Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/2002· - BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 1,2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 17, 2002 5. Public Hearing None 6. New Business a. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Bruentrup Farm (2170 County Road D) b. Home Occupation License - Eckoff Photography (2443 Montana Avenue East) c. Follow-up from meeting with Barb Strandell 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. May 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. June 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer c. June 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson d. July 8 Council Meeting: Ms. Junek e. July 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak 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, JUNE 17, 2002 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Matt Ledvina Absent Commissioner Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Commissioner Paul Mueller Present Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner William Rossbach Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Krol!, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Rossbach added item 6. g. Kohlman Creek update. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 20, 2002. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 20, 2002. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Dierich, Monahan-Junek PUBLIC HEARING None. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Hmong Alliance Church (1770 McMenemy Street) Mr. Roberts said the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, at 1770 McMenemy Street, is proposing to build an addition onto the south side of their existing parking lot. They also are proposing to add a playground to the east side of the church building and a new driveway from the expanded parking lot to DeSoto Street. The applicant is requesting: A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. Specifically, they want city approval to change the approved site plan to expand their parking lot, to add the new driveway to DeSoto Street and to add a playground. The city code requires a CUP for churches. 2. Approval of project plans. On May 12, 1997, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for this site. These requests were for the church to expand their building by adding space for Sunday school and a solarium to the front of the church. The church is meeting the conditions of their CUP and staff is not aware of problems, other than the traffic from the site, with the church. The proposed parking lot expansion meets the requirements for the CUP and would fit the site. If approved, the parking lot would grow from 95 spaces to 254 spaces (an increase of 159 spaces). This expansion should meet the parking needs of the church for the next several years. Proper landscaping and screening would ensure that nearby homes are buffered from the parking lot. The proposed playground should be a good fit and should not cause any problems. In addition, the city has approved several CUPs for church expansions in the past few years. Mr. Roberts said the proposed plans show a new driveway from the expanded parking lot to DeSoto Street. The neighbors near the church have mixed reactions to this part of the proposal. Those living on or near McMenemy Street thought the new driveway would be a good idea and those living on or near DeSoto Street thought that the new driveway was a poor or dangerous idea. One neighbor said the city should deny this project because there already is too much traffic from the church. City staff has not received any traffic complaints from neighbors about the existing church and parking lot layout. The new driveway to DeSoto Street however, is a change to the site and the area that is a concern to many of the neighbors. It is their opinion that DeSoto Street, because of its condition and design could not handle the additional traffic. The neighbors also are concerned that the additional traffic from the church would make DeSoto Street unsafe for pedestrians and for the homeowners on the street. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -3- Because of the neighbors' concerns, the church agreed to have a traffic study done. They hired Benshoof and Associates, Inc. to study the existing traffic patterns and to prepare an analysis of what will happen if the church adds the driveway to DeSoto Street. This study shows that about 60 additional vehicles would use DeSoto Street between the driveway and Larpenteur Avenue during the church peak hour on a Sunday morning. The study also notes that "the impacts of the volume increase on this segment of DeSoto Street will not be significant, because there are fewer than 10 homes along DeSoto Street south of the proposed driveway location. Also, this volume condition would occur only for a few hours one day per week." The traffic study has three conclusions. Specifically, the traffic consultants recommend that the church construct the driveway for three reasons: 1. It will not create adverse impacts on DeSoto Street. 2. It will improve convenience for church users. 3. It will reduce the Sunday traffic volume on McMenemy Street. The city should monitor the parking demand and traffic situation and keep track of any complaints after the church completes the project. If traffic and parking problems occur, the city council could require the church to close the driveway to DeSoto Street or make other changes to the site. Mr. Roberts said 31 properties within 350 feet of the church property were surveyed. There were 15 replies. Three were in favor, nine were opposed, and three had comments. Commissioner Trippler asked where DeSoto Street is in the future plans for upgrading and what its upgraded condition will be when it gets done? Mr. Cavett said DeSoto Street is on the city's capital improvement plan for 2005. Beginning in the fall of 2004 the city will start holding neighborhood meetings to discuss the improvements and issues relating to DeSoto Street. This is a state aid street and is a minor collector street. When they do construction on those types of streets, they try to design the streets as narrow as possible. This preserves a neighborhood feel, reduces traffic, and hopefully slows speed down. They try to address traffic calming and pedestrian safety when they do construction projects like this. Commissioner Trippler said when he walked the site he noticed a steep drop in grade. Isn't a 7% drop in grade really steep for a driveway? Mr. Cavett said ideally the city would like to see a 5% drop in grade. Up to a 10% drop is acceptable, and the city standard is up to a 13% drop in grade. The applicant, Mr. Kao Lee, the parking lot plan committee chair, and representative for the Hmong Alliance Church at 1770 McMenemy Street addressed the commission. He said the church has been established since 1989. At the time they had only 600 members including children. They had constructed a little less than 100 parking spaces. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -4- Mr. Lee said adding the Sunday school and two church services is the reason they need to add more parking spaces to accommodate the additional people. Currently it takes the church visitors about 30 minutes to leave the parking lot. They feel their best interest is to have a driveway to DeSoto Street. They also base the need to have this driveway for emergency vehicles to have an alternate route out of the parking lot. They recently had an emergency and the fire chief told them they really should have an alternative way out of the parking lot. Commissioner Rossbach said the letters and comments from the neighbors have indicated that they believe the church could alleviate some of their traffic concerns by having additional church services. For instance having additional services on Saturday evening and having more than two services on Sundays. Mr. Lee said there has been some discussion in the church governing board regarding that. They believe church services should only be on Sundays. At this point they would prefer to continue Sunday services, but Saturday service is not out of the question permanently. Commissioner Trippler asked what the blocks of time are that the church is used? Is it only used on Sunday's? Mr. Lee said the first church service is from 9:00-10:30 a.m. and the second church service is from 12:00-1:30 p.m. The church is only used for services on Sundays. Commissioner Dierich asked if it would be possible to have a left turn only sign at the end of the driveway that goes to DeSoto Street? And would it be possible to bring the curbing around so that it encourages people to go to the left rather than the right? Mr. Lee said they would like the traffic to go down to Larpenteur Avenue. If the city decides that they will have a no right turn leaving the church parking lot, then the church will deal with that. If the people coming out from the church cannot go out to Larpenteur Avenue, then this will affect the people that live in that direction. Change is needed, he said. The church has a very long frontage on DeSoto Street and the church pays taxes on that property. The church has the right to use that frontage for a driveway. The church needs the driveway. It's not just that they want the driveway. Mr. Lee feels if the church gets the driveway, then they don't need a police officer directing traffic. One of the neighbors asked how many people the church currently serves at each of their church services. Mr. Lee said currently each service has between 600 and 700 people including children. A neighbor said the traffic study stated there would be about 50 to 60 cars coming out of each church service. He said that is hard to believe if there are 600-700 people at each service. That is between 1,200 and 1,400 people, and 50 to 60 cars do not seem nearly enough. He also asked if there is a school proposed at the church site at some time in the future? Mr. Roberts said the plans show a future addition and a future gymnasium, but that is not being approved at this time. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -5- A neighbor said there is traffic leaving from St. Jerome's Church as well which is a block and a half away. There is also traffic from the new 70-unit apartment building at Roselawn Avenue on Sundays. If the church is used during the week, be aware that it is also on a school bus route. There are a lot of children getting on and off the bus in that area. It has become a regular racetrack, especially when school is out. The following neighbors spoke about the proposed parking lot expansion, driveway and playground addition: 1. Joe Kolasa, 1855 DeSoto Street North 2. Audrey Duellman, 1843 DeSoto Street N. (also represented Joe Duellman at 1835 DeSoto St) 3. Lonny Piche, 1784 DeSoto Street North 4. Dale Crosby, 1801 DeSoto Street North 5. Dick DuFrene, 1721 DeSoto Street North 6. Connie Piche, 1784 DeSoto Street North 7. Diana Longrie-Kline, 1778 DeSoto Street North 8. Katie Freimuth, 1802 Burr Street North 9. Dick Freimuth, 1802 Burr Street North 10. Phyllis HamilI-Little, 1699 DeSoto Street North 11. Jeff Solum, 1858 DeSoto Street North 12. Amy Petterson, 1764 DeSoto Street North 13. Jori Carlson, 1856 DeSoto Street North 14. Kristi Wheeler, 1780 DeSoto Street North 15. Jolie Cummins, 1790 DeSoto Street North 16. James Benshoff, Benshoff & Associates, 10417 Excelsior Blvd. Suite Two, Hopkins These were some of the comments shared with the commission: a. If a school gets added to the church they will have to have buses coming in and going out DeSoto Street. They ask that the commission look and think ahead for the neighborhood. b. Emergency vehicles would be coming from McMenemy Street so keep that in mind with the redevelopment of DeSoto Street. c. The neighbors are very concerned about many of the issues and feel that it should be looked at one step at a time. DeSoto Street is a very narrow road and to widen it will be very costly. Because of the grade it would be very difficult. DeSoto Street is 24 feet wide and one neighbor said he heard the minimum standard is 28 feet wide. e. If there are two cars that meet on DeSoto Street and there is somebody on a bike, there is nowhere for that biker to go. He is surprised there has not been a head-on collision on that street yet. f. At the neighborhood meeting they heard the church would like their congregation to grow to 2,000 members. Currently their congregation is at 1,400 members or so. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -6- go The church owns the house to the south. There has got to be something they can do to exit from that property. Maybe getting rid of one of the ponds and making a four lane wide driveway exiting from the property would be a possibility. There are other alternatives. If you straighten out DeSoto Street, you are also allowing speeders to go even faster through that area. People have gone as fast as 70 mph until the curve in the road. That is what finally slows them down. People seem to think it is a racetrack. i. The church is a great neighbor to have. The neighborhood is just concerned about the safety and what is good for the neighborhood. The church runs 6 to 7 nights a week with activities. It is a social gathering spot for the community and traffic will keep increasing. There are always kids playing in the parking lot all week. It does not make sense to make any changes until DeSoto Street is redone. Then they should take another look at the driveway addition after the playground, parking lot and DeSoto Street changes are done. The traffic study company should have put a traffic counter down on the south end of the street towards Larpenteur Avenue. Even the applicant said many of the members leave from church that direction. m. The neighbors believe traffic complaints have been registered with the non-emergency police department. That traffic information should be checked out, provided, and put into the report. no po ro Maybe the applicant could hire a sheriff or police member to direct traffic out of the parking lot. There are several blind driveways on DeSoto Street and it can be very dangerous to increase traffic on this stretch of road. The city should extend the notification process farther than 350 feet from the proposed development. It affects many people beyond that many feet. Perhaps even a mile away would be good. Even though the city puts up the proposed development signs with the telephone number to call for more information, often times you are driving too fast to write the phone number down or even see the phone number. Many times it is on too busy of a street and you cannot slow down or stop to see the telephone number. There are cars parking on McMenemy Street already from the overflow from the church. When the congregation grows they will be parking out on DeSoto Street as well. This will only cause more safety problems and exasperate the problem. With the road being this narrow, if you have a car trying to get past the parked car with oncoming traffic, this could make for a dangerous situation. Many of the residents do not have property large enough to put in a turnaround in their driveway area. This would make it much safer backing out with the blind driveways. With the speed that drivers have, it can be quite dangerous trying to back out of your driveway. You need to take caution at all times. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -7- The apartment building on the other side of Roselawn Avenue is not a good neighbor. The homeowners by the proposed driveway will eventually move and then the homes will become rental properties. These changes will deteriorate the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that is a nice place to raise a family. Houses that are affordable and the neighbors are good. He thinks the church is making their problem the neighborhood's problem. It should not be that way. He wondered if the street could handle that kind of traffic. If they drive by his driveway every Sunday, he has to have a lot of traffic going by his residence. This would not make him happy. u. They bought the house because of the quietness of the neighborhood. Having more traffic will eliminate the quietness of the area. The neighbors feel that because of the structure of McMenemy Street the church should be using this street instead of DeSoto Street. They can solve their problem using part of the property they already own, but are choosing not to. w. This issue really boils down to convenience for the parishioners' verses safety. x. Why didn't the city do the traffic study instead of the applicant hiring a company to do the traffic study? y. The traffic study counted cars but did they count runners, walkers, and kids riding bikes? There are people using this street too, not just cars. This is a safety issue for everyone. A neighbor said she has a child with Down Syndrome and she is concerned he will get out of her fenced in yard and run down the street and get run over with additional traffic from the church. Mr. James Benshoof with Benshoof and Associates, traffic consultant for the church, addressed the commission and made the following comments: *He said there is definitely a need for the second driveway on DeSoto Street for the Hmong Alliance Church. *About 86% percent of the traffic leaving the church turns to the south onto McMenemy Street. *Benshoof and Associates did the traffic study on a Sunday and a Tuesday. Doing a traffic study once is pretty typical to get complete data. *Mr. Benshoof said there could be monitoring done by the city for the traffic and parking situation. If there were problems found the city could meet with the church and possibly shut down the second driveway if need be. *Mr. Benshoff said there are approximately 934 cars that use DeSoto Street daily. This is fairly typical in a residential area regardless of the width of the street. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -8- A majority of the commission members said at this point they would vote for the parking lot expansion and playground addition. After DeSoto Street is improved and widened, they would vote for the church to have a driveway at that time. Currently members felt there are other ways the church could improve traffic flow out of their parking lot. The church could add additional church services or hire a sheriff or police officer to direct traffic in and out of the parking lot for each church service. Many of the neighbors were not in favor of the driveway being added at any time, even after DeSoto Street is improved. The commission members would hope that the neighbors would take into consideration the needs of the church when the time comes to hear this proposal in the future for the additional driveway. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on pages 37 and 38 of the staff report. This resolution revises the conditional use permit for a church at 1770 McMenemy Street. This permit is based on the standards for approval required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions to the permit conditions are underlined; deletions are crossed out and changes are in bold): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval includes the parking lot expansion and the proposed playground. Denying the driveway access onto DeSoto Street, The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Regularly maintain the grounds and pick up the debris as well as maintain the decorative wood screening fences along the north side of the site. South and north 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The city council may require additional parking spaces if a parking shortage develops. o The plans for the future church addition and future gymnasium are not approved. These Phase-N shall be submitted to the city council for approval of a revised conditional use permit. The city council may require the church to make changes to the site, if the council deems it necessary or prudent, during future reviews of the conditional use permit. The church shall provide adequate screeninq of the new parking lot from adiacent homes by planting, berminq or both. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach Nays --Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -9- Commissioner Trippler voted nay because of the elimination of the driveway to DeSoto Street. Chairperson Fischer asked commission members if at the time DeSoto Street is improved would they vote yes for the driveway access onto DeSoto Street for the Hmong Alliance Church? Commission members said yes. Commissioner Mueller said he encourages the Hmong Alliance Church to reapply for the driveway access after DeSoto Street gets improved. The motion passed. This goes to the city council on July 8, 2002. b. Conditional Use Permit - Sinclair Fuel Station (223 Larpenteur Avenue East) Mr. Roberts said Sinclair Oil Corporation is proposing to expand and remodel the Sinclair Gas Station located at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East. The expansion includes a 290-square-foot addition to the convenience store, refacing of the convenience store, and construction of a 50-foot x 56-foot, 2,800-square-foot, fuel-island canopy. The six existing fuel dispensers will be replaced with four new pumps. These fuel pumps will have two vehicle fueling stations each, for a total of eight, and will allow for payment at the pump. The proposed expansion and remodeling will be consistent with Sinclair's Rice Street gas station remodeling that was approved by the city council last October. The applicant is requesting that the city approve a conditional use permit to operate a motor fuel station within the business commercial, BC, zoning district. Sinclair gas station was constructed in the late 1970s. The building is 1,641 square feet in area and houses a small convenience store and three automobile service bays. Budget Towing currently leases the site for their towing and tire operation. They also sell gasoline under the Sinclair name. Sinclair was constructed before the city's requirement that a conditional use permit be obtained for a motor fuel station within the business commercial zoning district. Because of the expansion of their facility, a conditional use permit for the motor fuel station is required. Staff finds that the expanded facility meets the nine standards of requirement for a conditional use permit as specified in the resolution on pages 21 and 22 of the staff report. The city code states that no motor fuel stations within 350 feet of a residential lot line shall be operated between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sinclair is located next to residential properties to the south, in St. Paul, and residential properties to the west that include three city- owned housing replacement lots on the corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -10- Budget Towing has been operating their business 24 hours a day for the past year. Once the remodeling and expansion of the motor fuel station is complete, Sinclair Oil Corporation proposes to meet the citys required hours of operation and limit their business from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. In addition, with the new style of fuel pumps that allow payment at the pump, many fuel stations have been allowing 24-hour, pay-at-the-pump fueling between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. as well. The three existing automobile service bays will be removed and a 290-square-foot addition will be constructed on the east side of the building. Interior of the building will include a convenience store, office, and restrooms. The existing roofline on the exterior of the building will be refaced with a new fascia system to create a flat-roof appearance. Exterior building materials include stucco, brick, and windows. The canopy will be 2,800 square feet in area and 19 feet in height, which is three feet higher than the building. Overhead canopies within a motor fuel station are required to be set back at least 15 feet from the street right-of-way. Sinclair's new canopy will be set back 15 feet from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way. There are two existing driveways located on Larpenteur Avenue. City code specifies that driveways must be set back at least 30 feet from intersecting rights-of-way. Sinclair's westerly driveway is approximately 18 feet from the intersecting Adolphus Street right-of-way. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, states in his review of the project that the west driveway should be eliminated and a new driveway constructed on Adolphus Street. The driveway should be centered on the pump aisle, which is 30 feet from the intersecting rights-of-way. City code requires a motor fuel station to have at least four parking stalls, plus one stall per fuel pump. The parking stalls in front of the fuel pumps count toward the overall parking requirement. Sinclair Oil Corporation is proposing eight parking stalls in addition to the eight parking areas in front of each fuel pump. The existing parking lot does not have curb and gutter and is constructed up to the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way and approximately 12 feet at its closest point to Adolphus Street. City code requires that all parking lots have curb and gutter and be set back 15 feet from street rights-of- way. With the reconstruction of the parking lot, Sinclair is proposing curb and gutter as well as a 10- foot setback to Larpenteur Avenue and a 20-foot setback to Adolphus Street. Increasing the parking lot setback to the required 15 feet on Larpenteur Avenue is not possible because of limited space between the fuel island pumps and the new parking lot curb. The new 10-foot parking lot setback to Larpenteur Avenue will create a more conforming parking lot. For this reason, and because the parking lot will be located 30 feet from the paved portion of Larpenteur Avenue, staff finds the 10-foot pavement setback adequate. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -11- Larry Feldsien, representing Sinclair Oil Corporation, addressed the commission. He said they are trying to convert this from an automobile service station to a convenience store while continuing to sell gasoline. They hope by making the changes that they have proposed in the staff report they can improve their business. Budget Towing is currently operating the Sinclair Oil station. Once it is converted it would not be leased by anybody else, and employees of Sinclair Oil Corporation would run the Sinclair gas station. They would operate during the hours proposed by staff. They do have some concerns about the driveway off of Adolphus Street and the minimum width of 24 feet. The cost of the drainage appears to add $10,000 to the total cost. Mr. Cavett said Sinclair Oil Corporation would be the first service station that the city has had to deal with NURP standards. Commissioner Dierich asked the age of the tanks at the Sinclair Oil station? Mr. Feldsien said the tanks were installed in either 1988 or 1989. They are steel tanks and they have provided all the upgrades. There will be overfill and overspill systems on them. They have an automated tank gage on them. Sinclair will be putting in new tank piping, and that will be made of plastic. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22 of the staff report approving a conditional use permit to operate a motor fuel station within the business commercial, BC, zoning district for the Sinclair gas station located at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (additions are in bold). The fuel station's hours of operation, including pay-at-the-pump fueling, are limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. bo The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding fuel tanks, fuel spillage, monitoring wells, any contaminated soil, etc. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Adding the driveway onto Adolphus Street. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of the city council's approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. e. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. This goes to the city council on July 8, 2002. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -12- c. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment Mr. Roberts said the All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC), and many manufactured home park residents in Maplewood, requested that the city council pass an ordinance that would guarantee park residents financial assistance to relocate if their park closed. On February 25, 2002, the city council directed staff to review this request and forward a recommendation to them. Staff has invited the five Maplewood manufactured home park owners and representation from APAC to attend the planning commission meeting to discuss APAC's request. On April 9, 2002, the Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) discussed this matter. The HRA tabled this issue until the city receives notification of a manufactured home park closing. They felt that since there are no proposed or pending closings at this time, there is no urgency to act immediately. The HRA discussed the needs-vs.-greed aspects of APAC's suggested ordinance. The HRA also wanted to know from the city attorney if the city would have sufficient time to enact an ordinance at the time of a proposed park closing that would be applicable to that park or if it would only apply to future closings in the city. (The city attorney said that, in such a case, an ordinance enacted would apply to future closings, not to a current one.) Staff has not formed a recommendation about this matter. The input received at the planning commission meeting will aid staff in forwarding a recommendation to the city council. Mr. Roberts said in 1987, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law allowing cities and municipalities to pass park-closing ordinances (Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095). The purpose of such an ordinance is to help protect citizens living in manufactured home parks in the event of a park closing by requiring park owners to reimburse homeowners for relocation costs if their home can be moved, and it not, purchase the manufactured home. The City of Maplewood received a proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance for the city council's review from All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC). APAC is a non-profit organization that serves as a tenants union for manufactured home owners. They help organize park residents to understand and protect their rights as specified in state law. APAC sent a mailing to a majority of the city's park residents regarding their proposed ordinance. In the mailing they requested that the residents show their support of a park-closing ordinance by signing their name and address to a postcard and sending it to the city. To date, the city has received 190 postcards in support of the proposed ordinance. On February 25, 2002, after reviewing APAC's proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance, the city council directed staff to review the request and forward a recommendation to them. Staff is requesting input from the Maplewood Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to assist us in our review of APAC's request, and the many manufactured home park residents' request, for the city to pass a manufactured home park-closing ordinance. Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 06-17-02 The park-closing legislation came out of a situation in Bloomington when Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park was sold for redevelopment as a car dealership. Many of the homeS were too old to move and therefore forced the residents to sell their homes for very little. This left many of the residents financially devastated and homeless. Alarmed by these events, the legislature passed the park closing law in 1987. The law states that a park owner must notify the city and the residents of a park closing nine months prior to the proposed closing. Once notice is received, the city must hold a public hearing to review the impacts that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owners. The city may require payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another park within 25 miles of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The law further states that the city may also require that other parties, including the city, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the resident. After the law was enacted, the City of Bloomington adopted a park-closing ordinance and required the Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park owner to reimburse the park residents for relocation costs or purchase the homes. The park owners brought the City of Bloomington to court over the ordinance claiming that it was a land taking. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Bloomington's ordinance in Arcadia vs. City of Bloomington, 1994, and the park owners were required to reimburse the homeowners for relocation costs or purchase the homes. Thirteen cities within the State of Minnesota currently have park-closing ordinances: Apple Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Hopkins, Elk River, Dayton, Fridley, Lake Elmo, Mounds View, Oakdale, Red Wing, Roseville, and Shakopee. Most of these ordinances require that park owners reimburse manufactured home owners to relocate their homes within 25 miles. If relocation is not possible, the park owner or land developer must purchase the home for the market value as determined by an independent appraiser approved by the city. In addition, some cities' ordinances place a cap on the amount of reimbursement. For example, the park owner or land developer would only have to reimburse up to 20 percent of the purchase price of the park or the assessed value of the park. Two cities within the State of Minnesota, Brainerd and Willmar, reviewed park-closing ordinances and chose not to pass one. Both of these proposed ordinances were brought on by actual park closings. APAC's proposed ordinance mirrors Elk River's ordinance passed in 1997. It states that the park owner or land developer shall pay the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the home to another park within 25 miles. Reasonable costs include expenses incurred in moving the home and personal property, insurance for replacement value of the property being moved, and cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down, move and set up the home. If the home cannot be moved, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of costs awarded to other residents plus the park owner or land developer must purchase the home at the amount equal to the estimated market value of the home. APAC's proposed ordinance does not include a cap on the amount that a park owner or land developer would have to reimburse the residents. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -14- Upon notice of APAC's proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance, Traci Tomas, agent for the St. Paul Tourist Cabins, submitted a letter to the city regarding her experience with park-closing ordinances passed in the cities of Fridley and Shakopee. As a manufactured home park owner representative, Ms. Tomas found that the City of Shakopee's ordinance allowed for the most flexibility for possible future city development of manufactured home park properties. St. Paul Tourist Cabins and Maplewood Manufactured Home Park have older manufactured homes, many of which would not meet current building code standards. Since the St. Paul Tourist Cabins have been under new ownership as of last year, six of the older manufactured homes have been removed. The new owners state that they will be replacing the older homes with newer homes. Beaver Lake, Rolling Hills, and Town & Country have a mix of new and old homes. These three parks have given residents the opportunity to trade-in their existing manufactured home for newer models, or when a resident leaves, the park owners purchase the older home and replace it with a newer home. Manufactured home park residents own their home but rent the land the home sits on. The average cost of a new manufactured home is from $30,000 for a standard size to $60,000 for a double wide. The average cost of an older manufactured home varies widely from $500 for the oldest models to $4,000. Rental space is approximately $270 per month and usually covers sewer, water, garbage, and snow removal. There are no studies to indicate the average annual income of manufactured home park residents within the City of Maplewood. However, a study of manufactured home park residents in East Bethel, Minnesota, conducted by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs in 1998, indicated that the mean annual household income of manufactured home residents was from $10,000 to $29,999. APAC points out that it would prove difficult to find an available manufactured homesite within a 25-mile radius of a park within the City of Maplewood because of the Iow vacancy rates. Also, many of the manufactured homes are older and cannot be moved. Because of this and the fact that most of these homeowners have lower income, a park closing could prove to be a financial catastrophe for many of the city's residents. As stated by APAC, residents living in conventional homes receive compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment. However, residents that own a home within a manufactured home park are not guaranteed any kind of compensation if their park is closed because they do not own the land that their home sits on. APAC states that a park-closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of the manufactured home parks in Maplewood would receive fair compensation for their homes in the event a park closes. Mark Brunner, executive vice president of Minnesota Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA), states that such an ordinance would hinder redevelopment within the City of Maplewood due to the added expense to the developer. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -15- Mr. Brunner points out that bank lenders may also be more hesitant to refinance loans for park upgrades and improvements if such an ordinance were in place and questions the fairness of hoW the values of the manufactured homes are determined in some of the existing ordinances. Also, MMHA believes that the language in the law which states "other parties involved in the park closing may provide additional compensation to residents" is intended to not only mean the park owner or developer, but entities such as the city, housing redevelopment authority, or other entities that may be able to tie into reimbursement. Mr. Brunner states that the current law gives the manufactured home residents the protections needed because it allows cities to determine compensation to the residents at the time of a closing. MMHA is opposed to such an ordinance because it could be considered a land taking and would put a burden on the property owner. Commissioner Trippler said in regard to the letter from Jeff Swanberg of APAC, he asked staff if a resident has to move because the city bought the street out, would the city pay for the land and the moving of the home and all of the property in it? Mr. Roberts said if it was a public project they would pay for the home and land, and there would be some relocation costs involved. The following people spoke re,qardin,q the Manufactured Home Park-Closing Ordinance: 1. Jeff Swanberg, 969 Frost Avenue, St. Paul Tourist Cabins 2. Richard Smith, 1056 Bellecrest Drive, Town & Country Mobile Home Park 3. Renae Bronson, 1083 Deauville Drive, Town & Country Mobile Home Park 4. Dan Le, Attorney for APAC in St. Paul 5. James Paste, Executive Director of APAC 6. Tiffany EIIswoan, 946 Frost Avenue, St. Paul Tourist Cabins 7. Robert Ogilvie, 1249 Antelope Way, Beaver Lake Estates Mr. Jeff Swanberg of 969 Frost Avenue in the St. Paul Tourist Cabins addressed the commission. He also represents APAC. He wanted to correct some misrepresentations and facts. He said there were eight court cases filed by management, and seven of those were dismissed. The one case was brought through the court system. The individual was given time to correct some problems and did not do so. He moved out but his home is still standing. He has lived at the St. Paul Tourist Cabins for 2Y2 years now and enjoys living there. It is close to Lake Phalen, close to the parks, and close to the Gateway Trail. He said it would be a perfect spot for a townhouse development to be built. For this reason, he and the residents are fearful that they will lose their homes to a development, and this is why they would like to see this ordinance passed. He is a Iow-income individual, and the residents are financially vulnerable. This ordinance would give them the security and the protection the residents need in the City of Maplewood he said. Mr. Richard Smith at 1056 Bellecrest Drive, Town & Country Mobile Home Park addressed the commission. He said he has done a lot of research regarding mobile home parks. To move a single-wide mobile home costs $10,000 not including the mileage that is $250 a mile and $250 to hook you up. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -16- That is because there is a shortage of people doing manufactured homes because nobody wants to be involved in mobile homes anymore. There isn't enough Iow-income housing for people anymore. If you live in an apartment, you have no privacy and can hear your neighbors through the walls. In a mobile home you have your own yard and privacy, and it is a safe environment. Mr. Smith said most people buy mobile homes in place already. To get out of one mobile home park and into another, there is a 3Y2-year waiting list. Most of the time they want you within a 25- mile radius. To move anything over that, you have to pay a driver $100 and pay for a night's stay. Once you disconnect it, you can't just reconnect it. The mover just sets you up and blocks you up. Then you have to pay the city you moved into to put in new meters, and they charge you for the electricity. Then the sewer and water needs to be checked out. There is not a municipality that will let you move a mobile home onto the property within 50 miles. Then if you do, the mobile home has to be doublewide and you have to have at least 5 acres of property. Then the city allows you up to three years to build a permanent home on the property and remove the mobile home from the property. Mr. Roberts clarified that the city code states you can have a mobile home on a lot in the City of Maplewood, but it has to be a doublewide mobile home. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if there was any indication why Brainerd and Willmar did not pass the manufactured home park-closing ordinance? He said he would be curious what their reasoning was. Mr. Dan Le, attorney for APAC in St. Paul, addressed the commission. When a park closes, the people have no say. They lose their homes, their friends, and their neighborhood. They deserve compensation for relocating their lives. They don't own the land, but they do own the home and they are not given fair market value like you would get if you lived in a stick-built home. This has to do with owners of manufactured home parks that are offered a deal to sell the whole park and they take the money and run. This leaves the mobile home owners homeless with only nine months to find another home. Nine months is not enough time for somebody to find another home and make arrangements to move their things. There are five mobile home parks in this fine city of Maplewood. Two parks have 254 mobile homes and one has 357 mobile homes. This is a huge amount of people to displace. Is the City of Maplewood comfortable with deciding the fate of that many homes in a period of nine months? This ordinance is preventive and it does not cost the city anything. It is going to benefit the city greatly if it should ever happen here in Maplewood. This also protects the interest of people with affordable housing. Commissioner Pearson said he has been in the manufactured home park business for over 25 years. They do it far better than any government agency out there, and it does not cost the government any money. They do the upkeep, all the streets, lights, and infrastructures with the residents help. Mr. Pearson asked Mr. Le when the property at the St. Paul Tourist Cabins was for sale a long time, why didn't APAC help the residents get together and buy the property as a co-op? He said if his mobile home park community was being threatened to close, he would be the one doing a co-op with the community and buy the park. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -17- Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Le why he believes people that live in mobile homes see themselves as different from people living in condominiums, apartment buildings, or townhouses? He said there seems to be a monetary difference, but there doesn't seem to be any equity difference. Mr. Le said there is a big difference in equity. When you as a homeowner sell your property, it is your decision and you get the profit from the sale. It is not their decision, and they are not entitled to those profits from the property. You are also talking about a difference of 254 or 357 homes verses one home. He doesn't think Maplewood has a problem attracting a developer to the City of Maplewood. This is one of the "cons" because they could take over any one of these manufactured home parks. Mr. James Paste, Executive Director of APAC, addressed the commission. He said he is a renter. Being a renter, you don't own the unit as you would a manufactured home, and this is why they deserve compensation and a renter doesn't. This is why state lawmakers took action on this issue in the City of St. Paul in 1987. The mobile home park in Bloomingtoh'called the Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park closed, and the people had no place to go. People were living in their cars, and there was a lot of negative press for the City of Bloomington. That was the inspiration for this law that was passed in 1987. He believes any owner of manufactured home parks in Minnesota since 1987 should be aware of this law, and it is a cost of doing business and a cost of development. Mr. Paste said currently there is not a threat of a park closing in the City of Maplewood at this time. Ten of the thirteen cities that have taken this action so far have done so far without a park closing. They did it at the request of the park residents who asked for it to be passed. This is all done without using any public tax dollars. Most recently, the neighboring cities of Oakdale and Roseville passed this ordinance. This is about affordable housing and fairness. This is about families and having this security in place. Neither of these two cities have nearly as many manufactured homes as the City of Maplewood does. The answer to the question earlier about where was APAC when the park was for sale to purchase the park as a co-op. The only time the right of first refusal kicks in for residents is if a closure is announced. The residents don't get the right to match the developer's offer if it just switches hands from one park owner to another. The residents were never informed until the park was sold, so they could not form a co-op. The reason the law was passed was to allow cities to pass this ordinance to protect the residents in the manufactured home parks. Commissioner Mueller asked staff what they would like the commission to do with this information. Mr. Roberts said staff would like the commission to provide as much specific direction on the things the commission is not clear on or would like more information on. Then staff can research and bring back more clear information to the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -18- Commissioner Pearson would like to form a task force to form an ordinance for the City of Maplewood implementing an ordinance will be difficult because of the price comparison in the different manufactured home parks. These ordinances have a cap rate. Whatever price a buyer is willing to pay for an ongoing park they use a cap of 20% of that price as a maximum that can be paid out to the residents in that community. 20% is not adequate for residents in Beaver Lake Estates and Town and Country because they have a greater value than other manufactured homes in other parks. Mr. Roberts said the direction from the city council is they have not decided if there should be an ordinance for the manufactured home parks. That is step one. They were looking for direction from the HRA and the Planning Commission. The next step is how to implement that ordinance. If a task force was set up, it would have to be appointed by the city council. Chairperson Fischer said she would like to see why the cities of Brainerd and Willmar did not pass the ordinance and their reasons they chose not to pass the ordinance before making any decisions. Commissioner Mueller said he thought it was interesting that there were no representatives from any of the parks at the meeting to state their comments. Mr. Roberts said he did get a telephone call from the owner of Rolling Hills, and they were against the ordinance. Commissioner Pearson said he would like a clear interpretation from the city attorney of how he came to the conclusion that he came to in the report. Commissioner Rossbach moved to table this item. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -All The motion is tabled until staff has more time to get some questions answered that were brought up during this discussion. Mr. Roberts will update the commission when the information becomes available for a report. d. Annual Tour Mr. Roberts handed out a list of possible sites for the annual city tour that will be held Monday, July 29, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. He asked commission members to look at the list and choose a few sites they would be interested in stopping at. He would also like the commission to decide whom to invite for the tour. The consensus of the commission was to have fewer sites and stay longer at each site to have discussion. e. Follow-up from meeting with Barb Strandell Commissioner Rossbach moved to table this item. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes -All Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 f. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews The first applicant to be interviewed was Richard Currie Mr. Currie has no problem making the meeting day and time. He has no problem visiting the sites ahead of time. He does not approve of the roundabout at English and Frost. Everything else in the city seems to be going well. He wants to be on the planning commission to give some input. The second applicant to be interviewed was Tushar Desai Mr. Desai has no problem with the meeting day and time. He has no problem visiting the sites ahead of time. He has a bachelor degree in industrial and mechanical engineering and a master's degree in business. He has been managing engineering and manufacturing-related businesses for the past 25 years. He has experience in dealing with technical issues related to buildings, OSHA regulations, and building-construction regulations throughout his career. He has managed anywhere from 1 to 300 people. He would Ilke to be on the planning commission because he would like to give time back to the community. He thinks the Maplewood Community Center is the best thing that Maplewood did. He is a member and takes advantage of using the facilities. One thing that the city could work on is the notification process of 350 feet of a proposed development. It should be sent out to people at least in a six-block radius. Sometimes even reading the proposed development sign is hard to get the phone number down fast enough. It would also be nice to have a sign up saying "future site" for Boca Chica for example. He believes the Hillcrest area needs redevelopment, and he is happy to see that will be redeveloped in the near future. He also thinks the commission should limit the time people speak at the podium to move the meeting along. Sometimes people bring things up when this is not the forum to bring them up in. The third applicant to be interviewed was Brad Lagoon Mr. Lagoon has no problem making the meeting day and time. He has no problem visiting the sites ahead of time. He did construction work for a short time but otherwise he has no specific education or experience that would qualify him for the planning commission position. He wants to give back to the community. He works in state workers comp, so there would be no conflict of interest. He has also applied for the police commission as well as the planning commission position. He grew up in White Bear, but he is not too familiar with Maplewood. The fourth applicant to be interviewed was Reginald Meissner Mr. Meissner has no problem making the meeting day and time. He has no problem visiting the sites ahead of time. He is retired now and wants to be involved in other areas. His experience is in commercial signs. He was in the sign business for 42 years and he just retired in 2002. He is interested in the planning commission because he wanted to be involved in the Hillcrest redevelopment area project. He lives in that area and wanted to be involved. He would also like to see what is good for business in Maplewood and what is good for the residents. He thinks the traffic is bad on White Bear Avenue by Maplewood Mall. He likes the city, and other than the traffic, he has no negative comments. He thinks tonight's meeting could have been moved along quicker. A lot of the comments were repeated over and over again. Maybe there should be a time limit on how long a person can speak on certain development issues. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-02 -20- The commissioners rated the applicants with 4 being the highest score for a candidate and 1 being the lowest score for a candidate. The highest number total means the highest rated: Richard Currie ................... 9 Brad Lagoon .................... 12 Reginald Meissner ............ 23 Tushar Desai ................... 26 The final decision will be made by the city council during their interviews set for July 22, 2002. g. Kohlman Creek Update Commissioner Rossbach gave the update on Kohlman Creek that is located in the Tillges Development Area and the discussion that was held at the city council meeting June 10, 2002. Mr. Rossbach reviewed the ordinance and gave the definition of what a creek is in the City of Maplewood. He stated that he thought Kohlman Creek is protected by a 100-foot buffer, (which is 50 feet on each side of the creek). He stated that the Watershed District does not enforce the ordinances of the city. They have their own set of criteria that they use when they develop their recommendations. The hydrologist that Mr. Rossbach spoke with said he would not be in favor of putting the 250 feet of creek into a pipe. Mr. Rossbach said the city is running out of creeks to protect. He would like to know how the commission feels on this item and if the city council should revisit this decision. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the planning commission request the city council to provide an explanation for their decision on Kohlman Creek on the Tillges Development. This should be in a public forum as to the city council's decision-making process. Commissioner Mueller seconded. The motion is passed. Ayes - All VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Rossbach was the planning commission representative at the May 28, 2002, city council meeting. This discussion was tabled until the next planning commission meeting. Xl. Planning Commission -21- Minutes of 06-17-02 b. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the June 10, 2002, city council meeting. This discussion was tabled until the next planning commission meeting. c. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the June 24, 2002, city council meeting. d. Ms. Monahan-Junek will be the planning commission representative at the July 8, 2002, city council meeting. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Staff presentations were tabled until the next planning commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Bruentrup Heritage Farm - Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Revision Addition of Parking Area on Eastern Edge of Property DATE: June 24, 2002 Introduction The Maplewood Historical Society is proposing the addition of a parking area on the eastern edge of the leased City land along County Road D. Approval of parking lot addition requires a revision to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Heritage Farm. The CUP revision should be reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 1, 2002, and reviewed by the City Council as part of a Public Hearing on July 8, 2002. Background On May 24, 1999, the City Council approved a motion of support for the relocation of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm Buildings to the 23-acre open space city property at 2170 County Road D. On June 14, 1999, the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit and Design approval, including a site plan, for the relocated farm and buildings as a public facility for use by the Maplewood Historical Society and for other city functions. A Lease Agreement was negotiated and approved whereby the Maplewood Historical SoCiety leased the property from the City for the operation of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm. The Lease Agreement is for a term of 99 years. In a November 15, 2001 Memorandum to the Park and Recreation Commission, the Director of Parks and Recreation, Bruce Anderson identified that the Historical Society was exploring the feasibility of constructing a 50+ car parking lot on the eastern side of the farm. Mr. Anderson identified that the original proposal for the site included overflow parking located on the western side of the farm site. The Park staff and the Open Space staff strongly recommended to the Park and Recreation Commission that the eastern location was far superior to the western site due to the better use of the existing land form (a large knoll exists on the west side), was more economical to construct and created a clearer distinction for a future trail head. The parking lot location issue was part of the discussion related to the location of the trail along County Road, as part of the reconstruction of County Road D project. The Park and Recreation Commission approved a trail location within the open space corridor and adopted a position of support for the parking lot on the eastern side of the farm. The issue of the parking lot location was not carried further due to a lack of funding for the parking area. On April 22, 2002, the City Council approved a resolution awarding a construction contract for the County Road D project. The contractor for the County Road D project proposed to use the eastern side of the farm as a construction staging area, which would have provided an area cleared of materials and ready for parking lot construction. Property owners to the east and north of the staging area protested the proposal and on June 10, 2002, the City Council denied the contractor's request for the staging area. On June 24, 2002, the City Council directed that the parking lot proposal be presented in a public hearing format. Conditional Use Permit Considerations The farm is currently governed by a Conditional Use Permit, which found that the relocated farm would be compatible with the existing development and land uses in the area. The 1999 permit identified that additional parking shall be added to the site if the City Council deems it necessary. Attached is a revision to the site plan showing a 21 space parking area with a bus turnaround. This proposal is a substantial reduction from the original plan, which included over 50 parking stalls. The reduction in stalls is due to the discussion of events at the site and the overall plan for using various spaces as overflow parking areas for the limited number of events per year where the parking lot capacity is exceeded. The parking lot plan includes a connection to the trail constructed as part of the County Road D project and will also serve as a trailhead for the Lake Links trail. Substantial additional landscape plantings are shown on the eastern and northeastern part of the parking plan, although no details on the type and extent of plantings is identified. A condition of approval of the revised CUP is to provide extensive screening of the residential properties to the north and the northeast. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving a revised conditional use permit (CUP) for the Bruentrup Heritage Farm at 2170 County Road D. RCA Attachments:l -location Maps (2 maps) 2,Original Site Plan from 1999 3,Proposed Site Plan - Parking Lot on East Side 4,Bruce Anderson Memo to Parks and Recreation Commission 5. Resolution LAKE AVE. OOUNTY AVE. NORTH SAINT PAUL EDGE~ILL RD. Attachment O' 1700' 34-00' 51 00' 6800 0" 1" 2" SCALE ,, 209O A - - -= COUNTY ROAD " .... ! SITE .,.I POWER LINES PROPERTY LINE MAP 4 ~ itc CO C,c ld 'Fy IR. O fl b D P rc o s~ ~ C.~T'- ~o.,q. t~ FY'IOU~ :,,qL.,L_ 8' ~.. I L D I A,i ~. $ / LL) I A,) D I/YI / L. L .; $_~..T (.,,~A I-IonSe, 8ccrn!!C~-I~t.~oLrt4,(-v'Oraqe ~'t rs1~ od ba~e~e.~-Ps; ('ou~da'l'id~s~ s/a'~. 5AiNDERS ~ACKER BERGLY Attachment 3 ~002 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Parks and Recreation Comr Bruce K. Anderson, Director of P~ November 15, 2001 for the Commission Meeting Woodlynn and County Road D Bruel · Attachment 4 INTRODUCTION The city currently owns a 23-acre site at the intersection of Woodlynn and County Road D as a public open space property. The city applied for and was awarded a $38,000 grant for the restoration of Woodlynn and "D" open space property, which was formally approved in September by the City Council. In addition, the City Council recently awarded the prairie restoration bids in the amount of $25,000 to Prairie Restorations, Inc. City staff has also been Working in close cooperation with the public works department and Maplewood Historical Society in the upgrading of County Road D and design of a future parking lot BACKGROUND The city of Maplewood acquired a 23-acre open space site at the comer of Woodlynn and "D" in 1997. The Bruentrup Farm has been relocated to the open space property and designated a two-acre parcel, which will be defined by a split rail fence. The Historical Society has been actively involved in improving and enhancing the site. The city continues to work with the · Historical Society and we have be~n removing buckthom through a Boy Scouts project, developing trail corridors for public use and removing what-seems to be miles of barb wire. One of the prime objectives of the Historical Society is development of a future parking lot 'This issue is coming to the forefront as County Road D is proposed to be upgraded from White Bear Avenue to McKnight Road and ultimately, to Lydia Avenue. The Parks and Recreation Commission had some exposure to this issue when we approved and revieWed the Lake Links Trail project. There was extensive discussion by the Commission at that time as to the future location of the trail, as to whether it should pass through the open space property or follow County Road D. The Commission and ultimately the City Council included County Road D as an option for the trail in addition to passing through the open space property. The original proposal for the parking lot was on 'the west side of the farm. We have been working with Sanders, Wacker, Bergly to look at the feasibility of locating the parking lot on the east side of the farm. Staff strongly feels that the eastern location is far supedor to the westem site, as it makes better use of the existing land form, is more economical to construct and creates a clearer distinction for a future trail head. Woodlynn and "D" Parking Lot -2- November 15, 2001 in addition to the parking lot question on the east side of the farm, the question of future trail location now needs to be resolved. I have included a variety of plans, with the most recent dated 11-15-01 from Bill Sanders along with his comments. I strongly support the plan dated 11-1 5-01 and feel the parking lot should be located on the east side of the farm. There are pros and cons to having the trail corridor come in further to the west as proposed in the concept drawing. The open space committee actually supports the western loop behind the farm, but questions the need to continue the trail within open space beyond the eastern parking lot. The second option is to construct a sidewalk along County Road D (which will happen anyway as pad of the project) and then have the trail enter at the parking lot on the east side as a trail head and continue out to the east, ultimately to Century Avenue. Staff at a minimum recommends that the trail enter the open space property' on the soUthern edge of the eastern parking lot with the understanding that a trail also will be constructed along County Road D. · RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a future parking lot construction be developed on the east side of the Bruentrup Farm and that the County Road D construction project include a/sidewalk along ~ounty Road D and that a~trail corridor be established through the open sj~ace property with ' ,,,~ ~easiDiii~y of it~i~r co~ing through the eastern parking lot --of'tt'~m~ ~.v.!c~?.~ f=_.rm., prof..5, t~ , -st-', Attachment 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Historical Society was granted a Conditional Use Permit on June 14, 1999 for the Bruentrup Heritage Farm at 2170 County Road D, further described as: Except the East 633 feet of the North 183 feet and except the South 150 feet of the North 333 feet of the East 213 feet and except the South 905 feet, the NE IA (subject to roads and easements), in Section 2, Township 29, Range 22. (PIN 02-29-22-11-0009) WHEREAS, the Maplewood Historical Society has submitted a site plan proposing a parking lot on the eastern side of the .Bruentrup Heritage Farm site. WHEREAS, on July 1, 2002, the planning commission reviewed the site plan revisions and recommended that the City Council this permit revision. WHEREAS, on July 8, 2002, the City Council conducted a public hearing on said site plan and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Revision, after due published notice in the legal newspaper and notice of said hearing was mailed to surrounding property owners, and after considering all testimony from every person or persons wishing to speak or those who wished to submit written statements, and after considering reports and recommendations from city staff and the planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate area property values. 4. 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, smoking, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, 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. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development and design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the approved site plan dated May 17, 2002, for the proposed 21-car parking lot for the Bruentrup Heritage Farm to be located on the eastern side of the farm house building, which shall include a bus turnaround, subject to the addition of extensive landscape features which shall be designed by a registered Landscape Architect to screen from view, the properties to the east and northeast of the parking lot. Approval is granted siting the fact that the parking lot is located and designed to minimize the impact to the City owned and maintained open space, and that the parking lot would not change and is consistent with the operation of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm as a public facility. 2. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. The City Engineer may approve minor changes to the site plan. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Any parking lot lights shall be installed per City code, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 5. The site plan date May, 1999 shall be deemed the approved site plan for the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site, except the addition of the 21-car parking lot on the eastern side of the site. u ~_~ ~aevelo-men' ma>' approve ~: .... ~ 2 Thc proposed .... +"'~qo .....+ ~' .... " .... +:n,,.. ~+~.~a ..,;+,.: .......... c ...... :' approval or 5. Approved by the Maplewood City Council on ,2002 10 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Home Occupation License Karla Eckhoff 2443 Montana Avenue June 25, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Kada Eckhoff is requesting a home occupation license to start and operate a portrait photography business from her home at 2443 Montana Avenue. Please see the maps on pages 5 through 7 and the applicants home occupation questionnaire on pages 8 and 9. DISCUSSION Photography Business The applicants business would be taking portrait photographs of individuals and families. Ms. Eckhoff would be using a 12-foot by 9-foot den on the first floor of her home as the photography studio. The applicant would be using lighting in the studio and cameras in the home occupation. Ms. Eckhoff lives on the premises and would be the only employee in the home occupation. In addition, she would not be developing the pictures at home. The applicant states that she would receive customer visits between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and she expects about 15-20 customers per week. Neighborhood Comments A majority of the neighbors who responded to a survey are for the home occupation or had general comments. The most common comment from the neighbors was about traffic in the neighborhood. Ms Eckhoff told me that she expects an average of two or three customers per day. If the city approves the photography business, the city's home occupation ordinance allows only residents of the home, plus one outside employee, to be employed within the business. In addition, the city council may place conditions on the business to ensure that surrounding residential properties are not negatively impacted. Other Comments David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, stated "Looks OK. It does not change the use of the home." RECOMMENDATION Approve the home occupation license for Ms. Karla Eckhoff of 2443 Montana Avenue to conduct a portrait photography business from her home. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Meeting all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. This includes that the ama of the home occupation is limited in size to 20 percent of the floor area of the house. 2. Customer hours for this home occupation am limited from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 3. Them shall be no mom than 20 customers visiting the home per week. CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of 37 properties within 350 feet of this site. I received eight written replies and three comments on the telephone. The written replies were as follows: For 1. 2. It is okay with us. (Schultz - 1500 Mary Street) We have no problem with her having a studio. We hope she is very successful with it. (Buche - 2424 Montana Avenue) We have no problem with you opening a photography studio in your home. (Williams - 2440 Tevlin Court) We do not see a problem with it. We wish them good luck with their new business! (Johnson- 2485 Montana Circle) In addition, one person on the telephone said that the proposal was fine. COMMENTS We do not have any problem with people trying to make a buck, but we are concerned about the increased traffic. Some people do not know what a stop sign means. If the license is granted, we think it should be conditioned on (1) That Karla host a block party once a year, and (2) all families on this mailing list be entitled to a free family portrait every other year for life while residents of this area. (Gockowski - 2414 Montana Avenue) I realize 15-20 customers per week does not seem like much, but traffic coming east from McKnight rarely stops at the current stop signs on Lakewood and Montana. There is a constant flow of traffic throughout the day and into the late evening seven days a week. (Higgins- 1552 Lakewood Drive) We worry about traffic!! The new development (Oak Ridge Estates) has already added speeding traffic through the neighborhood that we have clocked at 40 miles per hour and no stopping at stop signs. This was once a very quiet neighborhood. (Simon - 1581 Sterling Street) AGAINST 1. We are not interested in any business enterprise next to our home. (Sperl - 1540 Mary Street). In addition, two comments on the telephone were against the proposal. SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: REFERENCE INFORMATION Single-Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES Single-family homes to the north, south, east and west PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Article II, Section 17-21 (b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. I have attached these requirements on pages 11 and 12. Application Date We received the complete application for this home occupation license on June 4, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends August 3, 2002. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by July 22, 2002. P/sec24-29/eckoff Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Floor Plan 4. Home Occupation Questionnaire 5. Home Occupation Ordinance A%'taChment 1 1440N 2 REBECCA DR 3 PINETREE DR 4 BJRCH~IEW DR 1200N 9 8 Trailer Court B~RCHVlEW O~ ROLLING ~LLS LOCATION MAP 562 MONTANA AVENUE 3 2416 · 2423 2421 3 2420 ~7 15 2430 ~ coUlff 14 14 3 1540 4 1530 1594 1586 7 1520 1500 B 9 21 ',16 Attachment 2 2495 2494r,' 17 15 13 SITE PROPERTY LINE MAP 6 ,,Nj Attachment 3 ...-.. / / / / FLOOR PLAN HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE (Attach a separate page if additional space is needed) Describe your home occupation: Attachment 4 o How many nonresident employees would work on-site? 0 How many nonresident employees would work off-site? ~ How often would off-site employees visit your home? What percentage of each level of your home's floqr area, including th,e .basement, would you use in conducting the home occupation? /(7 ~ ~ 7~/~ ,~,:. /n ~/~.,. ,'- Where on the premises, would the home occupation be conducted? Describe any changes in the outside appearance of the building or property, other than one wall- mounted sign of not more than two square feet? What percentage of gross sales would come from the sale of a product(s) produced off-site? How many customer or employee vehicles would be parked on the premises at any one time? Describe the type, payload capacity and number of each type of vehicle to be used in the home occupation and where they would be parked. /?[.~/~ ~', ° What would be the average number of customers expected to visit the premises each week? /~'-,.20 The average number of employee/subcontractor visits to the premises each week? ~ What time of day and which days of the week would you expect these visits to occur?. 10. Describe any delivery vehicles that will make deliveries or ship products from the property. Include the type, amount, hours and frequency of deliveries. 11. Descdbe the type of equipment, including ventilation systems, that would be used. Describe how you would keep the use of this equipment unnoticeable to your neighbors. . 12. Descdbe the amount and type of any chemicals, gasoline, hazardous substances or similar matedal that would be used. Also, descdbe where these materials will be stored. hob?, 13. Descdbe how you~ould dispose of any hazardous materials. /1 (?/~¢ /_.] ,C4(/ / - · , / / ' )' - -~pplicant's Si~atU/;~/¢ Date LICENSES 9 17-21 license will be automatically suspended or revoked five (5) days al%er date of hearing. (Ord. No. 324, § 8, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-5. Same-Period of suspension. When a license is suspended under section 17-4 of this article, the period of suspension shall be not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one (1) year, such period being determined by the city council. (Ord. No. 324, § 9, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-6. Same--Mandatory revocation for certain Code ' violations. When any person, partnership, firm or corporation holding a license issued under this Code has been convicted for the second time by a court of competent jurisdiction for violation of any of the provisions of this Code relating to the subject matter of such license, the city council shall revoke the license of the person, partnership, firm or corporation so convicted. Such person, part- nership, firm or corporation may not make application for a new license for a period of one (1) year. (Ord. No. 324, § 10, 6-22-72) Secs. 17-7--17-20. Reserved. ARTICLE H. HO1V[E OCCUPATIONS* Sec. 17-21. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license approved by the city council if any of the following circumstances would occur more than thirty (30) days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. *Editor's note--Section 8 of Ord. No. 627, adopted June 27, 1988, amended Art. II in its entirely to read as set out herein. Formerly, Art. II comprised 99 17-21--17-25, pertaining to licenses for home occupations and deriving from Ord. No. 521, 9 1, adopted Aug. 23, 1982. Cross reference-Fee for home occupation permit, 9 36-26. · Supp. No. 11 1045 10 § 17-21 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. (3) Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or mate- rials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. ' (5) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload cap~ity. .. (6) If the home occupation produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. (b) Home occupations requiring a license shall be subject to, but not 1/m/ted to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No' more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed, to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the prem- ises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no oa-site employee vehicle parked on-site, one (1) off-site empleyee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shah be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall he used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the c~aduct of a home occupation, other than one (1) sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code. Supp. No. 11 1046 LICENSES § 17-22 (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detect- able to the normal senses off the lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premisea, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, machine shops, welding, ammunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knives or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Ma- chine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that operate on more than one htmdred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) Any noncompliance with these requirements shall consti- tute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The city~ may waive any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential lot line. (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88; Ord. No. 729, § 1, 11-14-94) Sec. 17.22. Original license approval procedure. An application fOr home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director ofcommunlty development shall prepare a recommendation to the planning commission. The planning commissi~'s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city Supp. No. 11 1047 § 17-22 MAPLEWOOD CODE council for a public hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Notice of the hearing shall be marled to the owaers of all properties located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the home occupation at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall also be published in the · official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearin$. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-23. Renewal. " Each license holder shall apply to the city clerk each January for renewal. Prior to issuance of a license renewal, the city shall determine that all licensing conditions and city ordinances are being met. The city clerk shall revoke the license where compli- ance with the licensing conditions or city ordinances cannot be obtained or where the home occupation has been discontinued. RevoCat/on may occur at any time that compliance with license conditims or city ordinance cannot be obtained. (Ord. Nb 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-24. Appeal. The owner or his assign ora home occupation whose license has been revoked by the city clerk may appeal the decision to the city council. To request an appeal, a written letter or request must be submitted to the city clerk within thirty (30) days of the license revocation. The city council may revoke, - approve or add addi- tional cmditions to the license. The city council shah hold a public ~hearing, using the notification procedures in section 17-22, before deciding on the appeal. (Ord. Nb 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-25. Transfer of license. No license granted for a home occupation shall be tran.~ferable from person to person or place to place. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Supp. No. 11 1048 [The next page, is 1057] MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Ken Roberts, Associate Planner April Retreat Follow-up June 6, 2002 INTRODUCTION The planning commission held a retreat/training session with city staff and Barb Strandell on Apdl 29, 2002. I have enclosed Barb's notes from this meeting. DISCUSSION Please review Barb's notes and suggestions for a more effective commission. The commission should discuss the notes and decide if they reflect what the participants said and if they are still applicable or are important to the commission. RECOMMENDATION Accept or adopt with revisions the suggestions from the April 29, 2002 planning commission training retreat. Attachment: April 29, 2002 mee~ng notes p:miscell~kpril training followup.doc Attachment I Maplewood Planning Commission Retreat Notes (4/29/02) Commission & Staff Agendas In the process of reviewing applications and project, what guides your thinking? Or, what is your primary agenda? Or, what do you rely on to inform your decision-making? Jackie: pro landowner; follow the comprehensive plan; balance with what we do with the environment; site visits, consult with staff and residents. Gary: concerned that commercial does not overshadow neighborhoods; senior housing - PUDs and variance: public good; review comprehensive plan. Mary: tax basis - fall on the business side but need to balance what we need with what we want; density; environment: clean houses, yards parks; concerned about diversity- that we deal with it. Tom: compliance with codes; consider ramification of choices; balancing developers right to build with residents; input from other departments. Melinda: codes, plans, statutes; input from all stakeholders (Met Council, City Council, other departments) comprehensive review; all factors. Strive for a community that is inclusive of all people, incomes, lifecycle, etc. Ken: does this make sense; balance interests of applicants with city as a whole. Will: protecting existing residents of Maplewood from whatever is going to happen; residents are more important than businesses. Dale: How does it fit with what is going on around it? Does it conform to rules and regulations that l know of? Public comments. Lorraine: in the contest of constraints, how does it fit into plan? Protect the environment and.responsible stewardship; affordable and. diverse housing (minimize impact). Matt: How does it fit into what exists and what is planned? Aesthetics - the look; neighbors; first hand experience- visualize site; information from many sources; weigh the pros and cons. Roles and Relationships: Discussion was held regarding the role of the staff and the Planning commission Suggestions: Get vision and more direction from City Council Get questions to Council on big topics Have works sessions prior to meetings - for complicated applications More meetings with City Council o Having a clear agenda (since the last meeting was not very useful) o Make an effort'to understand their position Training: o Priority: zoning, PUDs, variance, legal authorities. ( would be handled in one training session). o Have four in-service training sessions per year Minutes: significantly shorten minutes (some are as long as 40 pages); treat minutes like minutes instead of transcriptions. Will have a special meeting to discuss minutes. Minutes should also have more proof- reading. Sometimes poorly written- jump from 1st to 3rd person etc. Meetings: review of coming attractions; have other department representatives there if possible; provide more context and history to Commission (verbal). Communication: Commissioners will be more respectful towards staff and applicants. Staff and fellow commissioners will feel free to give commissioners feedback when they feel that comments are offensive or getting out of line. Chair: will make an effort to tighten up the meetings and commissioners will interject and help chair move things along if they feel that they are getting bogged down. Public: PC should make meetings less formal: o Will will get nametags and see to it that Commissioners greet the public before the meetings. o Citizens will be encouraged to write down their thoughts on a piece of paper prior to presenting (Staff will provide guidelines). o Groups will be encouraged to have a spokesperson present instead of each individual member of the group. (Lorraine) o Staff will provide refreshments when it looks like a difficult, long or a well attended meeting. o Commissioners are encouraged to interject when necessary. Additional actions: Provide better staff and new PC orientation. Provide code book and comp. plans to each new member. Change resident notice forms to give more information about projects including possible outcome if appropriate. Keep planning commissioners informed of training opportunities and consider having them attend other agency meetings when appropriate. Will agreed to clarify issues with Matt on Carver Ridge area zoning.