Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 4, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July21,2003 5. Public Headngs a. Hmong Amedcan Alliance Church (2515 Maplewood Drive) 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (M-1 to C (church)) 2. Conditional Use Permit New Business a. Resolution of Appreciation - Matt Ledvina b. Hillcrest Village Mixed-Use Zoning District Discussion - Density Standards 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. July 22 (Tuesday) Council Meeting: Ms. Monahan-Junek b. August 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. August 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment 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 clearly, 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 close the public discussion 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 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, JULY 21, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Tushar Desai Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Present Absent Mary Dierich Present Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Paul Mueller Absent Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 7, 2003. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 23 there was an error in the numbering, please correct the numbering changing number 10 to number 11. and changing number 11 to number 12. Commissioner Monahan-Junek had corrections on page 32, second paragraph; second sentence th in should read long time. Another correction in the second paragraph, 7 sentence. The word g Wl~, ~ ,,, ,~1'-' ..... '~'" ' ~'Y' ....... ~ ....~' ........ should read which means you may have property ';*~' *~';""" th~, ~, ..... ;~,~,,~,, ~,hi~h may seem to look untidy. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 7, 2003, with the proposed changes. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -2- Prior to the planning commission meeting Commissioner Trippler submitted to the recording secretary the following corrections: On page 3, second paragraph, in the third line it should read property ef in residential areas. On page 9, in paragraph number 1., in the 4th line, it should read of his house. In paragraph 2., 8th line, it should read if ~here-their workers. On page 12, in the ~oot"~-om' p'~-mragraph, 5~h sentence, it should read isn't a protection. On page 24, in paragraph number 1., in the last sentence, it should read alonq the south side of County Road D. On page 26, third paragraph, in the 2® sentence, it should read and i-f the fee. On page 28, in the first sentence, it should read said c, nd approvin.q. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Zoning Map Change (F to BC-M) - Maplewood Office Park (east of 2035 County Road D) Mr. Roberts said Mark Gossman is proposing to build a 9 building, 45,000-square-foot, office building complex east of the First Financial office building at 2035 County Road D. The city has zoned the applicant's site F (farm residence) and guided it BC (business commercial) in the comprehensive plan. The F zoning was in place for the single dwellings that are now on the site. Commissioner Rossbach said it appears there is more parking on the site plan than what the city normally requires. He asked what the reason for the additional parking was? Mr. Roberts said on page 2 of the staff report there is a paragraph regarding parking. Mr. Roberts said it was his understanding from the applicant that from past building experiences the tenants require that many parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler said the staff report stated the applicant is removing more trees then they would be replacing. He said it states in the staff report that to meet the code the applicant should add 13 more large trees to the site. He said he does not see anything in the staff report other than what is stated in condition B. d. (1). Mr. Roberts said staff would have to clarify that. Commissioner Trippler said when he went out to the site he noticed a large area of trees to be removed for additional parking. He asked if the city could require the applicant to eliminate the additional parking in order to save the trees along the side of the property? Mr. Roberts said the applicant could address that issue. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Mark Gossman, Vice President of St. Croix Development Group, LLC, 1825 Curve Crest Boulevard, Stillwater, addressed the commission. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 07-21-03 Commissioner Trippler said it appears the applicant is planning to have 43 more parking spaces than what the city requires for code. He said if the parking was eliminated on the west side of the plan that would save a lot of trees. Mr. Gossman said the trees have to be removed because of the topography of the land and the grading of the site not because of the proposed parking. He said they are in favor of saving trees and in fact they own a tree transplanting company. He would approve of adding more trees to the project. He said they wanted to make sure they met the city code requirements for parking because in the past it has been an issue in other cities. He said they are open to adding more green space if the additional parking spaces were not necessary. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if his experience has been that the tenants have run out of parking spaces in the past and that is they reason they are requesting additional parking spaces? Mr. Gossman said the last project they did in Little Canada had adequate parking but not any additional room for parking. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the applicant could relate the square footage and parking spaces from the Little Canada development to this development in Maplewood? Mr. Gossman said the square footage of the buildings is similar and the parking spaces averaged 7.5 parking spaces per unit, which seemed to be on the light side. He said 10 parking spaces per unit would be ideal. Mr. Roberts said the planning commission could recommend that the CDRB require proof of parking if it turns out that more parking spaces would be needed. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant is comfortable with that request? Mr. Gossman said yes. 'Commissioner Pearson said the staff report states there would be a rainwater garden on the west side but it does not appear on the plans, he asked Where the rainwater would go? Mr. Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, said a rainwater garden was constructed as part of the reconstruction of County Road D. Mr. Cavett showed the commission where the rainwater garden would be located on the map. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak regarding this proposal? There were no other audience members to come forward. Commissioner Rossbach said it was the consensus amongst the planning commission members to request that the applicant reduce the number of parking spaces and reserve the right to provide additional parking later if the applicant should need additional parking. His preference would be to reduce the parking and have more green space. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -4- Chairperson Fischer asked if Commissioner Rossbach would consider making two motions, one for the resolution for the zoning map change and a second motion to make the recommendation to the CDRB for proof of parking. Commissioner Rossbach agreed. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission agreed to that? The planning commission members agreed. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on page 24 in the staff report. This resolution approves a zoning map change from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified) for the proposed office-building project east of the property at 2035 County Road D East. The city is approving this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The proposed zoning change would be consistent with the existing land use designation. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the Community Design Review Board to work with the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces on the site with having proof of parking if the parking proves to be inadequate. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 11,2003. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -5- b. Proposed R-I(R) (Rural Residential) Zoning District Mr. Roberts said on December 9, 2002, the city enacted a one-year moratorium on development in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the southern border of the city. The moratorium was a result of concerns about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue, and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum siZe requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). Commissioner Trippler said he has seen two people with acreage who build almost side by side. Because of that situation he is concerned that two people could put their septic systems side by side. However, he did not see anything in the report regarding that possible situation. He wonders if putting septic systems side by side could Cause the systems to fail by overloading the soils. Mr. Roberts reviewed the setbacks in the ISTS ordinance and he did not see a setback requirement for sewage tank to sewage tank, it only states the tanks shall be 10 feet from the property line. He said if the planning commission thinks this is an issue, that the city could change the ISTS ordinance. That change would apply citywide and not just as part of the rural residential code, unless the planning commission were to increase the building setbacks. He said with a large side yard you could place a drainfield, tank or both. He said if the commission were concerned about the sewage facilities being too close to each other then the setbacks in the ISTS ordinance should be changed. Commissioner Trippler said it is extremely expensive to put in a sewage treatment system and he would hate to see two families put a lot of money into the installation of the systems and then find out the septic system is failing because of the soils being overloading. Mr. Cavett said addressing this issue in the ISTS ordinance makes sense. Trying to look at each one of these septic systems on an individual basis is difficult. If a house gets built and the other house didn't get built for 5 or 10 years later it is very difficult for the city to account for things. He said he is not sure that particular problem would be very common but it would be good to address the situation in some type of setback condition. Commissioner Rossbach said he would suggest that the city ask for help from an expert. His understanding is that the drainfield is sized for the size of the structure and the number of restrooms. The drainfields could be one after another and because the drainfields are sized to accommodate their own system they should not affect each other. He said in Lake Elmo 8 houses share the same drainfield. It is just a larger drainfield that has been built to accommodate the homeowners. Commission Trippler said he spoke with Mark Westerphal, who is the ISTS person at the MPCA, and he had suggested that the city allow builders to put in community systems. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked if it is necessary for a person to consult with the Minnesota Department of Health before building on a 2-acre lot to help ensure the soils can handle it? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -6- Mr. Roberts said the city requires the applicant to submit a percolation test before issuing a permit so the ground is tested relative to the site plan, driveway, and foundation area to show where those drainfields will work. Mr. Roberts said he had the Environmental Health Officer, DuWayne Konewko, review the setbacks in the ISTS ordinance. He is very experienced with these systems and he said these are common setbacks used throughout the state. Commissioner Dierich said the language is not clear to her in the staff report on page 12, number 2. She asked what the statement meant, "if it doesn't apply and there is a predominant setback". Mr. Roberts said if you are the first house in the subdivision, and there has been no predominant setback established, then you have to meet the code or be within five feet of the code. He said when there is a cul-de-sac it is very difficult to determine the predominant setback because of the way things are laid out. Commissioner Dierich said in sec. 44-119, on page 11 of the staff report she asked if staff could add some language regarding what is being measured? She asked if the measuring was from the chimney, the basement, the grade, or what was exposed? Mr. Roberts said there is a separate definition for building height in the code already so he did not include that because staff was not proposing to change it. The code states "the vertical distance between a buildings highest adjoining ground level or 10 feet above the buildings lowest ground level, which ever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof, or the average height of the highest cable of a pitched or hip roof, the height of buildings shall not include chimneys, stairs, towers, roof top mechanical equipment or other similar building projections". Commissioner Dierich asked if the city can specify how wide driveways need to be and how far to be setback because a driveway is not an accessory structure and would not fall under that. Mr. Roberts said there is a section in the code for driveways, setbacks and design standards, which is used and monitored by the engineering department. Commissioner Dierich asked if a person was building a home and they came into the city to apply for a permit would they pick up several different sets of rules in order to know what was required to meet the code to build a new home? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't think it's very helpful to have so many handouts. She said it would be easier if there was a packet of information for people so everything is in one spot. Mr. Roberts said some of the handouts have references in them stating what department they should speak to for more information. Commissioner Dierich said on page 11, in sec. 44-120, item (d) she knows the width was 100 feet for a corner lot but it was not mentioned in the code this time so she asked staff if it should be listed? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -7- Mr. Roberts said yes. In some of the other districts the city requires larger corner lots. For example, in the R-1 district it is 75 feet of width for an interior lot and 100 feet wide on a corner, which also applies in a farm zone. He said if Commissioner Dierich thinks it's necessary to add that, staff could do that. He asked what the planning commission thought a good minimum width would be? Commissioner Dierich said the corner lot has been an issue in the past. She said a good minimum width should be 100 feet. If it was a corner lot with the street platted it should be 100 feet wide and 75 feet wide if it was a corner without the street platted. Mr. Roberts said the city is requiring the lot to be 120 feet wide regardless. Commissioner Dierich said the setbacks for side and rear yards are too small for that size of a lot and she would like to see more than a 10-foot setback. Commissioner Rossbach said he would agree with Commissioner Dierich's comments regarding the setbacks. It has been his experience that when larger lots are involved the setbacks are larger and 10 feet seems too minimal. Commissioner Dierich said on the south end of Maplewood there are many long narrow lots and it would seem that people could build right behind a person. Commissioner Trippler asked if someone decides to develop a lot in south Maplewood and if there was a 30 foot setback for an accessory building for the side and rear yard and it was a lot where something could not be built, couldn't the homeowner ask for a variance? Mr. Roberts said the city could do an administrative variance for an accessory structure. Commissioner Dierich said on page 13, sec. 44-127, for building width requirements, she asked if the 21 feet includes such things as a bump out? Mr. Roberts said the 21 feet standard was intended for anyone that wanted to bring in a manufactured home. The code would require the home to be a doublewide manufactured home. Chairperson Fischer said because not everyone moving into south Maplewood would be aware of how to properly maintain their septic system she asked if the city has a handout letting people know where to go with questions? Mr. Cavett said since the passing of the ISTS ordinance the city has initiated a program to notify all persons with septic systems. The city is currently mailing a letter to all residents with septic systems. The letter informs the homeowner that they need to have their septic system pumped once every three years by a certified septic contractor or provider and when it is complete they should return the inspection/comment card to the city. Mr. Roberts asked if planning commission members had agreed to a different number other then 10 feet for the side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures? Commissioner Rossbach said 30 feet sounds sufficient for a side and rear setback for accessory building. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -8- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the zoning code amendment starting on page 10 through page 12 of the staff report with the amended changes. This code amendment adds a rural residential (R-1 (R)) zoning district (with a two-acre minimum lot size) to the city code. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 11,2003, for the first reading. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner Pearson was the planning commission representative at the July 14, 2003, city council meeting. Items discussed included the zoning change for St. Paul Realtors Association on McMenemy Street, Mendota Townhomes for the Woodlynn Twin homes, and the Legacy Village proposal all were approved. b. Commissioner Monahan-Junek will be the planning commission representative at the July 22, 2003, city council meeting. The only item to be discussed will be the conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy. c. Commissioner Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the August 11, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Maplewood Office Park zoning map change, and the Proposed R-1 zoning district. Chairperson Fischer asked if a date had been established for the meeting with Vadnais Heights regarding the County Road D realignment? Mr. Roberts said a date has not been established yet. Commissioner Rossbach said when a date is established he would like to be contacted with that information. Chairperson Fischer said maybe city staff could let all planning commission members know the date when it becomes available. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -9- STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts discussed the handouts that were presented to the planning commission members prior to the meeting. One was a follow up from Chuck Ahl regarding his meeting with the property owners on Hazelwood Street regarding the city purchasing their properties for the future building of Legacy Village. Another handout was the letter of resignation from Planning Commission member Matt Ledvina. Annual Tour - Follow Up Mr. Roberts was looking for any information regarding the annual tour for changes to make for next year. Chairperson Fischer said she would've liked to have spent more time in the Hillcrest area to see the businesses there and how those businesses would fit into the overall plan for the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan. Commissioner Rossbach said because there were less people invited to the annual tour this year the bus was emptier and seemed too large. For that reason people sat farther apart, which made for less conversation. He also said the box lunch from Panera Bread was the best yet. Mr. Roberts said the reason the bus seemed emptier was because he had anticipated more people coming based on their response. If everyone who said they were coming on the tour actually came, the bus would've been close to full capacity. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. · MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager. Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hmong American Alliance Church J. Kou Vang 2515 Maplewood Drive North July 29, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. J. Kou Vang, representing the Hmong American Alliance Church, is proposing to purchase the Maplewood Industrial Park building at 2515 Maplewood Drive North and renovate the building for their church, currently located in North St. Paul. Refer to the applicants' statement of purpose, pictures and plans attached on pages 13 through 27. Requests In order to operate a church in this location, the applicants have requested the following city approvals: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment from Light Manufacturing to Church. 2. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a church. 3. Design review. BACKGROUND 1979: The city council approved a CUP for the construction of an office-warehouse building. 1985: The city council approved a CUP for the operation of an auto repair and used car sales business on this site. Fall 2002: City staff administratively approved Countryside Motors use of this site for temporary storage of new automobiles during the construction of their expanded sales/storage lot. DISCUSSION Church Operations The Hmong American Alliance Church is currently located at 2329 - 17th Avenue in North St. Paul. It has been in operation since 1990, and has outgrown its current site. The church consists of approximately 234 families, with a total congregation of about 1,500 members, including children. The church would hold services and religious classes from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sundays and youth and elderly programs and services during the evenings of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and during the day on Saturday. No funeral services will be held at the church, as it is Hmong culture to hold these services in a funeral home. However, other church functions such as weddings and baptisms will be held in the church. Conditional Use Permit City code states that churches are allowed in any zoning district with a conditional use permit (CUP). A CUP may be approved based on nine standards as outlined in the CUP resolution attached on pages 34 and 35. The purpose of the CUP is to provide the city with some discretion, based on these standards, in determining the suitability of the use. With slight modifications to the applicants' plans as outlined below, staff finds that the Hmong American Alliance Church meets the nine standards of approval. Building Renovation If approved, the interior of the building would undergo major renovation with the west side of the building's roofline raised to accommodate a sanctuary. The sanctuary will hold up to 1,000 people. Also on this floor will be the lobby, conference room, library, and offices. The lower level will include classrooms, a chapel, nursery, kitchen, storage, and a gymnasium. The city's building official, Dave Fisher, has reviewed the preliminary architectural drawings. Mr. Fisher states in his July 29, 2003, memorandum on page 28 that the architect would be required to provide detailed code analysis to verify code compliance with the 2000 IBC and the Minnesota State Building Code. The exterior of the building is currently textured concrete block with accented stripes of smooth concrete block. The new raised-roof section would be constructed to match the existing building, with the same smooth concrete block accents on the south, north, and west side of the raised roof. The main entry will be located on the south side of the property, with a new entry canopy constructed above the doors. In addition, the applicants propose to remove the loading dock doors on the north side of the building. One change recommended by staff to increase the aesthetics of the building from Maplewood Drive is the continuation of the accented stripes on the east-facing wall of the raised roof. Parking City code parking for a church is as follows: one parking stall per four sanctuary seats and one parking stall per 200 square feet of office space. The church's sanctuary will hold up to 1,000 people and there will be 1,424 square feet of office space, for an overall parking requirement of 258 parking stalls. The applicants are proposing a total of 280 parking stalls on the site, which exceeds code, and the applicants feel will be more than adequate. While the number of parking stalls exceeds city code, staff has some concern over the possibility of parking shortages. The frontage road is signed as no parking, but there is a Metro Transit park and dde lot located one block to the north of this site. Aaron Isaacs, facility-planning manager for Metro Transit, has expressed an interest in cooperating with the applicants on a shared-parking scenario. If the church utilizes the park and ride lot in the future, access to the church for those individuals parking in the lot must be addressed since there are no sidewalks on the frontage road. The construction of a trail along the frontage road or shuttling of church patrons could accomplish this. Traffic Of the eight neighborhood-opposition responses the city received, seven included concerns about traffic. (Refer to the citizen comments on pages 9 and 10 and the address map on page 17 for Hmong American Alliance Church 2 July 29, 2003 comments and neighbor location.) These neighbors state that the businesses on Gervais Avenue generate both truck and employee traffic onto Cypress Street and that the church will add to this traffic. With these expressed concerns, the city's engineering department is reviewing the need to create a "no trucks" route on this street. This would alleviate commercial vehicles utilizing the residential Cypress Street as a shortcut to the businesses. The concerns about the church adding to the traffic on Cypress Street seem unwarranted since the site has access onto Maplewood Drive orCounty Road C via the frontage road. Staff foresees the only church patrons to travel south on the frontage road, continuing north on Cypress Street, would be those patrons that live in that neighborhood. In addition, Brigid Gombold, Senior planner for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, commented on the traffic in her July 28, 2003, letter attached on page 29. In summary she states that the church traffic would likely use the intersection at Highway 61 and County Road C to get to the site, which is congested during rush hour. However, the majority of the church traffic would be at non-rush- hour times (Sundays and evenings). Wetland Issues There is a wetland located on the northwest corner of the site. This wetland has been delineated and is classified as a Class 4 wetland according to the city's wetland ordinance. For this class of wetland, city code requires an average wetland buffer of 25 feet, with the minimum of 20 feet. RamseyANashington Metro Watershed Distdct will require a permit if the applicants are disturbing more than one acre of land with their expanded parking lot. If so, the watershed district will require a 25-foot buffer around the entire wetland. Tina Carstens, permit program coordinator with the watershed district, has submitted a preliminary review of the proposal and includes her comments in her July 29, 2003, letter attached on page 30. As proposed, the applicants' expanded parking lot will have an average setback of 25 feet to the wetland, with two areas that come closer than 20 feet at extreme corners of the wetland. Staff pointed this out to the applicants after submittal and suggested that they revise the plans to ensure no wetland variances were required. The applicants have agreed to revise the site plan as needed to ensure no portion of the parking lot is closer than that required by the city and the watershed district. However, due to the time constraints associated with a purchase agreement they have in place with the property owner, they would like to proceed with city approvals while creating those revisions. Staff is comfortable that the required revisions can be made wi~h minimal loss in parking. Condition of approval will be based on the required wetland setback revisions and verification of city code required parking stalls. In addition, the applicants will be required to deed to the city an easement for the wetland and buffer area. The city should also require the applicant to post city- approved wetland signs that indicate that mowing, cutting, 'filling or dumping within the buffer is prohibited. Grading/Drainage The applicants propose to add curb and gutter to the existing parking lot, and as stated above, expand the parking lot into the southwest corner of the lot. Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett of the city's engineering department reviewed the grading and drainage plan for the proposal (refer to the engineering plan review on pages 31 and 32). One area of concern expressed by the engineers is the lack of sufficient ponding on the site. The applicants' engineer states that this can easily be accomplished by increasing the size of the pond located on the north side of Hmong American Alliance Church 3 July 29, 2003 the parking lot. A revised grading and drainage plan addressing all of the city engineers' concerns will be required before the city issues a grading permit for the site. Landscape/Screening The applicants' existing conditions plan shows 17 large trees on the site, 8 of which will be preserved with the grading and expansion of the parking lot. The landscape plan shows 93 new trees, well in excess of the city's 10-tree-per-acre tree replacement requirement, including maples, ash, oak, crabapple, birch, Black Hills spruce, Colorado spruce, and Austrian pine. In addition, 145 shrubs will be planted. While the landscaping is extensive, a few changes are recommended. City code requires a landscaped and screened area of not less than 20 feet in width where a nonresidential use abuts a residentially zoned or planned property. Screening can be satisfied by the use of a screening fence, 80 percent opaque planting screen, berm or combination thereof. The proposed church will have residential located on the west (single-family homes) and on the north (Town and County Manufactured Home Park). There are also two vacant single-family houses located to the south of this site, which are zoned Light Manufacturing. These houses recently sold for a future commercial use, and therefore do not require the 20-foot-wide screening buffer. Landscaping on the west of the property includes a row of 15, 6-foot-high Colorado blue spruce, which meets the city's screening requirements. However, staff recommends the replacement of the Colorado blue spruce with a similar evergreen due to the fact that Colorado blue spruce is not recommended as an urban tree in Minnesota. Landscaping on the north of the property does not meet the required screening, specifically screening of headlight glare into the five or six manufactured homes' windows located directly adjacent the site's north parking lot. For this reason, staff recommends a revised landscape/screening plan in this area to include a 6-foot-high screening fence to be constructed on the north property line, from the front of the property approximately 180 feet to the west, where Deauville-Drive begins in the manufactured home park. The remainder of this area, up to the wetland buffer, should be planted with evergreens in order to create the required 80 percent opaque screen. Finally, the landscape plan should be revised to show the replacement of the amur maples, which are an invasive species, with a similar shrub. Lighting The applicants' photometrics plan shows 25 freestanding and 15 wall-pack lights. A revised photometrics plan must be submitted to ensure compliance with city code to include the light style, height of freestanding lights not to exceed 25 feet, and light illumination from exterior lights not to exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. Trash Enclosure The plans show an existing trash enclosure located on the northeast side of the building (front). The applicants state that this trash enclosure will be removed and reconstructed near the kitchen entrance, on the northwest side of the building. A trash enclosure plan will be required prior to issuance of a building permit that shows the location and materials used for the enclosure. Hmong American Alliance Church 4 July 29, 2003 Other Comments Lt. Kevin Rabbett: I have reviewed the Hmong American Alliance Church plans and find no significant public safety concerns. However, I am not sure if there is adequate parking available on the site for this use. The park and ride lot could possibly be used as an overflow on Sundays, but it is some distance away and there are currently no sidewalks on the frontage read. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: 2. 3. 4. 5. Ensure proper addressing on the building. Installation of a fire protection system (sprinklers per code and monitored). Early warning fire detection needs to be installed (tire alarm system per code). Twenty-foot-wide emergency access roads. Fire department lock box is required with master keys to building (may be one on the building already). If there is any existing fire protection system or early warning system within the building, the systems will need to be serviced by a licensed contractor. Summary One of the city's comprehensive plan goals is to protect and strengthen neighborhoods. A church is an important part of a neighborhood. Another goal is to protect neighborhoods from intrusion of incompatible land uses by buffering and separation. The church will act as a buffer between the commercial uses to the south and the residential uses to the north and west. For these reasons, staff supports the use of the site as a church. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the Land Use Plan change resolution on page 33. This resolution changes the Land Use Plan from Light Manufacturing (M-l) to Church (C) for the proposed Hmong American Alliance Church at 2515 Maplewood Drive. The city is making this change because the proposal will: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. c. Preserve natural features where practical. d. Minimize conflictS between land uses. Adopt the resolution on pages 34 and 35. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for the Hmong American Alliance Church at 2515 Maplewood Drive North. The city bases this permit on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans dated June 26, 2003, with the revisions as required and approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed church must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. Hmong American Alliance Church 5 July 29, 2003 The proposed church and its construction must meet the requirements of the city building official, the city fire marshal and the RamseyANashington Metro Watershed District. The city council may require the church to obtain a shared parking agreement with the Metro Transit park and ride lot if a parking shortage develops. If a shared parking agreement is required, a trail from the park and ride to the church must be constructed, or arrangements for shuttling of church patrons will be required. e. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the plans date-stamped June 26, 2003, for the Hmong American Alliance Church at 2515 Maplewood Drive North. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: 1) Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the city engineer. 2) A building permit will be required for all retaining walls on the site that exceed 4 feet in height. 3) Revised site plan showing that the expanded parking lot is set back an average of 25 feet, with a minimum of 20 feet, to the delineated wetland. The revised plan must also meet all Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District requirements. 4) Dedicating a wetland protection buffer easement (average 25 feet from delineated wetland, or as required by the RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District) along the Class 4 wetland. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a grading permit. 5) A survey completed by a registered land surveyor showing the existing conditions, wetland buffer easement, and location of the proposed parking lot. A registered land surveyor must also stake the location of the expanded parking lot and the wetland buffer easement on the property. 6) Revised building elevations showing the continuation of the smooth concrete block accented stripes on the east-facing wall of the raised roof. 7) A revised landscape/screening plan showing the following: a) The replacement of Colorado blue spruce with a similar evergreen tree. b) The replacement of all amur maples with a similar shrub. Hmong American Alliance Church 6 July 29, 2003 Co c) A 6-foot-high, maintenance-free fence to be constructed on the north property line, from the front of the property approximately 180 feet to the west, where Deauville Drive begins in the manufactured home park; d) Revision of landscaping on the north side of the parking lot to take into account the fence, and to add an evergreen screen from the end of the fence to the wetland buffer line. The evergreen screen must create an 80 percent opaque screening from the parking lot to the residential properties to the north. e) Location of in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas as required by city code. 8) A trash enclosure plan showing the location and the materials to be used. The trash enclosure must be compatible with the building and must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. If the trash dumpster is kept inside the building, an outdoor enclosure is not required. 9) ^ revised photometrics plan showing the style and height of exterior lights. The maximum luminary allowed at the property line is .4 foot candles and the maximum height of the parking lot lights is 25 feet as measured from ground grade to the top of the luminary. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits and a handicap-parking sign for each handicap accessible parking stall. 2) Construct a trash enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. 3) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and 'driveways. 4) Install all required landscaping, fencing, and an in-ground lawn irrigation system by June 1 if the church is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion if it is finished in the spring or summer. 5) Install all required exterior lights. 6) Install city approved wetland signs at the edge of the wetland buffer that specifies that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the easement. 7) Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building if visible from the street or adjacent residential properties. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: Hmong American Alliance Church 7 July 29, 2003 : I --I ................ 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must comply with the city's sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits prior to installation. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Hmong American Alliance Church 8 July 29, 2003 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 33 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the 9 responses received, 1 supported the proposal and 8 opposed it as follows: Support: Charisse Hall, preperty manager, Maplewood Industrial Park Building: While we are biased (we are the sellers), we really do believe that this project would be a more pleasant transition from the businesses to the north to the manufactured homes to the south. The neighbors would not have to deal with trucks coming and going, which would greatly reduce the noise in the neighborhood. The church plans to greatly improve the exterior of the building as well, making the building more aesthetically pleasing. Oppose: Anna Brodt and Sabine Barker, 2513 Adele St. North: I am against building the church in this neighborhood. I am afraid that the traffic will increase on Cypress. They are not holding the speed limit.of 30. Church will take the shortcut down Cypress. Enough churches in the neighborhood, now there will be one right in our back yard. There is going to be a concentration of one certain nationality. Mike Smith, 2487 Cypress Street: I believe there is enough traffic on Cypress as it is. The businesses on Gervais Avenue currently use Cypress Street as a shortcut to County Road C. Even though the site has good access frem the highway, there is no guarentee that people won't also use Cypress Street to somehow access the church. The property is set up as a business, not a church. There are currently already eight churches in the area including Arlington Hills and Tdnity Baptist on County Road B, Freedom Love on White Bear Avenue, St. Jerome's on Roselawn, Lake Phalen Community Church on English, Church of the Latter Day Saints on Edgerton, Lakeview Lutheran Church on County Road C, and the Hmong Alliance Church on McMenemy. Matt and Kelly Ubel, 2495 Cypress Street: First, we did not receive the notice via mail from the City of Maplewood. We were notified by our neighbors who live on the even numbered side of Cypress Street. We live on the odd numbered side of Cypress Street and I know there are four households who also said they did not receive the notice. Why was that? Second, when we built our home in 1998 we were told by the builder that all the surrounding areas outside of Mapleleaf Estates would remain Light Industrial! With limited hours of operation. Third, we are very concerned with vehicle congestion. We only have two outlets from our home. Go north on Cypress to County Road C which goes to Highway 61 (which is always busy at the lights). The other is going south on Cypress, which veers around behind light industrial businesses to the service road (proposed Church site), which leads to Highway 61 (again, in morning rush hour and night rush hour it is very busy). Fourth, noise is also an issue. We can hear from our home very clearly all the traffic going by on Highway 61. We can also hear the car dealerships when they use their outside paging system. With having the Church Proposal we are concerned about all the vehicle noise seeing that the parking lots will be much closer to our home. Hmong American Alliance Church 9 July 29, 2003 What will the hours of operation be for the Church? How many days out of the week will the Church be open? The proposal states Church, however, in looking at the plans there is also a gymnasium, classrooms, kitchen, nursery etc. It sounds like it is more than just a Church and that issue needs to be addressed! My idea of a Church is simply that - a place of Worship, which is mainly used on Saturday late afternoon and Sunday A.M. with Religious Holidays throughout the year. We look forward to being placed on the mailing list. We also look forward to attend the Public Hearing. We trust that you will notify us! Thank you in advance. Keith Brown, 2496 Cypress Street: I oppose the church for this area because there is already too much traffic in the neighborhood. There are an additional 500 housing units going in by the mall and there is a park and ride located down the street. I am not happy about this proposal and would like to fight it. There was no neighborhood discussion prior to this proposal. Piotr and Mary Ann Nowak, 2033 Demont Avenue East: I have some concerns regarding the traffic flow for this community church in affecting not only the frontage road, but also the traffic on 61/County Road C. Laureen McGinley and Susan Hall, 2578 Cypress Street North: My question - how will this affect traffic around frontage road? How will it affect taxes as churches are nonprofit? How is parking going to be handled? This area is already congested with a church this size it will increase this problem. We disagree with proposal. Gerald and Joanne Brelje, 2520 Cypress Street North: Absolutely not - we have enough problems in our neighborhood now that the police cannot or will not handle - we have a mayor who sees all of the ordinances and laws being broken and does nothing. No - No - No. Janice Gudknecht, 1009 Demont Avenue East: I'm extremely concerned about the increase in traffic in the area if the building becomes a church. Hmong American Alliance Church 10 July 29, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 6.46 acres Vacant Industrial Building with Temporary Automobile Car Storage in Lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Proposed Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Town and Country Manufactured Home Park Single-Family Home (recently sold for commercial use) Frontage Road/Highway 61 (Maplewood Drive) with Automotive Dealership Across the Highway Single-Family Homes Light Manufacturing (M-l) Church (C) Light Manufacturing (M-l) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a conditional use permit for churches in any zoning district. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL 1. Land Use Plan Amendment: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Four specific goals apply to this proposal: a. Provide for orderly development b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. c. Preserve natural features where practical. d. Minimize conflicts between land uses. In addition, four specific policies apply to this proposal: a. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. b. Require commercial uses to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. c. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. Hmong American Alliance Church 11 July 29,2003 I Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Conditional Use Permit: Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a conditional use permit based on the nine standards for approval as outlined in the resolution on pages 34 and 35. Application Date The city received complete applications and plans for this proposal on June 26, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by August 25, 2003. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Statement of Purpose Property Line/Zoning Map Land Use Map Address Map Site Pictures Existing Conditions Map Site Plan Grading Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan Building Official July 29, 2003 Memorandum Minnesota Department of Transportation July 28, 2003 Letter RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District July 29, 2003 Letter . Engineering Plan Review Land Use Resolution Conditional Use Permit Resolution Hmong American Alliance Church 12 July 29, 2003 Attachment 1 HMONG AMERICAN ALLIANCE CHURCH STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The Hmong American Alliance Church was establish in 1988. Two years after it was establish it purchased a church in North St. Paul located at 2329 17th Avenue. It has been in operation at this current site since 1990 and has continued to grow. Since its founding, the church has continued to grow. It current has 234 families as member with a total congregation count of about 1,500 members including children. It is a young church with active member who are passionate about their faith as their community. The church strives to be an active part of its community and takes into consideration the community's impact prior to major decision are made. The Hmong American Alliance Church is requesting the City of Maplewood for a conditional use permit for the property located at 2515 Maplewood Dri;ee North. The property is currently zone industrial and we are requesting that the zone be changed to a church zone. The property currently is an empty warehouse that is being used at storage lot for automobiles. Prior to this current usage it was a warehouse that housed a couple of businesses. We are proposing a major renovation and redevelopment of the site. We will be investing a significant amount of money to change the current building from a square block building into a building with character suitable for a church. Both the exterior and the interior We will be investing a significant amount of money in the landscaping of the property to increase its site appeal. We will increase the number of parking stalls on the site to accommodate our congregation so that we will have minimal dependence on street parking thus reducing traffic issues along Maplewood Drive. The landscape plans call for new trees and shrub that will enhance the site's curb appeal. It also calls for appropriate elevations that are required to allow for drainage into the pond thus minimizing the usage of the city's sewer system. The site plan as submitted is drawn to meet our needs as well as those that are required by the city. We are not requesting any variance from city requirements. We have taken into consideration all set back requirement that is necessary for parking lot and public right- of-way. The site plan calls for increasing the size of the current parking lot to accommodate 280 parking stalls. The lot will be lighted within city guidelines for both aesthetic as well as safety purposes. 13 I Statement of Purpose ~ [ --T The interior of the building will undergo major renovation as well. We are proposing the raise the roofline of the bay furthers west to accommodate our sanctuary. The Sanctuary will be facing west with the main entrance of the church being in the second bay of the current building facing south. We will build all of our instruction rooms in the lower level as well as a chapel and a gym that will be utilize by the congregation youths. The church has a youth program that is second to none. They provide Sunday instructions, weekday programs, youth camps, choirs, and athletic programs with other congregations and numerous leadership opportunities. The elderly programs call for weekday services, special prayer sessions, counseling for both elderly and adult couples, choir, retreats and numerous leadership opportunities. The programs is geared towards creating opportunities for the elderly of the congregation to be able to interact and socialize in a Christian environment so that they are not isolated at home. The congregation is very excited about this project and the potential of a new home for its growing members. They have been operating in a building that is about 12,000 square feet that they have outgrown a number of years ago. This will also allow the church to continue with the good work that they are doing with the Hmong youth as well as with the Hmong elderly. The congregation is excited and hopes that the City of Maplewood will grant us the necessary approval for us to continue our mission. 14 Attachment 2 ~r' --- ..... ~-' ~ '--.'~.~o .... ~, - . ~ ~o ~ ~ ....... .. , / .~/ ~..~',;~.:.',, . o ,~ ,,~) ~ ~ ,~ ~, , I .fill %~l ~ (~) '~1 ....... i iii-; -- ~ ~ I I F ....... ~ .... ~'~ .~FiI r~,) ',. ~ I~ ~,~ ~ ~.'~ ~ .;~A -GO~i>R ..... AVl , ~ o.~. ~ ~ ~.~~m,.. /~. ,~~~ ,,~ ~ -~ . (~l ,.:.~...~ -.. .--- .., h~ L .~ / '7'~' ',.,.~., " ' J 'l" " '. ~ / / ~ / ~ ' ' ~' -"~ ~ ~ ' ,~ ~,~o ~,.~m.. ~ ~1 I ~ ~, ' ,.. ~ ........... ~:~(~' ~_--~--~~--~ ~ ~11~ ~ ~~'7 I "~, 8 ~ ~, '~ ~.~ I . ~+:' ~ ~ /I ~ ~'; ~,~./ I .~. . ~ ,.,, -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ /I.-~/ ~ ,/~-~ ---- I'~ ~.'~,~-;" I :~ '~.,~J ~ ~¢ ~,~i~ I ~ ! / ~ ~' 1 Y ' I'~ ~":"%; '~"~ ~L 't"Jm''~''*~' ~ ,,~.~, .... r I / / I ~ > u~,,:~- 1 '1~ ~1 ~' 'alumS/ j ]r~ / . , I,, ~ ~ ~37 ~ ~ ,zjI ,, ~ ~/.~ -- ( ? · (,. ~ ., ~ . /$ OS Attachment 3 // ollect R1 R-3(M); OS R1 major collector rl nED LAND USE 16 MAP 2600 ~--- '~ 2580 2595 2591 2579 2571 2574 2570 2559 2551 2543 2569 ''~ 2.567 ~.-~' 2569 ~' 03 2568 256fi.~ 2566 2567 2565 " 2563D" 2564 2563 2431 2423 2415 2527 2519 2511 2503 2471 2463 ii/!11 ,~,~0//,/~/ 2521 ///' / ,, 2504 2505 ~2i~/~/// 2497 2488 24891 2480 2481 2472 2473 2522 2514 2506 2498 2490 2482 2474 2466 2458 2439 2440 1055 Ge~aisAvenuei:: i . i, iii:::i:: .i : I 1111 2497 l~[ ~I~~}~ ," / 1140 Address Map I Attachment 5 18 I 2O ttachment 6 I::zi.~finn ~nnrlifinn.~ Plan Attachment 7 23 Site Plan Attachment 8 '"' ........ 'l 24 Grading Plan Attachment 9 /%¸ Landscape Plan Attachment 26 Building Elevation.~ Attachment ll 27 Floor Plan Attachment 12 Memo Date: July 29, 2003 To: Shann Finwall, Assoc. Planner From: David Fisher, Building Official Re: Hmong American Alliance Church, Maplewood Drive. An architect will be required to provide a detailed code analysis to verify the type of construction, occupant load, exit width, bathroom counts mad other information required by code. The building will be required to be 100 percent in compliance with the 2000 IBC and the Minnesota State Building Code. This building will be required to be 100 percent in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 Accessibility. The building is required to be sprinklered per NFPA 13 and to have a fire alarm system per NFPA 72. 28 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 July 28, 2003 Attachment 13 2003 Shann Finnwall Associate Planner Maplewood Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 SUBJECT: Hmong American Alliance Church Dear Mr. Finnwall: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Hmong American Alliance Church site plan. Mn/DOT's records show that the section of Maplewood Drive adjacent to the site has been turned over to the City of Maplewood. There are no permits that Mn/DOT would issue. Drivers would likely use the intersection at TH 61 and County Road C to get to the site, which is congested during rush hour. However, the majority of traffic would be at non-rush hour times. Thank you again for this review and at this time there are no concerns. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378. Sincerely, _ Senior Planner Copy: Dan Soler, Ramsey County Engineer Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council J.Kou Vang/ J.B. Realty Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 6201 Mn/DOT LGL - Saint Paul An equal opportunity employer 29 Attachment 14 Ramsey-Washington Metro 1902 East County Road B District Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 email: officeOrwmwd.org July 29, 2003 Shann Finwall City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Hmong American Alliance Church Dear Ms. Finwall, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project. Sorry for my delay in getting you these comments. At this time the applicant has not submitted an application to thc District for this project. An application is required for this project if the area of disturbance is g~eater than one acre. The wetland located on thc site is classified as a Manage 2 wetland iu the District's Watershed Management Plan. A Manage 2 wetland requires an average of a 25-foot no disturb buffer. The buffer also must be a minimum of l0 feet in all places. It appears fi'om the plans that these requirements are not met. Thc applicant will also be responsible for treating the stormwater before entering the wetland. It appears that a pond is proposed for that purpose. The pond should be sized to remove 90% of the Total Suspended Solids. Again, sorry for the late response to your request for comments. Let me know ifyou have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Tins Carstens Permit Program Coordinator 30 Attachment 15 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Church PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: July 17, 2003 Background: The proposed improvements reflect an increase in impervious surface of approximately 0.7 acres. According to the hydraulic calculations submitted, this results in an increase in runoff volume of approximately 0.4 acre-feet. The additional ponds provided do limit peak flows to a rate less than the existing condition, but the fact remains that runoff volume is increased and the ponds provide little in the way detention time. In this respect the west pond performs somewhat better than the north pond. The bulk of the site's impervious surface is directed to the smaller north pond. One omission from the hydraulic modeling is the culvert under the north entrance to the site. Runoff from Maplewood Ddve and the green space at the front of the site are directed to this culvert. Although this culvert is not shown on the grading plan, at its present location it would most likely discharge into the north pond. The submitted hydraulic calculations indicate that even with this omission, the 1% HWL for the north pond slightly exceeds the rim elevation of the overflow structure. Both ponds are tributary to the on site wetland. This wetland is part of a larger wetland complex that ultimately drains to Kohlman Lake. The area has a high water table, and a number of adjacent residential properties are known to have basement water problems. The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. Grading and Drainage Plan: The submittal does not provide sufficient ponding for the intensity of the development. One possible option for increasing the amount of ponding would be to explore the option of constructing an in-line pond at the northern edge of the property. Additional wet volume and flood storage could be achieved through the elimination of the north pond berm. 2. The 100-year high water level (1% HWL) indicated for the north pond on the grading plan does not agree with that reported in the hydraulic calculations. Overflow structure rim elevations for both ponds are higher than the highest adjacent contour. The top of berm elevations for both ponds should be indicated on the grading plan. Provide a defined emergency overflow for both ponds lined with permanent soil stabilization blanket (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal). Indicate emergency overflow elevation on drawing. 5. The grading plan shows silt fence, but little else in the way of an erosion control plan. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for city staff approval. 31 The west pond meets the city's water quality standard. The north pond does not. The Walker PondNET model predicts only a 25% phosphorus removal. With an average wet volume depth of one foot, the pond does not even meet NURP standards. Applicant shall consider other similar BMP's treatments, such as rainwater gardens for any roof drainage that would be directed towards the parking lot and the proposed storm sewer. Information on other BMP applications can be found on the Metropolitan Council Website: http : llwww, metrocouncil, orqlenvironmentlW atershed/bmplmanual, htm Although we are aware that the applicant has made use of a delineation done for the previous project, wetland delineation shown on the grading plan should indicate the delineator and the date of delineation. The applicant shall include for city approval a detailed landscaping plan for the ponds and wetland buffer area (the current landscaping plan already shows trees and shrubs). Turf establishment in these areas must be with a pre-approved native-grass seed mixture with forbs, (for upland and Iow land areas as appropriate). The current landscaping plan does not address these areas. 10. The wetland setback is less than the 20 feet minimum required by the city and 25 feet required by the watershed district in some spots. To be fair, these are isolated spots, and the proposal actually improves the width of the buffer directly behind the building. The concern here is that the site's utilization for parking may be too intensive. 11. The applicant is encouraged to explore alternative parking surfaces that are less impervious for areas of the proposed parking expansion. 12. The applicant is encouraged to explore the possibility of sharing space with the nearby Metro Transit Park and Ride as a means of providing the desired number of parking spaces or for overflow parking. 13. The applicant will confirm that a public drainage and utilities easement exists along the north edge of the property. If one does not exist, the applicant shall grant one. 14. Obtain grading permits from the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 32 Attachment 16 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, J. Kou Vang, representing the Hmong American Alliance Church made application to the City of Maplewood for a change to the city's land use plan from Light Manufacturing (M-l) to Church (C) for their church. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 2515 Maplewood Drive North. The legal description is: W.H. Howard's Garden Lots Subject to Widened State Highway 61-1, Lot 4. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 4, 2002, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On , the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described land use plan change for the following reasons: 2. 3. 4. Provide for orderly development. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. Preserve natural features where practical. Minimize conflicts between land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 33 I Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, J. Kou Vang, representing the Hmong American Alliance Church, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit for a church. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2515 Maplewood Drive North. The legal description is: W.H. Howard's Garden Lots Subject to Widened State Highway 61-1, Lot 4. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On August 4, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The use The use features The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic into the development design. would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 34 10. 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: All construction shall follow the plans dated June 26, 2003, with revisions as required and approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed church must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. The church and its construction must meet the requirements of the city building official, the city fire marshal and the RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District. The city council may require the church to obtain a shared parking agreement with the Metro Transit park and ride lot if a parking shortage develops. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 35 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Resignation July 24, 2003 INTRODUCTION Matt Ledvina has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution of appreciation. Kr/p:miscell/pcresig.doc Attachments: 1. July 21,2003 letter 2. Resolution ul/z~/~OUO ~Ul~ 11:~ ~,~X ~lZ Oqt Ot~U !~aL,Kes.~rp./~nv,Kes.~rp ~ooz/ooZ Attachment 1 July 21,2003 Honorable Robert Cardinal Mayor City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 JUL 2 ~2003 RECEIVED Dear Mayor Cardinal: This letter serves as my formal resignation from the Maplewood Planning Commission. The time demands of two volunteer positions with the City of Maplewood, combined with my current job workload, necessitate some hard choices for me and my family. I have enjoyed my nearly six years of involvement on the Planning Commission. I feel privileged to have worked with a very dedicated group of fellow Commissioners who strive to recommend the best options for the sustainability of our community. The planning staff is to be commended for the very complete and comprehensive staff reports and for the hard work done behind the scenes to prepare project applications for the Commission's consideration. They exhibit great skill, experience and patience in presenting planning matters before the Commission and public. I wish my fellow Planning Commission members the best in working to serve the present and future citizens of Maplewood. ,lJstRegar~s, ,,, ~ Matthew L. Ledvina Cc: Lorraine Fischer, Planning Commission Chair A~tachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Matthew Ledvina has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since December 8, 1997 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewoo& and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens, that Matthew Ledvina is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on August 4, 2003 Attest: Robert Cardinal, Mayor Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Karen Guifoile, City Clerk i I MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Density) City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. July 30, 2003 INTRODUCTION Proposal City staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The mixed-use zoning district will allow for a mixture of land uses and will promote the redevelopment of an area into an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city will consider implementing the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. The proposed timeline for completion of the draft ordinance is the end of the September. The draft will be presented to both the planning commission and the community design review board prior to review by the city council. Background March 25, 2003: CDRB reviewed signs. April 7, 2003: planning commission reviewed permitted, conditional, nonconforming and accessory uses. May 13, 2003: CDRB reviewed lighting and landscaping. May 19, 2003: planning commission reviewed subdivision regulations. June 16, 2003: planning commission reviewed parking requirements. July 8, 2003: CDRB reviewed dimensional standards. July 22, 2003: CDRB reviewed building design standards. DISCUSSION Smart Growth Site The Metropolitan Council chose the Hillcrest Village area as one of six smart growth opportunity sites because it had the potential to serve as a transit-oriented center. A transit-oriented center would integrate various levels of transit service with mixed-use, people-oriented developments in a walkable setting. To accomplish this, convenient alternatives to the car should be provided including accessible bus service, bicycle trails and racks, and pedestrian elements such as sidewalks, front entry doors, plazas, etc. But the first step in creating this type of transit-oriented development is increasing density, especially around transit. City of Maplewood In Maplewood, the highest density allowance is for apartments with 50 or more units that are guided in the city's comprehensive plan as High Multiple Dwelling Residential. The comprehensive plan allows up to 16.3 units per acre for this style of multi-family housing. Density bonuses are also allowed within the Multiple Dwelling Residential zoning districts. These bonuses can be used for underground parking, open space, landscaping, and high rise developments. (Refer to the city's comprehensive plan density table and density bonus ordinance on pages 4 and 5). Two of the highest density apartment developments within the city are Cardinal Pointe on Hazelwood Avenue and Rosoto Senior Housing on Roselawn Avenue. Cardinal Pointe was allowed 16 units per acre and Rosoto Senior Housing was allowed 21.9 units per acre with underground parking bonuses and a transfer of development rights. Allowable townhouse densities range from 5.4 to 10.4 units per acre. Examples of new townhouse developments are Alton Ridge on the corner of Lower Alton Road and McKnight with 9.5 units per acre and New Century in south Maplewood with 9.5 units per acre. The densities allowed within the city are very Iow by urban standards, and may not be able to support the mixed-use development envisioned in the Hillcrest area. For this reason, the city should consider increasing densities within the new mixed-use zoning district. City of St. Paul As stated in an earlier staff report, St. Paul proposes to rezone their portion of Hillcrest Village with their newly created Traditional Neighborhood zoning district. Within this zoning district St. Paul allows apartment-style, multi-family housing with up to 34 units per acre and townhouse developments with up to 20 units per acre. For residential above commercial, St. Paul uses a floor to area ratio of .5 to 3.0 (i.e., lot size x ratio = allowable floor area). (Refer to the Traditional Neighborhood density table on page 6.) Overall, St. Paul's density standards are almost double the density allowed in the City of Maplewood. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Density) 2 July 30, 2003 - Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards Another guide the city should look toward is the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards, created by Calthorpe Associates for the Hillcrest Village Area. Calthorpe suggests densities of up to 30 units per acre for residential units over commercial (mixed use) and townhouse developments with up to 15 units per acre. (Refer to the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards' density table on page 7). The Hillcrest Village Concept Plan shows a total of 145 housing units on the Maplewood side of the plan. (Refer to the Hillcrest Village concept plan on page 8.) A density analysis of Blocks E2a and E2b showing up to 101 apartment units yields a density of approximately 30 units per acre. Suggested Densities A few months ago Maxfleld Research, Inc., completed a market research study for Maplewood's portion of the Hillcrest Village area and found that the Hillcrest Village concept plan as designed by Calthorpe Associates would be marketable over the long-term Because of this, staff recommends densities for the new mixed-use zoning district to be in line with the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards density suggestions. The higher densities would be reflected as an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan. In addition to changes to the comprehensive plan, staff also recommends carrying over the density bonuses currently allowed in the Multiple Dwelling Residential zoning district to the mixed-use zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on the density requirements 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. P:com-dev\hillcrest\8-4-03 PC design standards report Attachment: 1. City of Maplewood Density Requirements 2. City of Maplewood Density Bonuses 3. St. Paul's Tranditional Neighborhood Density Requirements 4. Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards Density Requirements 5. Hillcrest Village Concept Plan Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Density) July 30, 2003 TABLE 5 ESTIMATED PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT AND PLANNED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS People/Gross Acre (approximate) Type of Dwelling People/Unit~ ..R-3L R-3M R-3H 11.9 13.3 22.8 Planned Maximum Density (Units per gross acre) Single Dwelling2 2.9 4.1 Double Dwellings= 2.2 5.4 Townhomes 2.2 5.4 Manufactured Homes 2.0 6.0 Apartments (3-4 units/bldg.) 2.4 5.0 Apartments (5-9 units/bldg.) 212 5.4 Apartments (10-19 units/bldg.) 1.9 6.3 Apartments (20-49 units/bldg.) 1.6 7.4 Apartments (50+ units/bldg.) 1.4 8.5 Apartments (1-bedroom senior) 1.1 Apartments (2-bedroom senior) 2.0 Apartments (3-bedroom senior) 2.5 4.6 6.0 10.4 6.0 10.4 6.7 11.4 5.5 9.5 6.0 10.4 7.0 12.0, 8.3 14.3 9.5 16.3 (Based on bedroom mix.) (Based on bedroom mix.) · (Based on bedroom mix.) Notes: (1) (2) (3) From the 1990 census. The City shall determine the maximum allowed density by the minimum-lot areas in the zoning code. The City shall determine the maximum number of units from Table 5 if minimum-area lots for each unit are not platted. The City may allow reduced minimum-lot areas in planned unit developments (PUDs) where the overall PUD project does not exceed the maximum allowed density. The City intends to review the density figures in Table 5 after each federal census. ZONING § 36-115 forth in sections of this chapter relating to density and area requirements. The following credits to such standards shall be allowed as follows: (1) Underground parking. The net acreage for calculating den- sity may be increased by three hundred (300) square feet for each parking space that is provided under the principal use structure, or in some other manner underground, which will thereby permit use of the grade level outside the build- ing, or above such underground space, for other building, parking, open yard or recreation space. (2) Open space. The net acreage for calculating density may be increased by one hundred (100) square feet where twenty- five (25) percent of the entire area is reserved in one area for recreation play area, or for open land, water or ponding areas subject to approval by the city council after consid- eration by the community design review board. (3) Landscaping. The net acreage for calculating density may be increased by one hundred (100) square feet for each dwelling unit where one percent of the construction cost (not including land cost) is allocated to the planting of trees. This does not apply to the sodding or seeding of green areas. (4) High ris~ The net acreage for calculating density may be increased by one hundred (100) square feet for each dwell- ing unit above three (3) stories. In order to qualify for this credit, all floors must have elevator service. If this credit, when combined with others available in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section, results in a reduction of yard or parking space area below that otherwise required by reason of the dimensions and number of dwelling units in the structure, then this credit shall not be allowed. (Ord. No. 245, § 10 (§ 906.090), 10-3-68; Ord. No. 559, § 1, 12- 12-83) Sec. 36-115. Sam e--Certificate of occupancy. Before any new multiple dwelling building in the city may be occupied by tenants, the owner or contractor shall first obtain from the building inspector a certificate of occupancy, and such docu- Supp. No. 9 2226.17 Table 66.331. Traditional hborhood District Dimensional Standards ~;;~l~e~ght'; ::!,5~. ;:~:~!!~iyard:: Min.- Max. a Area Width Min. Max. Front Side Rear (sq. ~) a (feet) (stories))(feet) Min. - Max. Min. Min. l-f~ily dwelling 6 - 12 ~ts / a~ b 3,500 b 30 none 35 d 15 - 25 h i 15 2-t~ily / to~o~e 8 - 20 ~i~ / ac~ b 2,000 b 20 none 35 d 10 - 25 h i 15 Mulfi~ily b~ldings 10 - 25 ~i~ / ~ b 1,700 b Wa no~ 35 d 15 - 25 h i i Non-residentifl or ~ed use (~cluding 0.3 - 1.0 F~ ~a ~a none 35 d 0 - 15 i i p~g ~cm~s) l-f~ly dwelling 6 - 12 ~i~ / ac~ b 3,500 b 30 none 35 d 15 - 25 h i 2-f~ly / to~o~e 8 - 20 ~ / acre b 2,000 b 20 none 35 d 10 - 25 h i 15 M~fif~ily build~gs 10 - 34 ~ / ~m b 1,300 b Wa none 35 d 15 - 25 h i i Non-residential or 0.5 - 2.0 FAR wi~ m~ed use (~ctud~g s~ace p~g ~a ~a none 35 ~e 0 - 10 i i p~ng s~cmres) 0.5 - 3.0 F~ ~th ~c~ed p~ng c 1-f~ilydwell~g 8- 12~m/~re b 3,500 b 30 2 35 d 15-25 h i 15 2-f~ly / tow~ouse 10 - 20 u~m / a~e b 2,000 b 20 2 35 d 10 - 25 h i 15 Mulfif~ily buildin~ 30 - ~ ~i~ / acre b 1,000 b Wa 2 45 &f 15 - 25 h i i Non-residential or 1.0 - 3.0 F~ ~a Wa 2 55 f 0 - 10 i i ~ed use Pw~g s~c~es ~a Wa Wa ~a 45 g 0 - 25 20 20 Min. - Minimum Max. - Maximum FAR - Floor Area Ratio n/a - not applicable Notes to Table 66.331. Traditional Neighborhood District Dimensional Standards: (a) Units per acre is calculated based on net acreage for residential deVelopment,--a~3efmed. For ~.~- ..... o~,~,~ .... ~,~-,~,,,,~:~--- ,~ .... o.,~ .... .~ ~,~-' ...... ~ts, Densit~ based on units per acre must be calculated for parcels of an acre or more in size. For smaller parcels, the max/mum number of units may be calculated based upon minimum lot size per mt. In calculating the area ora lot that adjoins a dedicated public alley, for the purpose of applying lot area and density requirements, one-half the width of such alley adjoining the lot shall be considered as part of the lot'. (b) In calculating the area of a lot for the purpose of applying lot area and density requirements, the lot area figure may be increased by three hundred (300) square feet per parking space for up to tWo (2) parking spaces per unit within a multiple-family structure or otherwise completely underground, The max/mm number of units possible on a lot using this lot area bonus can be calculated using the formula X = L + (A- 600), where X = max/mum units allowed, L = lot area in square feet, and A = required lot area per unit in square feet. A site plan showing parking layout and dimensions shall be required when applying for this lot area bonus. (c) Floor area ratio (FAR) shall be prorated upon the percentage of required parking that is provided as structured parking. (d) Height of structure may exceed the maximum if set back from side and rear setback lines a distance equal to additional height. 03/04/03 DRAFT PED Summary of Residential Types Housing Type Lot Size Density Range Distinguishing Feature Single-Family 2,800-5,000 sq. ff. 6-II alu/gross acre Idetached Small-Lot Duplex 2,000-3,000 sq. ftJunit 8-15 du/gross acre two' attached units Townhouse 1,500-3,000 sq. ft./unit I 0-15 du/gross acre multiple attached units Four-Plex N/A 15-20 du/gross acre- ~four units per building Garden Apartments N/A I 5~25 du/net acre attached with' courtyard parking Tuck-Under N/A 20-30 du/net acre attached with tuck-under parking Apartments Podium Apartments N/A 30-50 alu/net acre attached over structured parking Senior i-lousing N/A 20-25 du/net acre attached courtyard or podium Residential over N/A 15-30 du/net acre attached with ground-floor retail Commercial APE. m 2002 · 9 CONCEPT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 100' 200' 300' March 15, 2002 I Commercial/Office Building I Mixed-Use Building ~ Residential Building ].-1 Future Commercial Building --Indicates Number of Stories BLOCK WI 12,900 SF Commercial ~ .... 16 Townhome Units 42 Off-Street Surface Spaces ], BLOCK W2 6,800 SF Commercial 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS W3a& W3b 7,400 SF Commercial 4 Single-Family Units 50 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK W4 38 Apartment Units 16 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS W5a & W5b 16 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units BLOCK W6 12 Townhome Units LU Z Ii BLOCI S Ela & Eib ~[ 49,400 I;F Commerci~ m ~ ~ ..... 36,400 ~,F Office d , 351 Ofl-S=eet Surhce S ecs _ , ~ ~ ~ ~_~ ,, I ~ tt~ ~ I ~ BLOC~ E2a & E2b [ , -- , 101 Apar~ent U~ts ~ ~ ~ 57 Off-S~eet S~ace Spaces LARPENTEUR CA IFORNIA AV IDAHO AVE ']< .l IOWA AVE ilAVENUE HOYT AVE BLOCK F..3a 21,700 SF Commercial 42 Apartment Units 81 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK E3b 19,400 SF Commercial 44 Apartment Units 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS E4a & E4b 10 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units 38 Apartment Units BLOCKS E5a & ESb ............. 22 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units BLOCKS 11.6a & E6b 22 Townhome Units Calthorpe Associates HILLCREST VILLAGE Smart Growth Twin Cities Metropolitan Council City of Maplewood City of St. Paul - MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 2003 Since staff is working on applications, we have canceled the August 18, 2003 planning commission meeting. Also, the next regular meeting date for the commission is a holiday (Monday, September 1, 2003), the commission should consider rescheduling the meeting to Tuesday, September 2 or Wednesday, September 3. Please check your calendars and staff will contact you to see which date works best for the commission. The commission also may want to start thinking about questions that they will want to ask candidates dudng upcoming interviews. Kr/PC mtg cancel.doc C: Department Heads PC members City Council PC mailing list I