Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 4, 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. August 19, 2002 5. Public Hearing None 6. New Business a. Highwood Farm (Highwood Avenue East) Preliminary Plat Zoning Map Change (F to R-l) b. Conditional Use Permit-Budget Towing (1291 Frost Avenue) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. August 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. September 9 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich c. September 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 10. Staff Presentations a. Meeting with other first-ring suburbs at Richfield City Hall - September 9, 7:00 p.m. 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, AUGUST 19, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Tushar Desai Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for August 5, 2002. Commissioner Trippler had a change on page 3 under Unfinished Business in the first paragraph. Replace (He said staff does not taking a stance) with (He said staff has not taken a stance on this). Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the planning commission minutes for August 5, 2002 with the amended changes. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - All The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 V. PUBLIC HEARING None. -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. House Moving Request- Bart Crockett (Sylvan Street) Mr. Roberts reported Mr. Bart Crockett is asking the city council to allow him to move a house from Edina to a vacant lot on Sylvan Street. This house is a one-story rambler with an exterior of blue lap siding. The photos in the staff report show the house with a tuck under garage. Mr. Crockett told Mr. Roberts that he would not have a tuck under garage at the proposed location in Maplewood. Mr. Roberts said several of the neighbors originally thought that the lot is too small for a house. The zoning code requires lots for houses in the R-1 zoning district to have 10,000 square feet. This lot according to the Ramsey County property records is 11,941 square feet. As such, the lot and the proposed site plan for the house and garage can meet all city requirements. Mr. Roberts said Nick Carver, the assistant building official, inspected the exterior of the house. This report outlines most, if not all the work Mr. Crockett will have to do to the house. This includes bringing all systems of the house up to current code standards and replacing the siding to meet current code standards. Mr. Roberts said when the city vacated the Kingston right-of-way in 1980, the city failed to keep a utility easement over the south part of the site. This area has an existing sewer line and overhead power lines. To remedy this situation, the city should require the property owner to dedicate to the city a drainage and utility easement over the south 30 feet of the site. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if there were any setbacks required for over-head power lines. Mr. Roberts said there is nothing in the city code; it is just between the power company and the owner. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the city knows if Mr. Crockett has permission from the power company. Mr. Roberts said from the last house moving request Mr. Crocket did get approval from Xcel Energy but that was not included in this report. Commissioner Desai asked staff if the neighbors at 1738 Kingston Avenue were renters and what was the reason there was no response to the survey that was sent. Mr. Roberts said he did not believe they were renters. He included all the responses from the neighbors that he received in the report. There were more responses sent in from the last house- moving request then from the request. Commissioner Dierich said with the 30-foot easement, what does that do to the lot size, does it bring it under the 10,000 square feet minimum lot size required. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -3- Mr. Roberts said yes it would. Commissioner Trippler said when he visited the site he spoke to the resident at 1738 Kingston Avenue and he said he has been there for over 30 years, so it is highly unlikely he is a renter. Mr. Trippler said he spoke to that resident and another neighbor and they were both unhappy with this proposal. Commissioner Ledvina said he does not believe the grading on that lot supports a walkout rambler style home. He is unsure how this house would fit on this lot. Mr. Roberts said the house will have a full basement. The existing garage will no longer be used in this location. It will no longer have a walkout but it will have an egress window. It will be a one- story rambler with a full basement. Commissioner Dierich said when she built her house the easement did not count as part of the lot size. When you took out the easement the I°t was that much smaller. This lot seems too small to put a house on if the city takes out the easement. Mr. Roberts said the strict reading of the code would state that. He would contend in this case the city is asking for the easement after the fact as part of the request. It is large enough without an easement. If Mr. Crockett came in for a building permit for example, the city would issue it assuming it met all the codes. Because it is a house moving, it requires city council approval. As part of the approval process the city is also asking for the easement to make up for something the city did not get before. Commissioner Mueller asked if Mr. Crockett purchased this lot. Mr. Roberts said he believes Mr. Crockett owns the lot. Commissioner Mueller asked about the ten-foot setback and why the house can't go farther south. Is it because of the sewer and power lines. Mr. Roberts said the house may be able to slide two or three feet south, but until the city gets an updated survey, the city is suggesting in the conditions it be moved as far south as possible. Commissioner Mueller asked if that is based on where the sewer goes or where the power lines are. Mr. Roberts said it is based on both the sewer and power lines. Commissioner Pearson asked where the applicant would put the driveway. Mr. Roberts said the driveway will come out onto Kingston Avenue. Commissioner Trippler asked if there will be a garage. Mr. Robert said a garage is not now proposed. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -4- The applicant, Bart Crockett from 5887 Red Pine Boulevard, White Bear Lake, addressed the commission. Mr. Crockett said he would be building a garage on the lot after the house is moved, if it is approved. He would be putting new siding on the home and feels it will be a real nice home for someone. Commissioner Mueller asked if the applicant purchased the lot. Mr. Crockett said he purchased the lot in March 2002. Commissioner Ledvina asked how this house compares in size to the other h'ouse that was going to be moved. Mr. Crockett said they compare in size exactly other than a slightly different shape. Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Crockett how does he see shifting the house to the south towards the power easement. Mr. Crockett said he would have to work with Nick Carver, the assistant building official. Xcel Energy told him he had to be 17.6 feet horizontally and 13.8 feet diagonally from the power lines. He said he would assume that Mr. Carver would be checking that for code. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the house could be shifted five-to-eight feet south in his estimation. Mr. Crockett said he could not estimate that. He would move the house as far south as Xcel Energy would let him. Commissioner Mueller asked if Mr. Crockett showed Xcel Energy the measurements of the proposed house and if so what did they say to him. Mr. Crockett said he gave the measurements to Xcel Energy and showed them the photos of the home. He asked for a ballpark estimate from them. Xcel Energy said that he should be fine. Chairperson Fischer asked if he had any other questions or concerns. Mr. Crockett said his only concern is that he hoped the building department would be relied upon. He has consulted with the building department numerous times and has tried to take care of all the issues to his ability. If it comes down to the power lines causing this proposal not to go through then the house cannot be moved onto the property per the assistant building official. Commissioner Mueller asked if this would be rental property or would he be moving into the home. Mr. Crockett said no he would not be renting out the home and that he would be selling the home. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -5- Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the moving of a one-story rambler-style house for Bart Crockett to the lot south of 1754 Sylvan Street. The city approves the proposed site plan and dwelling orientation as shown on the site plans on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report. This approval shall be subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Submitting the following to the city-for approval before the city issues a building permit. An irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow for 11~ times the estimated cost of completing the construction, including all yard work and exterior remodeling. The applicant shall complete the work within 90 days of the city issuing the permit. The director of community development may extend this deadline for sixty (60) days if there has been a reasonable cause for the delay. The construction shall meet all building code requirements. (Code requirement) A new certificate of survey for the site and verify the lot lines with survey pins. (Code requirement) A grading, drainage and erosion control plan to the city engineer. This plan shall show that the proposed house location and grades will not cause any adverse effects or cause any drainage problems for nearby properties. The city shall not issue a moving permit until the city engineer approves these plans and the construction shall follow these plans. (Code requirement) A drainage and utility easement from the owner to the city over the south 30 feet of the site. Sign an agreement to convey the title. This agreement shall allow the city to take possession of the house and property if the required work is not completed within 90 days after the city issues the moving permit. This agreement would allow the city the right to complete the construction required by code or demolish and remove the structure. The city attorney shall prepare this agreement. (Code requirement) The applicant shall replace the siding and reshingle or repair the roof as needed. The applicant also shall meet all the requirements of the city's building inspection department. Move the house between the hours of 3 and 6 a.m. The applicant shall leave the house in the street until at least 7 a.m., but no later than 10 a.m. There shall be no excessive noise or work on the house or site between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Code requirement) Place the house on the property following the proposed site plan. This approval shall be subject to the following changes: Set the house at least ten feet from the north property line and as far south as reasonably possible while meeting the setback requirements from the existing power line. Any garage shall be set no closer to the alley to the east of the property than the setback established by the existing garage to the north. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -6- Commissioner Monahan-Junek seconded. Ayes-Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Desai Nays - Dierich, Ledvina The motion passed. Commissioner Dierich said she voted nay because it seemed unfair if the rest of the neighborhood has to have a 10,000 square foot lot minimum and the city may be allowing Mr. Crockett to move this house on a lot smaller than 10,000 square feet without the easement. She said even if the city made an oversight with the 30-foot easement or not. Commissioner Ledvina said he voted nay because he was uncomfortable with the fact that the building inspector could not gain access to the home to inspect it because the doors were locked. The inspector really did not know the condition of the house without inspecting the entire house checking the code requirements. It really has nothing to do with having the house moved onto the lot but just the fact that it was not thoroughly inspected. Mr. Roberts said this will go to the city council on September 9, 2002. b. Building Requests - Shelley Schlomka (1501 Henry Lane) 1) 2) House Moving Conditional Use Permit (Accessory Structure) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Shelley Schlomka is asking the city council to allow her to move a house and a detached garage from Point Douglas Road in Newport to her property at 1501 Henry Lane. This house is a rambler with an exterior of horizontal lap siding and would replace the existing house on her property. Mr. Roberts said the house now has a tuck-under garage that Ms. Schlomka will convert to a full basement after moving the house to her property. Nick Carver, the assistant building official, insPected the house. This report outlines most, if not all of the work Ms. Schlomka will have to do to the house. This includes bringing all systems of the house up to current code standards and possibly replacing the roof to meet current code standards. Commissioner Mueller asked if this property is farm zoned. Mr. Roberts said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked why the house is being moved from its current location. Mr. Roberts said it is being moved because of the Wacouta bridge project. There are four or five homes being moved because of the road project. The applicant, Shelley Schlomka from 1501 Henry Lane, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said she didn't have any questions but her only comment is that it would be a 110% improvement. Her gmat grandparents built the current house in the early 1900's. They have a new baby and would like to have a newer home to live in. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 08-19-02 There were no questions or comments from the planning commission members or by anybody in the audience. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the moving of a one-story house and a detached garage for Shelley Schlomka to the property at 1501 Henry Lane. The city approves the proposed site plan and dwelling orientation as shown on the site plan on page 13 of the staff report. This approval shall be subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Submitting the following to the city for approval before the city issues a building permit. a. An irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow for 11/2 times the estimated cost of completing the construction, including all yard work and exterior remodeling. The applicant shall complete the work within 90 days of the city issuing the permit. The director of community development may extend this deadline for sixty (60) days if there has been a reasonable cause for the delay. The construction shall meet all building code requirements. (Code requirement) b. A drainage and erosion control plan to the city engineer. This plans shall show that the proposed house location and grades will not cause any adverse effects or cause any drainage problems for nearby properties or water bodies. The city shall not issue a moving permit until the city engineer approves these plans and the construction shall follow these plans. (Code requirement) c. All plans and information required by the city building official. 2. Get a demolition permit from the city for the existing house. 3. Sign an agreement to convey the title. This agreement shall allow the city to take possession of the house and property if the required work is not completed within 90 days after the city issues the moving permit. This agreement would allow the city the right to complete the construction required by code or demolish and remove the structure. The city attorney shall prepare this agreement. (Code requirement) 4. The applicant shall replace or repair the roof as needed. The applicant also shall meet all the requirements of the city's building inspection department. 5. Move the house between the hours of 3 and 6 a.m. The applicant shall leave the house in the street until at least 7 a.m., but no later than 10 a.m. There shall be no excessive noise or work on the house or site between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Code requirement) 6. Place the house and garage on the property following the proposed site plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -8- Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on pages 23 and 24 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Shelley Schlomka to move a detached garage that would measure 29 feet by 50 feet (1,450 square feet) onto the property at 1501 Henry Lane. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits before moving the garage onto the property. The owner shall not use the garage for commercial 'or business activities, other than agricultural related uses as specified in the farm residence zoning district, unless the city council approves such a request. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Desai The motion passed. Mr. Roberts said this will go to the city council on September 9, 2002. c. Anderson Hillwood Oaks Preliminary Plat (Dorland Road South) Mr. Roberts reported that Broadway Builders of Lake Elmo, Inc. is proposing to subdivide 2310 Mailand Road East, a 1.34-acre parcel, into three separate lots and combine one of the lots with an. existing outlot. The single-family house located on Mailand Road will remain and Broadway Builders will construct two new single-family houses, both with access onto the Dorland Road cul-de-sac. The developer of the Hillwood Oaks Estates plat (Royal Oaks Realty, Inc.) originally tried to negotiate with the property owner of 2310 Mailand road for the subdivision of two lots from the rear of the property with access onto the new Dorland Road cul-de-sac. The property owner of 2310 Mailand Road was not willing to negotiate for the subdivision of their land or pay for a share of the cost of construction Dorland Road. For this reason, in 1989 the city council approved a reserve strip (Outlot B) on the condition that the outlot not be used for access to the cul-de-sac or transferred to another owner until fair reimbursement of costs for street, water, and sewer was made. Last year a new owner purchased the property at 2310 Mailand Road. The new property owner attempted to negotiate the purchase of Outlot B in order to obtain roadway access onto the Dorland Road cul-de-sac for two new lots to be subdivided from the rear of the property. Royal Oaks Realty did not feel that the offer was fair reimbursement of costs associated with the development of the street, water, and sewer. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 08-19-02 In an attempt to facilitate the access onto Dorland Road, the city council approved the city acquisition of Outlot B in 2001 on the condition that the city purchase from a willing seller. Again, Royal Oaks Realty did not feel that the offer was fair reimbursement. In July of this year, Broadway Builders was able to resolve the conflict by offering to purchase both 2310 Mailand Road and Outlot B. Broadway Builders is now prepared to plat the property and build two new single-family houses. The property is zoned F (Farm Residence) and is planned as R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) in the city's comprehensive plan. To be consistent with the comprehensive plan, however, staff recommends that the city rezone the entire property from Farm Residence to R-1. Commissioner Ledvina said the existing house on lot I and the setback from the new lot line for lot 2 is 50.5 feet and then there is a deck. He asked what the code requirement was for that. Mr. Roberts said for the structure itself, it is 20% of the lot depth, not including the deck. The proposed plat on page 15 of the staff report shows that lot is 241 feet deep and that the rear setback will be 48 feet. He said decks can encroach into that setback as long as the deck is not covered. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, said there is a three-part agreement between the property owners and the City of Maplewood. The agreement has been drafted and the city is waiting for it to be approved. Commissioner Ledvina asked if he understood that before the developers can get a building permit for the project and before a plat can be finalized, the garage must be removed. Mr. Ahl said the agreement requires all of those things to be done and be signed off by the city and secured in some manner before the builders can proceed with their project. This has twelve years of history. He said the city believes they are the owner of Outlot B so the builders really don't have access to the property until the city signs off on it. Broadway Builders is trying to solve this and by coming forward with this plat with this very complicated legal issue they have helped the city negotiate between the property owner, developer and the city. Broadway Builders brought the three parties together, and therefore, willing to secure the removal of the garage, the grading permit and the platting process. Lisa Anderson, an officer for Broadway Builders in Lake Elmo, addressed the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked Ms. Anderson if she had any questions or comments with the staff report. Ms. Anderson said she has no questions regarding the staff report. Broadway Builders has been working with staff to iron out the details before this proposal got to this point. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -10- Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the rezoning resolution on page 16 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map from Farm Residence to Single Dwelling Residential (R- 1) for the proposed Anderson Hillwood Oaks Plat. The city is making this change because it will: a. Not detract form the use of neighboring property. b. Serve the best interests and conveniences of the community. c. Cause no negative impacts on the city's public services or facilities. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the Anderson Hillwood Oaks preliminary plat date- stamped August 15, 2002. The developer of the plat must complete the following conditions before the city council approves the final plat. Submit final construction and engineering plans for approval by the city engineer. The plans must include grading, drainage, and erosion control. b. Revise the plat to show that Lot 2 has a 40-foot wide front lot line at the cul-de-sac. Broadway Builders of Lake Elmo, Inc. and Royal Oaks Realty, Inc. must sign a mutual agreement and covenant with the city which covers all financial considerations for fair compensation of Outlot B, Hillwood Oaks Estates No. 1, as drafted by the city engineer. Submit a tree plan that shows all large trees located on the two new lots and indicates which trees the developer will preserve with the construction of the two new single-family houses. All large trees removed from the two new lots must be replaced one-for-one, not to exceed 10 trees per acre, as required by the city's tree preservation ordinance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer must place temporary orange safety fencing at the grading limits, including around all trees to be preserved. Record the final plat with Ramsey County. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Desai The motion passed. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Roberts to clear up the zoning on the lot north of block 1 that is zoned farm. Attachment 5 on page 13 of the staff report looks like everything is single-family dwelling. She asked if attachment 5 is inaccurate. Mr. Roberts said attachment 5 on page 13 of the staff report is the land use map not the zoning map. Staff will make sure to get that clarified. Mr. Robert said this will go to the city council September 9, 2002. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -11- dm Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan Mr. Roberts said staff is requesting that the planning commission, community design review board (CDRB) and housing and redevelopment authority (HRA) forward a recommendation on the Hillcrest Village plan to the city council. The council needs to decide whether the city should adopt the redevelopment plan for Hillcrest Village, some variation of it, or not adopt it at all. Mr. Roberts said on August 13, 2002, the CDRB discussed the Hillcrest Village plan and recommended approval of this redevelopment plan in concept. The CDRB expressed strong concern that they be actively involved in drafting future design guidelines for Hillcrest Village. On August 13, 2002, the HRA discussed the Hillcrest Village plan but did not move to support or deny. The HRA expressed several concerns and questions, however. Mr. Robert Martin of 1717 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood addressed the commission. He said his home and three other homes on his side of the street are proposed to be removed for the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan proposal. He called the city and someone told him all they were going to do was to install sidewalks in his area. There seems to be a break down in communication he said. Mr. Roberts told Mr. Martin there are many steps to getting to the point of removing any properties. This plan is something that could develop in 15-to-20 years. The goal is if redevelopment occurs the commercial side east of White Bear Avenue could happen in 5 or 10 years. If this were to happen how can the City of Maplewood and the City of Saint Paul complete this plan. The city council may look at the plan and reject parts or all of this plan. The city will notify residents and businesses when this goes to the city council. The city is by no means ready to say this is written in stone and is ready to happen. The city is looking very long term at this proposal. Commissioner Pearson said it would be handy to have a clear overlay to show the existing buildings and structures to put over the map to see the differences. Mr. Roberts said he is not sure the city has the technology to do that. Each plannin,q commission member gave testimony and comments about the proposed plan. Commissioner Trippler Commissioner Trippler said he likes the overall look of the plan. He likes the mix of commercial and residential. He likes that it seems to direct the parking away from White Bear Avenue and gets it off the street. His concern about moving ahead with this is to make sure that the City of Maplewood and the City of Saint Paul work together on this. He would hate to have one of the city's move in another direction. An example would be the proposal for the Walgreen's development on White Bear Avenue in the old Burger King location that Maplewood denied because of the parking layout. Instead Walgreen's got what they wanted by going across the street to the City of Saint Paul. His recommendation would be to have both city's have to agree to work on it together. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -12- Commissioner Ledvina Commissioner Ledvina said he has not changed his opinions as this project has moved forward. He believes that the realignment of North St. Paul Road is a very good idea and part of this plan. Mixing the land use is appropriate for this area. He would echo Mr. Trippler's comments in regard to having the City of Saint Paul and City of Maplewood have consistency in design standards that would be implemented for this area whether it be a zoning overlay or a rezoning of these parcels to meet the goals or requirements of the plan. Commissioner Dierich Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Mr. Trippler and Mr. Ledvina's comments. She would recommend that there be a committee oversight for the city's working jointly on that. White Bear Avenue is dangerous enough. If you add more traffic to this area, you need to address this with Ramsey County and get their input and agreement to what the city's are going to do for traffic control as well as pedestrian control moving back and forth between the areas. Commissioner Desai Commissioner Desai said he wanted to know what the significant pluses are to doing this plan. Mr. Roberts said one of the main goals is to have a mixed use and variety of land uses in this area. The theory being that people could walk to and from activities and for shopping. It would still be a nice place to live, but you would be able to walk or bike to. Commissioner Desai said he understands but he wonders how the traffic is going to be handled as Ms. Dierich said. Commissioner Mueller Commissioner Mueller said the traffic is a big issue for him as well. He is not convinced that just because there are small retail stores close by people won't get in their cars and drive to large retail stores like Target or to the Maplewood Mall. He also hopes that the apartment buildings will build under ground parking so there would be fewer cars out on the street over flowing from the parking lots. St. Paul does allow overnight parking but Maplewood has a city ordinance against overnight parking on the streets. Chairperson Fischer asked if staff ran the figures to see if the proposed number of apartment units met the city's density requirements on the acreages that these units are proposed to be placed. Mr. Roberts said no. He would envision that would be looked at if the numbers were higher as part of a plan amendment. There are not accurate lot sizes, they could give some guesses, but nobody is running numbers like that yet. Commissioner Monahan-Junek Commissioner Monahan-Junek said some of the areas and roads are in need of a major redevelopment and they are an eye sore. She echoes some of the other comments, for instance the traffic. She is hoping that a part of this plan is having a traffic study done, pedestrian ways being overhead, or lanes turning from two lanes into four lanes. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 -13- Chairperson Fischer Chairperson Fischer said she strongly feels there is enough cars taking up the parking lots and the streets along Van Dyke Street and Larpenteur Avenue. She disagrees with putting in an additional commercial building on the corner by the Plaza Theatre as is indicated on the plan. The Plaza Theatre has a cliental and if any of the planning commission members read the letters that were sent in it would make many Maplewood and St. Paul residents angry if it were removed. She said she thinks the commission is in agreement that it is good to have the realignment of North St. Paul Road. She is uncomfortable that the city does not know what the density would be for the housing that would be on Van Dyke Street and Larpenteur Avenue. If the city was going to go to a higher density in the area, is that the area that can handle additional higher density. That is something that should be looked at. She does not know if being surrounded by commercial or mixed uses on three sides is the most desirable to put residential in. It should be discussed. Although it is a big picture and Maplewood is the smaller part of it, those are some of the concerns she sees that are necessary to discuss when it goes to the city council. She also contends that Mr. Mueller's comments about will the people walk to the stores or will they get in their cars and drive there. She is from the old urbanism where people walked everywhere and times have changed. With today's marketing she does not think the city will see that kind of mix in this area. With the traffic in the area, she does not know how much foot traffic the city would actually see. Commissioner Pearson Commissioner Pearson said he has more questions than answers in terms of making any recommendation for this plan. The density is part of what he brought up earlier about zoning for commercial or residential. One of the things about higher density is higher traffic. The walkway areas pose problems for snow removal in the winter. The parking for planned residential is behind the buildings that may not suit handicapped access. The housing that would be displaced with this is probably more affordable than what can be replaced with new construction. From reading the history on this the business men north of Larpenteur Avenue are not as accepting of this plan to this point than those south of Larpenteur Avenue. There is no explanation of how this overlay plan is going to effect the homes or the businesses. Are they planning on implementing this by eminent domain, as properties come on the market, or enticing people to sell out including businesses. He has seen some of the plans for the new townhouses and they are very nice. He said with today's construction costs considerably higher, he does not think they can retail those units for less then housing would go for on the market currently. Mr. Roberts said this goes to the city council on either September 9, 2002, or September 25, 2002. He said notices will be sent out to neighbors before the city council holds the public hearing. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. None, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. r I Planning Commission Minutes of 08-19-02 IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS CJ -14- There was no representation needed by the planning commission at the August 12, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Roberts said there were no planning commission items on the agenda. One of the discussion items was the Beaver Lake apartment buildings. The CDRB recommended the developer continue the brick wainscoting all around the building up about four feet. The developer appealed that recommendation to the city council and on a 3-2 vote, the developer does not have to continue the brick wainscoting. Mr. Roberts said the other item was the sidewalk for the Care Free Villas. Mr. Mogren appealed the condition that a sidewalk be installed. He felt because the sidewalk does not connect to anything at this time he should not have to install it. The city council disagreed and that will remain as a condition for the Care Free Villas project. Mr. Ledvina will be the planning commission representative at the August 26, 2002, city council meeting. The Keller Lake Golf Course Maintenance Building will be discussed. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the September 9, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Roberts said items to be discussed will be the Bart Crockett house moving, the Shelley Schlomka house moving, the Anderson Hillwood Oaks Preliminary Plat, and possibly the first reading of the Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Reschedule September 2, 2002, planning commission meeting to either Tuesday, September 3, or Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Roberts polled the planning commission to see how many members would be available for the two dates that were offered. Five members were available for Tuesday, September 3 and six members were available for Wednesday, September 4. The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 3, 2002. Mr. Roberts gave.a reminder that September 5, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. is the board appreciation dinner at the Battle Creek Regional Park. Please R.S.V.P. if you have not done so. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 08-19-02 b. Meeting with other first-ring suburbs at Richfield City Hall on September 9, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Roberts said no information was available yet but when it becomes available it will be mailed out to planning commission members homes. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Highwood Farms Preliminary Plat South of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street August 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Chades Cox, representing CEC Development, Inc., is proposing to develop a ten-lot plat for single dwellings called Highwood Farms. It would be on a 3.71-acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. Refer to the maps on pages 11 -17 and the enclosed plans. Requests To build this project, Mr. Cox is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat to create the new street and the ten lots in the development. (See the maps on pages 14 through 17 and the enclosed project plans.) In addition, city staff is proposing to change the zoning for the site from F (farm residence) to R-1 (single dwellings). DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat The development of this site into anything more than its current use of a house and accessory buildings will be a challenge. There are several existing factors including the shape of the property (173 feet wide by 1,100 feet deep), its one access point (on Highwood Avenue) along with its characteristic of generally sloping from west to east that make the development here difficult. With the existing conditions on the property, there are not many options for designing a subdivision to fit the site. The proposed preliminary plat, with its street and lot design, raises many issues for the city and for the neighbors. I will discuss the major issues with this proposal below. Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 30 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land...". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. To this end, Section 30-6 of the code says that "the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city." Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 10,000 square feet to 12,388 square feet with an average lot size of about 10,266 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 14.) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. All of the proposed lots would meet or exceed the standards in the city code. Right-of-Way Location (double-frontage lots) As proposed, the plans show a new street right-of-way along the west property line of the site with walk-out lots on the east of the new street. This design, however, puts the new street directly behind the houses on Dennis Street and would in effect create double street frontage for eight existing lots. Section 30-8(f)(6) of the city code says, "double frontage lots shall not be permitted, except where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable. Such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for a protective plant screen along the back line." Several of the neighbors on Dennis Street have expressed concerns about this design and have questioned why the street is not proposed for the east side of the development. The developer told staff that the proposed design would save at least 20 large trees along the east side of the site and would create nicer lots for houses and they would be walk outs. Chris Cavett noted in his comments (starting on page 22) that the street as proposed, "would intercept the drainage from the west, which could be treated in a first flush rainwater garden located at the northeast comer of Lot 1 ." Based on staff's review of the site and the existing conditions, the proposed plans are not unreasonable. The lots on Dennis Street have extra depth (they range from 138 to 229 feet deep) so that the existing houses will not be right on top of the proposed street. Many of these existing homes have fences and landscaping along their east property lines to help provide privacy and separation from the proposed development. If the street was put in on the east side of the site, it would not create double frontage lots but probably would require more grading and tree removal and would create less desirable lots as they would back up to or back into a hill. Coordination of platting with adjacent property (to the east) Related to the point noted above about the location of the street right-of-way is the question of possible future platting of the land to the east (the site with the cell phone tower). Several city staff members believe that the owners of the existing cell phone tower will eventually have it removed which would then make the site available for development. If this occurred, staff wants to ensure that any approvals or actions on the applicant's site would not preclude the sensible use of the adjacent property to the east. An initial concern of city staff with this proposal was its possible effect or limiting it would put on the future use of the property with the cell phone tower. That is, would this proposal effectively prohibit or severely limit the possible future development or redevelopment of the adjacent property? Is it necessary to provide a Street right-of-way to the cell tower site from this development? To answer these questions, city staff prepared several sketch plans of the area. (See the plans on pages 19 through 21.) These plans show what the owners might do for the platting on both properties - if they were platted in a coordinated manner or if the owners develop them separately. Specifically, the plan on page 19 shows one cul-de-sac serving both properties with 16 lots. The second sketch plan (page 20) shows how the owners of the cell phone tower site might plat their property separately from the applicant's site. This plan has a cul-de-sac entering the property from Highwood Avenue and would have nine lots for houses. The important thing that this plan shows is 2 that the owners of the cell phone tower property should be able to develop their property independently from the applicants' site. Page 21 has the third plan for the area prepared by city staff. This plan shows a new street on the east side of the applicant's site that would turn east into the adjacent property. The street might continue back out to Highwood Avenue or could possibly end in a cul-de-sac in the center of the property with the cell phone tower. This plan would have about 18 lots for houses. Public versus Private Street Mr. Cavett also had comments about the proposed street, its location and whether the street should be private or public. He noted, "due to the liabilities of one-sided frontage and the considerable amount of retaining wall along the street, public works staff does not feel that a public street at the proposed location is in the public's' best interest. Therefore, staff does NOT recommend a public street along the proposed alignment." Based on Mr. Cavett's comments, if the proposed plan is to go forward, staff is recommending that the development have a homeowners association that would be responsible for the maintenance and care of the street and any adjacent landscape areas (including the rainwater gardens). Having a pdvate street in this development would be similar to a townhouse development (such as the recently-built Gardens on McMenemy Street) where the homeowners would all share in the costs for the maintenance of the street (including snow plowing) and all other improvements (including the rainwater gardens and the retaining walls). An advantage of having a private street in this development is its effect on setbacks. A private street does not have a right-of-way or front property line that the city or the builders would use for determining where the fronts of the houses would need to be. In most locations in Maplewood, the city requires the front of a house to be set back 30 to 35 feet from the front property line. VVhen looking at front setbacks along a pdvate street, the city would require the homes to have at least a 20-foot setback from the curb. This is the minimum distance necessary to ensure that the owners of vehicles could park them off the pdvate street without having the vehicles block the street. In this case, having a smaller front yard will allow the builders of the homes to set them closer to the private street and to keep more of the trees along the east property line of the site. A private street or driveway in this development could be 28 feet wide with parking on one side (to allow for emergency vehicle access into the site). Trees As proposed, the contractor for Mr. Cox would grade almost the entire site to create the street right- of-way and the house pads. This grading would remove about 45 large trees and leave about 20 large trees on the 3.71-acre site. In addition, the plans show the planting of 13 ash trees along the new street. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Chris Cavett's comments are in the attachment starting on page 22. 3 ~- ! r I Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water near the site to serve the proposed development. Specifically, water is to the west of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and New Century Boulevard. The developer will extend the water main down Highwood Avenue to and through the site. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the plan for the water main. Sanitary sewer is east of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and Century Avenue. The developer is proposing to extend the sewer UP Highwood Avenue from Century Avenue to and through the development. The city engineer must approve the final engineering plans before the applicant or contractor may start construction. Drainage Most of the site drains to the north and east. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed ponds and rainwater gardens as storm water detention facilities, the development would not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. Mr. Cavett noted this requirement, along with several others, in his comments. (See the information starting on page 22.) The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has been working with the developer on the proposed project plans. Mr. Cox or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. Other Comments Lieutenant Banick of the Police Department did not have any public safety concerns with this proposal. Butch Gervais of the Fire Department noted that the cul-de-sac must have a turning radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment). Neighbors' Comments City staff surveyed the 35 property owners within 350 feet of the site. Most of the seven replies were opposed to the proposal. Refer to the comments on page nine and the letters on pages 25 - 35. Zoning The city has zoned this property F (Farm Residence) and has planned it R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) in the city's comprehensive plan. The city's subdivision ordinance allows for the platting of single-family lots within the Farm Residence zoning district. To be consistent with the comprehensive plan, however, staff recommends that the city change the zoning of the site from F (Farm Residence) to R-1 (single dwellings). 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the Highwood Farms preliminary plat (received by the city on August 7, 2002). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Co Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the street intersections and at the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. ho Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and restore and sod the boulevards. i. Install a sign where the new street intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. The applicant shall have these plans revised to follow the comments of the city engineer and shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and street plans. The plans shall meet the following, conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street grades as allowed by the city engineer. 5 (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) As little grading as possible west of the proposed street. This is to keep as many of the existing trees west of the proposed street as is reasonably possible. c. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) The street shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The street with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that curbing is not necessary. (3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on the south side of Highwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards. and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (8) The cul-de-sac with a pavement radius of at least 42 feet. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Vedfy inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. eo A landscape and screening plan for the areas along the pdvate street. This shall include the rainwater gardens and the area along the west side of the street. The 6 screening for the area west of the street shall be at least 80 percent opaque and may include vegetation, berms and fencing. The coniferous trees shall be at least six feet tall and any deciduous trees shall be at least 2% inches in diameter. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Show the street as a private street or ddveway (not as a public fight-of-way). d. Label any common areas as outlots. e. Label the private street as Farrell Street on all plans. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond at the northwest comer of the plat. The develoPer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7, Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on Lot 1, Block I from going onto Highwood Avenue. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 7 Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and structures. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Bo Adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 36. This resolution changes the zoning map from F (Farm Residence) to R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) for the proposed Highwood Farm plat on the south side of Highwood Avenue. The city is making this change because it will: 1. Be consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 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. Serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 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. o Serve the site better as the owner plans to develop this property for lots for single- family houses. 8 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 35 preperties within 350 feet of this site and received seven wdtten replies. The following are the comments we received: We were told by our developer (Art and Roy) that nothing could be built back there. None of us appreciates the fact that there will be a street butting up to our backyard. It is like an alley in our backyard. I am a builder and can appreciate the need for space to build, but this is a poor plan. The view we bought will be greatly harmed and the safety of our kids playing in the backyard. Our value has dropped considerably. I would demand dense planting or trees changing the mad to go on the other side of the lots if this is approved. I realize they are trying to improve the sale of their houses by creating walkouts, but our view and the fact of a street butting up to our backyard is not good planning overall. Other things to consider: fencing, grow vegetation, speed bumps, rear load walkouts with street on the other side, build houses on the hill. (Gierke - 1024 Dennis Street) It seems to me that those lots are very close to the highway - but I do realize I will not be living them. I do object to taking all of those mature trees down. I think they are somewhat of a noise barrier - so would they be building a noise barrier to replace them? The trees do beautify the area. I especially object to the trees being tom down if the lots sit empty for years after being developed. Across the street from us is an empty lot (between 1042 and 1060 Dennis Street) - this lot has been sold and empty for 10 years. It is not kept up in any way. To say it is an eyesore is an understatement. If there is even the slightest possibility that this could occur with even one of the proposed lots, scrap the whole plan. I have lived across the street from this eyesore for 9 years and I believe it affects the aesthetics of the whole neighborhood, not to mention the rodents and weeds it contributes to the area. Please do not tear down those old trees if there is a possibility that any of them sit empty or unkept for any length of time. We do not need to contribute to the eyesore of the neighborhood! (Fierst- 1041 Dennis Street) 3. I oppose the development since I would not enjoy the wildlife anymore in my backyard! (Calubayan - 1036 Dennis Street) We are requesting that the soil be tested thoroughly as our soil appears to be shifting. Also, we want to know that the financing for this project is adequate. We are concerned about erosion control as well. (Simon - 1060 Dennis Street) Also, see the letters on pages 25 through 35. 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.71 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings from the former property owner. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: New Century PUD across Highwood Avenue Interstate 494 Houses along Dennis Street and fronting on Highwood Avenue House at 2684 Highwood Avenue and cellular telephone tower PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete project plans for this proposal on August 7, 2002. The city must take action on the proposal by October 6, 2002, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. kr/p:/sec13-28/Highwood farms plat.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Proposed Preliminary Plat 5. Proposed Grading Plan 6. Proposed Grading Plan (with Trees) 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Area Property Line Map 9. Staff Concept Plan Number 1 10. Staff Concept Plan Number 2 11. Staff Concept Plan Number 3 12. Chds Cavett's plan review dated 8-23-02 13. Survey response date-stamped 8-15-02 from Richard Koutek 14. 08-11-02 letter from Trinh Tranberg 15. Letter date-stamped August 23, 2002 from Ms. Merz 16. Zoning Map Change Resolution 17. Project Plans (separate attachments - including 11x17s and full-size) 10 ~6 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 720S ~ ?7 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. 3. IAKE'WOOD CT. 960S '1 A'L-t, adlnen'c 1 DR. 2. ~:~. RIDGE ~0, ).- m n O 0 TIMBER TR. TIMBER DR. NEW CENTtJRY TEE NEW CENTURy LN 2. HIGHWOOD 18 HEIGHTS 1200S 1440S '19 2O LOCATION MAP ~Z L,',ke Attacl'~ 2 Z ~. ,5 LOT AVE. ~  ~ ~'J. HIGHWOOD AVENUE = II'l"l-~i O '" ~.=. ...... ~ --..,"~,--, .""' - C ~ ' /'°) '~ ~ti 2~60 266~~:~1 /26; 714 ~2~30~ .... (30) 2 · ~, ~ ~ r ~ ~ '~1 ~' ~,~ ' ~~', ~=~ a CARVER REP · ~ ~ H ~a~ ~oo~~ :, -- ~ ~ -,~' ~ ~.. ; ~ ~ '~ . ~ T~o~2 ~;~u /~_~, / _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fRD~ ........... ~ ~ e _ _ ~ _ z ~ ~n ~- - -'-~ ' - - ~ ~ - o ~ - ~ ........ ,,~cR~ ~~z~ ~.'- - ~' ~': L--~ -4 ..... ~.._-~~r4 1---------' 1~ Attachment 4- I 1 I I 966J I 2660 I ' 12684 I o,,* HIGHWOOD AVENUE I I / 2692 · CELL TOWER 14 Attachment 5 966I 2660 i I t 2684 I Gl 2692 CELL TOWER )D AVENUE ,, i ! · LEGEND PROPOSED GRADING 15 PLAN ,,,, 966I 2660 2684 -.~ ! Attachment 6 CELL TOWER LEGEND 16 9661 I 2660 ' Attachment 7 CELL TOWER TYPICAL LOT LAY-OUT / / ? ? / LEGEND PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN Attachment~ ~2 r~4 ~5 16 1 2 3 4 2£ 15 2 3 4 7 8 9 7 10 11 Attachment.q.. ~2 ~S m6 ~V~.I I 1 _ L ~6 7 2 4 5 7 2 5 7 2 7 9 Attachmen_~t l0 7 ~2 2 ~40~ 3 4 6 16 2 3 4 7 3 7 9 ~2 7 Attachment 11-~, J m6 16 2 4 5 7 4 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 3 4 11 ,: 1 Attachment 12 Maplewood Engineering Plan Review - Chris Cavett Highwood Farm, Project 02-17 08/23/02 Review Summary: The preliminary plans as submitted have shown that the project is feasible. Though it is not felt that the applicant need make revisions to the plans at this time, there are a number of issues that should be addressed with staff before final plan approvals or before permits can be issued. The site is narrow and on a slope from west to east. There is a considerable offsite area, (residential backyards along Dennis St.), that drains through the site that the applicant will have to deal with. There are a number of large trees through out the site, with the largest concentration on the east side. Below are comments that the applicant shall address on final engineering plans before the city will issue grading and utility permits. Grading and Erosion Control: Comments: This is a relatively difficult site to design for grades and drainage. The current grading plan is feasible and would be acceptable, but could possibly be revised to have a more positive benefit to the site. Upon closer review by staff, it would appear that measures could be taken to revise the grading plan in such a way as to greatly reduce the amount of grading, retaining walls and tree removal and provide a more natural site. Suggestions: Review these comments and discuss with Maplewood Engineering. Consider fitting the street much closer to the existing terrain. High and Iow points in the street profile would be created that would require more storm sewer inlets. (Note, however that the current 900-feet of cul-de-sac design is too far too drain with out adding inlets anyway). The additional storm sewer would likely be outweighed by the reduction in grading and retaining walls, tree removal and providing lots that are more natural. 2. Homes would have to be customized more to each site, but it would result in much more natural lots. Lots would generally sit below the street, but from a drainage standpoint, a much greater area is currently draining to the east. Therefore, offsite runoff to the east may likely be less than under the existing condition. (The applicant's engineer would have to vedfy this assumption). The street would intercept the drainage from the west, which could be treated in a "first flush" rainwater garden located at the north east comer of lot 1. Individual rainwater gardens in the boulevard would not be necessary as they would not be very effective. The biggest concern with customized lots is the drainage effects on each other. However, the creation of defined swales on the lot lines appears to be very feasible and would eliminate that concern. The lot line swales should be graded and protected with permanent erosion control blanket on the steeper slopes. The swales also should be protected from both sides with silt fence dudng home constructions. The rear, (east) lot line behind lots 1-3 22 should be graded to from swales to prevent runoff onto the lot to the east, rather directed to ,the north towards Highwood Avenue. 5. A heavy-duty silt fence shall be utilized on the east and north property lines. 6. Erosion control matting and blankets, as well as intermediate silt fencing shall be placed on all slopes 3:1 or greater to protect the seeded area and the slope from erosion. The grading plan and landscape plan shall be revised to specify the exact seed mixtures to be utilized on the site. "No Maintenance" areas (including steep slopes) shall be seeded with a native grass and forbes mixture. Seeding and mulching of the site shall be done in phases to secure the site and shall be completed with in 14-days of the completion of the grading. o A building permit will be required for any retaining walls 4-feet or higher. Where applicable, the developers engineer shall include all walls on the plan. In any case, a detail of the wall design shall be included with the application for a building permit. Comments: Staff has struggled with the issue of whether this street should be pdvate or public. Due to the liabilities of one-sided frontage and the considerable amount of retaining wall along the street, public works staff does not feel that that a public street at the proposed location is in the public's best interest. Therefore, staff does NOT recommend a public street alon.q the proposed ali.qnment. However, it makes little sense that a development like this be served by a pdvate street that will look, feel and act like any other street in the city that is public. Staff agrees with the applicant that a street on the east side of the development would result in a larger amount of significant tree removal. 1. Submittal of final plans shall include a detailed plan and profile sheet for the street and storm sewer design. Drainage/Storm Sewer: 1. Submit drainage calculations of pre- and post- development conditions. Capacity of the system on Highwood Avenue shall be reviewed with other drainage areas taken into consideration. The accumulation of other flows and the added flows from the proposed site shall not exceed the capacity of that system under the 10-year event. Treatment of storm water shall be done with acceptable BMP methods. If the site is graded as described above, then only street drainage and drainage from the west would need to be addressed. The runoff may be able to be treated in a "first flush/Iow flow" rainwater garden located at the northeast comer of lot 1. A diversion structure would be required to control flows. Contact engineering department for a standard plate of the diversion structure. The rainwater garden raw volume shall accommodate the greater of: runoff created by the impervious surface only for a 1.25" rain event, or runoff created by the whole westem drainage area for a %" rain event. 23 Utilities: 1. Detailed final plan and profile designs of the sanitary sewer and water main will be required for the utilities, especially for those on Highwood Avenue. Utility easements and temporary easements may be required along Highwood. Based on the depth of the utility, permanent easements shall be adequate width to provide 1:1 width utility and the edge of the easement. Verify where easements will be required. Landscaping/Rainwater Gardens: Design and construct rainwater gardens into the landscaping in front of each building. Rainwater gardens can be situated to capture, store and infiltrate water directed from the front yard areas, ddves and roof down spouts. Grade swales and provide spillways to direct this flow into the rainwater gardens. Over flows should be into the street on lots 1-5, but can be directed to the east on lots 6-10. Rock Infiltration Sumps must be installed below the rainwater gardens to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Rock infiltration sump should be a minimum of 4' Dia. × 3' tall. 1%" clean clear rock wrapped in type 4 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sump should be placed approximately 12-inches below finished bottom of the rainwater garden. Provide detail and a description on the plan how the rainwater garden area should be prepared: The garden area should be sub-cut to provide 12-inches of bedding material. The bedding matedal should consist of a mixture of 50% salvaged on-site topsoil and clean 50% organic compost. The subsoils in the rainwater garden should be scadfied to a depth of 12-inches (or deeper to reach virgin soil), before the bedding matedal is placed. The rainwater garden should be protected with silt fence after grading to prevent silting into the area, as well as compaction of the soil by construction equipment. The rainwater garden area should be topped before or after planting with "shredded" wood mulch. "Woodchips" are NOT acceptable mulching material. Thought should be given regarding when the rainwater gardens are to be graded and constructed, as they are susceptible to additional silting and compaction if the surrounding are not restored and stable. Care should be given to the placement of pdvate utilities so they do not interfere with the gardens. 5. A landscape plan for the rainwater gardens shall be required as part of final plan approval. With these, who will be responsible for planting the gardens and when? 24 Together We Can Attachment RICHARD RAYMOND KOUTEK 1012 DENNIS ST S MAPLEWOOD MN 55119-3571 August 9, 2.002 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY PROPOSED HIGHWOOD FARMS PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2466 HIGHWOOD AVENUE Whatis Beinq Requested? Mr. Charles Cox, representing CEC Development, is requesting that the city council approve a preliminary plat. Specifically, Mr. Cox wants to subdivide the property at 2466 Highwood Avenue into 10 lots for single-family houses. As proposed, the plan shows a new cul-de-sac entering the property from Highwood Avenue with 10 lots for new houses on the east side of the new street. (Please see the enclosed maps.) Why this Notice? The city staff wishes that you be informed about this proposal and seeks your input in any of the following ways: 1. You may mail your comments to me. Please write any comments you have below or on the back of this letter. I have enclosed a stamped, addressed return envelope for your use to. mail in your comments. Please note that any letters and attachments that you send to the city are considered public information and the city staff may use them in staff reports that go to the planning commission and the city council. 2. Telephone me at (651) 770-4566. 3. Attend the city council meeting and give your comments. You will be notified of this meeting by mail once the city has scheduled this item. Whether you mail in or telephone any comments, please do so by August 19, 2002. Comments: ~.~ DF /ELe P u-M 5'/ o u -rj C'o t ;l'1) KENNETH ROBERTS- ASSO TE PLANNER Enclosures c:lt~notify.let OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUG 1 5 2002 651-770-4560 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B ;)5 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 A1 .L~ o Attachment 14 Trinh N. Tranberg 1018 Dennis St. South Maplewood, MN 55119 (612) 731-0835 Kenneth Roberts Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 August 11,2002 Re-' Proposed Highwood Farms Preliminary Plat 2466 Highwood Avenue Dear Mr. Roberts: I was shocked upon receiving the above notice. When I bought the lot to build my home on Dennis Street. I was told by Arthur Werthauser & Roy Bredahl, Roar Development, that the parcel of land behind our backyard is too narrow for any dwelling development. We purchased and built on this lot for that reason. At that time Art & Roy were working for City of Saint Paul Department of Public Works as Assistant City Engineer and Assistant to the Director. I assumed they know what they are promising. Putting the above aside, I strongly opposed to this new development for the following reasons: 1. Safety for kids playing in the backyard. Currently, there is no street, therefore, no problem. 2. Safety in turning left or right on to Highwood Avenue. Recently, New Century Blvd. was installed 1/2 block East from Dennis Street. This new development is proposing another half a block turn east of New Century Blvd. There is not enough distant between the turns. Merging on to Highwood on Winter (ice) or Summer (view is blocked by vegetation) days on a steep hill is difficult. But when they don't align with each others and 1/2 block apart. 3. We will loose our sound barriers. The distant, trees & shrubs have been our buffer from the noise that 494 freeway creates. Eventhough, there are shrubs & trees proposed in the plan, they will not be full grown and will take time to establish before they can be effectively served as Sound buffer. 4. Lack of privacy. Both front & back yards will be public spaces 5. Loss of greenspace & animals' shelter. Currently, we see deer, birds and rabbits roaming in our backyard. 6. Home value will decrease 7. Aesthetic. It's commonly know~ that when a new development enter an existing neighborhood they tend to enhance not deface the neighborhood. Having street in front of my yard is a common practice. Having streets in front and back is an absurd plan. If this project is to proceed as a proposed Preliminary Plat I'm requesting that the City of Maplewood requires CEC Development to resubmit their drawings to show the new street moved to the east side of the 10 new houses. Due to a family emergency our family is unable to attend 27 AUG .1 q 2002 Thursday (8/15) meeting @ the Fire Station. We are planning to attend the City Council meeting and making the necessary contacts to insure that our issues are being resolved by the developer prior to City Council approval. SincerelY,, / Trinl-i N. Tranberg 28 MARGUERITE K MERZ 2684 HIGHWOOD AVE E MAPLEWOOD MN 55119-5827 Together We Can Attachment 15 AUG 232l)D2 RECEIVED August 9, 2002 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEy PROPOSED HIGHWOOD FARMS PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2466 HIGHWOOD AVENUE Whatis Being Requested? Mr. Charles Cox, representing CEC Development, is requesting that the city council approve a preliminary plat. Specifically, Mr. Cox wants to subdivide the property at 2466 Highwood Avenue into 10 lots for single-family houses. As proposed, the plan shows a new cul-de-sac entering the property from Highwood Avenue with 10 lots for new houses on the east side of the new street. (Please see the .enclosed maps.) Why th!s Notice? The City staff wishes that you be informed about this proposal and seeks your input in any of the following ways: 1. You may mail your comments to me. Please write any comments you have below or on the back of this letter. I have enclosed a stamped, addressed return envelope for your use to mail in your comments. Please note that any letters and attachments that you send to the city are considered public information and the city staff may use them in staff reports that go to the planning commission and the city council. 2. Telephone me at (651) 770-4566. 3. Attend the city council meeting and give your comments. You will be notified of this meeting .by mail oncethe city has scheduled this item. Whether you mail in or telephone· any comments, please do so by August 19, 2002. KENNETH'---' .... ROBERT~ - ASS~ClAT[ P~NNER [ ~ r~- T~'.~, ~v ~ O~ n c ;'[ -- ' OFFICE OF CON~NITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ~APLEWOOD · 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B .~ MAPLEWO. OD, MN 551~g _ ~' Z9 · f Attachment 16 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff is proposing to change the Maplewood zoning map from Farm Residence (F) to Single-Family Residential (R-l). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 2666 Highwood Avenue in Section 13, Township 29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the property owner is proposing to plat the property into ten lots for single dwellings. WHEREAS, the proposed development is known as Highwood Farm and the new legal description will be: Lots I through 10, Block 1, Highwood Farm. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On September 3, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the zoning map change. On ., 2002, the city council held a public headng. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public headng whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: o The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, 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. 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. The owner plans to develop this property for lots for single-family houses. The Maplewood city council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 36 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit for the Exterior Display of Tires Roy Carlson - Budget Towing and Tire 1291 Frost Avenue August 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Roy Carlson of Budget Tire of Minnesota, Inc. (Budget Towing and Tire) is proposing to lease the old gas station/repair shop located at 1291 Frost Avenue from the owner of the Maplewood Bowl, Deleano Benjamin, for a towing and tire repair business. Mr. Carlson is proposing to disptay 10 tire racks, or approximately 180 tires, on the exterior of the property during daytime business hours. Request The exterior display of goods or materials requires a conditional use permit. DISCUSSION Roundabout In combination with the old gas station property and the Maplewood Bowl property, Mr. Benjamin owns a large parcel of land on the northwest comer of Frost Avenue and English Street. In order to accommodate the roundabout the city is constructing at the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street, the city was required to purchase additional fight-of-way from Mr. Benjamin's property. The city removed one of the ddveway entrances to the old gas station with the additional right-of-way. Mr. Benjamin was concerned that the removal of this driveway would take away much of the marketability of the old gas station lot because it now has limited access. Redevelopment With the addition of the roundabout at the intersection, Mr. Benjamin has expressed a desire to work with the city on the redevelopment of his land. Until such time, however, Mr. Benjamin hopes to gain an ongoing income from the old gas station property at 1291 Frost Avenue. Existing Budget Towing and Tire Businesses Mr. Carlson currently runs two towing/tire repair businesses. One is located at 905 East Seventh Street in St. Paul (see pictures of St. Paul location on page 10) and the other is located at the Sinclair Gas Station at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East in Maplewood. (Refer to pages 11 and 12 for information on the existing Budget Towing and Tire businesses.) At both locations Mr. Carlson operates a towing dispatch center and tire repair business. No vehicles are stored on either site. When Mr. Carlson first moved to the Sinclair Gas Station approximately one year ago, he began displaying tires on the extedor of the building. City staff became aware of this and informed Mr. Carlson of the city's ordinance which requires a conditional use permit for this type of display. Mr. Carlson immediately complied with the ordinance and began displaying his tires only on the inside of the building. At that time, however, Mr. Cadson expressed a desire to apply for the conditional use permit in the near future for the display of the tires at that location. Soon after this, Sinclair Oil Corporation applied to the city for a conditional use permit to expand the Sinclair Gas Station on Larpenteur Avenue. Sinclair Oil Corporation is preparing to begin that expansion soon, at which time Mr. Cadson's lease will terminate. 1291 Frost Avenue Automobile Related Businesses City code requires a conditional use permit for automobile service stations or repair businesses. The old gas station property at 1291 Frost Avenue was constructed before this requirement. It has been operated as an automobile service station and/or repair business since it was constructed. Therefore, any automobile related business is allowed to operate from this site without a conditional use permit, until this type of use ceases for more than one year. However, all automobile related businesses must comply with city codes including no unlicensed or inoPerable vehicle storage on the premises for more than 48 hours, except in storage areas that are fully screened from public view, as well as other compliance items. DunRite Towing and Repair A problematic business by the name of DunRite Towing and Repair was leasing the old gas station property at 1291 Frost Avenue for approximately three months. DunRite Towing and Repair violated the city's zoning code by conducting automobile salvaging and storing inoperable and unlicensed vehicles on the premises. (Refer to the pictures of DunRite Towing and Repair on pages 13 and 14.) Because of continued noncompliance with the city's zoning code, the city issued a citation to DunRite Towing and Repair. Soon after the city issued the citation, Mr. Benjamin also terminated their lease. Relocation of Budget Towing and Tire Business The termination of DunRite Towing and Repair's lease came at the same time that the city was negotiating the purchase of the additional right-of-way from Mr. Benjamin. In order to ensure an ongoing income for Mr. Benjamin from the old gas station property until the area is redeveloped, city staff suggested that Mr. Benjamin contact Mr. Carlson for the relocation of his business to the site. Mr. Cadson visited the site with Mr. Benjamin and expressed an interest in leasing the building. At that time, Mr. Cadson also assisted Mr. Benjamin and the city by towing away five old cars that were left behind by the DunRite Towing and Repair business. Mr. Cadson is now willing to lease the old gas station property at 1291 Frost Avenue from Mr. Benjamin with the knowledge that the area may be redeveloped and his business would have to be moved in the future on the condition that his business be allowed to display tires on the extedor of the building. Mr. Carlson states that the display of tires is an integral part of the business because "unless the customer can see the tires, they will not buy them." Exterior Display Proposal Mr. Carlson proposes to operate the same type of business at 1291 Frost Avenue as he has at the St. Paul site and the Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood site. The business will consist of a towing dispatch center and tire sales and repair with no overnight storage of vehicles. The hours of operation will be from either 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., depending on traffic flows once the roundabout construction is complete. The business will be open Monday through Saturday and will have two to three tow vehicles in operation during the day, with only one tow vehicle stored outside in the back of the building dudng the evening. Budget Towing and Tire 2 August 28, 2002 Mr. Cadson proposes to display five tire racks on the west side of the building and five tire racks on the front of the building. Each tire rack can accommodate 18 tires, for 180 tires. Mr. Cadson proposes to display the tire racks only dudng business hours, and store the tires indoors in the evening. The tires that Budget Towing and Tire remove from customers' vehicles will be stored indoors and removed from the property daily. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Benjamin propose to make some improvements to the property including painting the building, removing black paint from the windows, removing an old oil tank from the west side of the building, and installing landscaping in the front of the property, near the roundabout. Previous businesses in this location stored their dumpsters on. the side or rear of the building. Mr. Carlson Proposes to store a small dumpster within the existing screening fence which was originally used to screen the oil tank. Fire Safety Issues Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, states that the uniform fire code requires the exterior stora,qe of tires to be located at least 10 feet from any property line or building, and the tires cannot exceed 6 feet in height when stored within 20 feet of any property line. This requirement does not include the display of tires. Regardless, there is 30 feet from the west side of the building to the property line, which leaves plenty of room to comply with a 10-foot setback. Summary The exterior display of tires at a very visible intersection is not the most desired scenario for the city. However, given the problematic background of the property, the improvements proposed, Budget Towing and Tire's clean and reputable business background, and the fact that the situation will be temporary, staff is supportive of the proposal. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 15 and 16. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the exterior display of tires at 1291 Frost Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: The exterior display of tires is limited to normal business hours (either 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.). All tires must be stored inside the building dudng close of business. 2. The exterior display of tires is limited to 10 tire racks that hold 18 tires each. The exterior display of tires is limited to the west side of the building and toward the front of the west garage door. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the required conditions in the event the property is leased to a new business that intends to operate an automobile related business with extedor tire display. o If the conditional use permit for exterior display of fires is abandoned and ceases for a continuous period of one year or more, the conditional use permit will become null and void. 6. The conditional use permit for the extedor display of tires shall be reviewed again in one year. Budget Towing and Tire 3 August 28, 2002 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 15,154 square feet Vacant Building SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Maplewood Bowl Frost Avenue and City Open Space across the Street English Street and Moose Lodge property across the Street Liquor Store PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: EXisting Zoning: Business Commercial (BC) Business Commercial (BC) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL See the nine conditional use permit requirements as listed in the resolution on pages 15 and 16. Application Date We received the complete applications for this proposal on August 20, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. Therefore, city action is required on this proposal by October 19, 2002. P:\comdev~sec16~budget towing Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. City Location Map Location Map Zoning Map Land Use Map Site Plan Budget Towing's Existing St. Paul Location Budget Towing Business Information DunRite Towing Pictures Conditional Use Permit Resolution Budget Towing and Tire 4 August 28, 2002 Attachment 1 St. Paul Little Canada St. Paul 1291 Frost Avenue City Location Map 5 Attachment 2 Maplewood Lanes City Open Space e 6 Location Map Attachment 3 Frost Avenue N ZONING ~ Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Shopping Center Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential High Multiple Dwelling Residential High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo Planned Urban Development 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate Farm Zoning Map 7 Attachment 4 LAND USE ~ Light Manufacturing ~ Heavy Manufacturing ~ Neighborhood Commercial Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential Low Multiple Dwelling Residential Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential High MuRiple Dwelling Residential 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate Park Open Space School c~y Library Cemetery Church Fire Station Land Use Map 8 Attachment 5 N Site Plan S Attachment 6 Budget Towing's St. Paul Location (905 East 7th St.) 10 Attachment 7 www. towman, com First On The -Roy Carlson, Sr. of Budget Towing Di Industry's Suppliers Battery Equiprr LLC - Brake & Engine Brak~ Hooks & Slin¢ Carriers · Chevron, Products - Chr~Tme RealWheels Supplies, Rickenbacker Gr Software · Sys. · Towlnfo/R~ Lodar · MicrotroniC., Emergency Lights Fin; 2002 Directory Roy Carlson, the owner of Budget Towing in St. Paul Minnesota, has been in business for thirty years and now has more then thirty trucks in his fleet. He uses the Tow- man Directory as a reference guide to the best products the industry has to offer. This is the Emergency Road Service Industry's most com- prehensive directory. Vehicle e & Towing Professionals · Inc. - Tools · Next .ock Tool Co. · mbs/Dispatch · iai Roadside 11 Assistance · Motorcycle Touring Services - PTO's/Clutch Pumps · Chelsea Products · Muncie Power Products - Safety Products · VanTech/SafetyLine, Inc. - Tools · Voltair, Inc.- Trailers · Kalyn Siebert · Landoll Corp. · North East Enterprises · Spartan Specialized Trailers · Take 3 Trailers Inc.- Training/Towing & Recovery · WreckMaster, Inc.- Truck Chassis · Bob Fish GMC · Ford Commerical Truck · General Motors Isuzu Commercial Truck · Hardy Chevrolet · International Truck & Engine Corp. ° Tom's Truck Center - Truck Rentals · Horton Truck & Equipment - Wheel Lift Attachments · Triple K ~dustries - Wheels · Phoenix USA, Inc. - Winches · Pierce Sales · Ramsey Winch - Wrecker Bodies ° AATAC, Inc. ° Dynamic Mfg, Inc.. Flora Wrecker Sales ° Jerr-Dan Corporation · Kemp Mfg, Inc. ° NRC Industries Inc. · Weld Built · Credit Card Processing ° Virtual Solutions Plus... Cross-Chaining $hi ok Lake i . t. paul, MinnesOta than ~ --~;s before u- _~ more than ~' ' _, three fu~ yen,% ~atherin9 I 900,00u u,,,% ,_ ~as ~o99~ _~-. he spen~ ",~-~,,nerS, ano ~%~,, one h~s ~ _.,~ the uu ~7,,.:~ ~th ouw- _.~a dN~Oen~.. ,~n the ~actS. ~"-.._~ ~conOm~, "~ *r~ 6 betO~ ,..~,,~ you a ~,"~ .... ,, a s~9 :_ ~ef ~u~, ~ ,. ~¢~ ds ~ ...e ..~ "~ CaO ~ ~ .... . .~,in~. ~u~v~- ~ ~ the - t. -; .ther truc~ u'-n . ,,~ TROC~ '.,_~ and cou-~'~%~ ~in~ngs. dozen ~''' - -- so loyal t~ ~.~ o 7 ~itlion Cu%,~et of OD ~r~iese~S that u~,. -~2, enCn® P~'__~ he'S e~, .... an thfi~est ~orhooCS ~ '"~ . _a~,- states d~stUrb ne~y . ~o~ng on t~e -'~ to make ~ ~ "no ~uh% ~',o-~~'~ '~'- ' expense ' TRUCK ; o~stfibuted by N%SSAN o%ESEL AtAER%CA' %NC. · cuStOmer best ~n__~ cab-OVer g · am,~tlg ,, Sat%s~aCU°~ nutY -~ruckS . ~ed~m ~ *;~ates 2001 -';~er an~ ~s~L' Custome~ T~cKde~°eu = RofT 12 Attachment 8 DunRite Towing Operation July 2002 13 DunRite Towing Operation July 2002 Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Roy Carlson applied for a conditional use permit to display ten tire racks at Budget Towing and Tire; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1291 Frost Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description is Lot 3, Block 1, Lincoln Park; WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is 16-29-22-14-0094; WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 3, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplew0od Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from 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 approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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, smoke, 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 design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: The extedor display of tires is limited to normal business hours (either 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.). All tires must be stored inside the building during close of business. The exterior display of tires is limited to 10 tire racks that hold 18 tires each. The exterior display of tires is limited to the west side of the building and toward the front of the west garage door. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the required conditions in the event the property is leased to a new business that intends to operate an automobile related business with extedor tire display. If the conditional use permit for extedor display of tires is abandoned and ceases for a continuous period of one year or more, the conditional use permit will become null and void. The conditional use permit for the exterior display of tires shall be reviewed again in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 16 BOOK MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 11, 2002 Since staff is working on several applications, we canceled the September 16, 2002 planning commission meeting. The next planning commission meeting will be October 7, 2002. Please also remember that the tour to Maple Grove is set for Monday, September 30, 2002. We will be leaving the city hall parking lot in a coach bus at 5:15 P.M. sharp. See you there. kr/0916pc.mem c: Department Heads PC members City Council PC mailing list I