignment report studied eight options and concluded that the best traffic option considering mall traffic would be a direct connection of County Road D to 1-694. Other alignments were found to have acceptable traffic solutions that approached traffic patterns of a direct connection to the freeway. · Approval of alignments along existing County Road D or directly to 1-694 were concluded to have negative impacts to TH 61 and 1-694 and were unlikely to be approved by MnDOT or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). · Mitigating the impacts to TH 61 and 1-694 of a proposed alignment along County Road D would exceed $12.0 - $15.0 million dollars. These would likely require 8-15 years to receive approval and construct. This mitigation has a 50% likelihood of being approved by FHWA under the best circumstances. · An alternative alignment south of existing County Road D has been shown to significantly improve Mall Area Traffic flow without the negative irhpact to traffic flow on TH 61 and 1-694. MnDOT and Ramsey County concur and support this finding. · This alignment has wetland impacts that must be mitigated. An environmental review has shown general agency support and minimal public opposition to the proposed mitigation. · A development has been proposed on the Hijacek property, called Legacy Village of Maplewood, which will impact area roadways. Planning Commission Agenda Report April 16, 2003 County Road D Realignment Page Two Studies show that a realigned County Road D will adequately accommodate the traffic from Legacy Village past 2010 and will coordinate with the improvements to TH 61 and 1-694 that MnDOT is planning for 2011-2015. · Legacy Village will help pay the $6.0 million cost of realigning County Road D. Reali,qnment Conclusion The possibility of reconsidering other alignments for County Road D has been discussed and proposed. The following are the conclusions regarding the current alignment: · Alignments at existing County Road D with direct connections to 1-694 or near the TH 61/I-694 intersection have a 25-50% chance of receiving approval. · The direct connection approval process would require $200,000 to $300,000 of funds to pay a traffic consultant due to the need to create a traffic model of the operational impacts to 1-694 and TH 61, a Federal Highway Administration requirement. · This process would likely take 4-5 years, during which the Hartford Group, the developer of the Hijacek property, withdraws from development. · The 4-5 years of study, plus 3-5 years of construction results in a 7-10 year delay in addressing the Mall Area traffic problems. The Mall Area Traffic study indicated that 25 of 36 intersections in the Mall Area would be failing by 2010 if no improvements were implemented. · The direct connection issue has previously been discussed, studied and debated by the City of Maplewood as early as 1984. Each study concluded that direct connections are beneficial to the Mall Area traffic but detrimental to the freeway and highway system and thus would not be approved by MnDOT. Process Enclosed with this report are a number of attachments that will be reviewed with the Planning Commission. The first sets of attachments are maps of various alignment options. The alignment options are shown as W-1 and E-1 through W-4 and E-5. This means that there are four options west of TH 61 shown on the various drawings and five options shown east of TH 61. Also included are options for intersection crossing at TH 61 that have varying impacts on the area businesses and property owners. Following each option is a listing of issues that begins to identify the land use impacts and opportunities, along with the identified positives and negatives of each alignment option. These alignment options will be reviewed in detail with the commission. The role of the commission is to provide input and discussion on the land use impacts of the alignment considerations. Following the alignment options information is a report on the storm water management for the area. Included on the maps are proposed locations for wetland mitigation and proposed storm pond locations. This report is a requirement of the AUAR process. It identifies the amount of wetland mitigation that will occur, along with enhanced protection measures within the Legacy Village project that will help the City implement storm water management and wetland protection measures throughout both the Legacy Village and County Road D projects. NOTE: Attached is a schedule of the planned approval process for the Legacy Village and County Road D projects. The Commission will be involved in reviewing these projects during the next two months. The City Council adopted this schedule on April 14th. Please note this schedule and direct any questions or need for further information to Public Works Director Chuck Ahl. Planning Commission Agenda Report April 16, 2003 County Road D Realignment Page Three Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the alignment options and the storm water management and wetland mitigation plan for the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02-07 and 02-08) and table further consideration until May 5, 2003. RCA Attachments: Alignment Options Report with Technical Memorandum Storm Water and Wetland Mitigation Plan Property Owner Letters Approval Schedule T ~ KELCO R~a~ F_~tat~ Devc]oprnerrt Set'vices 7300 Hudson Blvd. Suite 245 0akdale, MN 55128 Office: [651] 730-2020 Fa~: [65tj 730-2055 March 26, 2003 Mr.. [[on Horn ICimlcy-Horn & Associates, Inc. Suite 34b-~ 2550 University. AvenUe West St. Paul, MN 55114 City of Maplewood Project 02-08 . Trout Land, LLC Dear ~..H0~: ' ..~' '-'. County Road D Extension Thank you for forwarding the '~ve oPtionS'that are being discussed for ~he extension c; :County Road D west of Highway 61 in the City o£Maplewood. I also appreciate your informing'me of the Planning Commission and City Council meeting dateS. Please let me know if these dates do change. The following constitute the comments of Trout Land, LLC as owner of that land of ._ approximately 14.4 acres directly west of Higjaway 61 which will be impacted by the right-of- way required for the extension of County Road D. Option #1: This fight-of-way alignment most closely follows the ati=mament which-we had anticipated. This is the best alternative for us, by far. Option #2: In this alignment the north/south element of County Road D is further to the east which limits the amoum of land available to us on the east side of the new ati=mament .and increases the land on the west side which is contrary to the development requirements for the parcel. ,, Option #3: This ali=mmment is absolutely contrary to our ability to subdivide and utilize the property. In the first place, the area west of the neW alignment becomes totally unusable and not developable. We would require that the City acquire -chis land fi-om us as being so'adversely impacted that it would be useless to us. Also, the balance of the land to the east then beco~ __Mr. J_on.Hom. _ '_ March 26, 2003 Page 2 very large and'would have to be subdivided ~to at least four lots which would probably require additional service roads to provide access thereby making the project economically infeasible. Option g4: This also is an unacceptable option for' us. The land to the west of the new alignment is too large_..and the land to the east ~)f the alignment is 'too-small. It would be extremely difficuk to develop the land on the west side of the new alignment in uses that would be compatible with the residential property further to the west, bm the land is too large to be developed as a senior's co-op apartment development. The land 1-err to the east of the alignment is also adversely impacted because k is too small to be properly devel6ped for commercial uses with I-Ii. ghway 61 .frontage. Option #5: This option, as it impacts the Trout Land property, is similar to Option//4 and has all of the same negatives. There is no ~tuestion that Option #1 will be the preferred option'by Trout Land, LLC. tvrmor alternations to this such as a minor realignment of the intersection at Highway 61 more to the north and the location of the roadway exiting across the north boundary line being somewhat further to the west of its configm-ation as shown would be acceptable ,?:.:?.~::~:.? ~---.' ;Ion, I very much appreciate the opportunity'for us to provide our comments with respect to this -- "~ .. future right-of-way. Obviously it has a sigmificant impact on' our' d~9~lopment plans for the" , ~. property and request a discretion~ right-of-approval on the final alignment. We look'forward '- :: · to continuing working with the City in an effort to find the best aliment for all parties :"' concerned. Respectfully yours, ~es ~. Kellison ~/President , ~EI~jv C: Gonzalo Medina/Trout Land, LLC 1~ Charles Ahl/City of Maplewood VEN-BURG TIRE CO. Division-of-Mercorr~orporation 2990 Hwy. 61 North Maplewood, lViN 55109 651-483-2601 Fax 651-483-2881 March To: From: 28, 2003 City of MaPlewood: Mayor Robert'Cardinal, City Council Members: Ken Collins, Kathleen Juenemarm, Marvin Koppen & Julie Wasiluk, City Manager Richard Fursman, Public Works Director Chuck AN, Engineering & Planning Depts. Pat & Carol McFarlane Venburg Tire Co. Owners County Rd. D Realignment Project We would like to take this opportunity to share our support of the City's recommendation for County Rd. D realignment project west of Hwy 61 (the UP, S, Inc.'s plan W-2 proposal at the_ intersection of Hwy. 61 and plan W-3 for the northern part of that proposed road.) Venburg Tire has been located at its present location for over 30 years. Carol's father, Keith VenbUrg, founded the company and we are the owners of the business. We are currently leasing the land and building from Carol's brother, Keith Venburg II. We employ 11 full time and 4 part time staff. Our son's, are actively involved in this family business and plan continuation of the 'third generation. The impact of all of the proposals for the project east of HWY. 61 severely inhibit us from continuing to conduct business at that location. Upon early review of the proposal and thorough exploration of our options, we feel it is our best interest to move to a new location. We have met several times with City officials during this process. The loss of access to Hwy. 61, loss of land to the new road, soft issues and the age of our Current facility at our present site has lead us to explore other options. We have been ~vorking with Mike & Brenda Gengler of Gulden's and have an agreement to purchase approx. 1 ¥= acres of the northern part of their property to build a new state of the art facility. We are both excited about this joint venture and have a very cooperative working relationship. The alignment of the intersection immediately west of Hwy. 61 on the city's proposed plan is the only option allowing us to go forward with these plans. Venburg Tire Co. and Gulden's appear to be the only existing businesses in the project area whose day- to,day operations are impacted by construction. We would like to align our projects, so that there is no interruption of our businesses. Timing is crucial! Because of this, we ask that the city give priority to completion of construction west of Hwy. 61 so that we can prepare soil corrections, develop additional parking behind Gulden's and proceed with construction of our new building. This would also avoid interruption.of business to us at our present site that would be caused by construction vehicles passing through our parking lot while we are conducting business. The traffic in that area is already treacherous and this could help avoid unnecessary accidents. After completion of our new building, there would be only minor conflicts to surrounding businesses with the construction on the project east of ttwy. 61. _ We appreciate your consideration of our 'concerns. We are supportive of th/s improvement for Maplewood and the process that you are using. If you have any questions, please do no hesitate to contact us at 651-483-2601. LEGACY VILLAGE AND COUNTY ROAD D EXTENSION APPROVAL SCHEDULE CRITICAL ITEM / TASK PROPOSED SCHEDULE *City Council - Alignment and Storm Plan/Wetland Review And AUAR/EAW Approval *Plan Comm - Align Review *City Council - 2n~l Align Review *City Council - Adopt AUAR Final Doc *Plan Comm Align Recommendation *City Council - Approve Final Alignment Adopt Storm and Wetland Plan and Authorize Preparation of Feas. Rpt. *Planning Comm and City Council - Legacy Village Review Session *City Council - Legacy Village 2nd Review Session *Plan Comm - Legacy Village Recommend for Approval *City Council - Legacy Village Final Site Approvals Call Hearing for D & Kennard *City Council- Approval of Legacy Bldg Plans *Pub Hrg for D & Kennard Projects April 14, 2003 April 21, 2003 April 28, 2003 April 28, 2003 May 5, 2003 May 12, 2003 May 19, 2003 May 27, 2003 June 2, 2003 June 9, 2003 June 9, 2003 June 23, 2003 June 23, 2003