Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2003BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 6, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. December 3, 2002 5. Public Headng None 6. New Business a. Conditional Use Permit (Over-sized Accessory Building) - 2776 Keller Parkway b. 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. December 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. December 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina c. January 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich d. January 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 10. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule January 20 Meeting - January 22 or January 23 11. Adjoumment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 6. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Absent Present Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - Desai,.Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for October 21,2002. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 5, under the staff presentations, in the first paragraph. Please change the sentence the decision was to reschedule the meeting of Tuesday, 12-2-02 to Wednesday, 12-3-02. It should read Monday, 12-2-02 to Tuesday, 12-3-02. Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the planning commission minutes for'October 21,2002 with the amended change. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING None. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. County Road D Extension and Alignment Study Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, said this project started in March 2001 at a city council retreat. Traffic and congestion in the area was discussed as one of the city's top priorities to address. He said as part of this process a multi-jurisdictional study task force was put together and they came up with traffic flow alternatives. Mr. Ahl said the study was brought before the planning commission in March 2002 and one of the recommendations was the extension of County Road D. Staff is looking for input from the planning commission regarding this Alignment Study and for a recommendation to the city council. Mr. Ahl said the city council will hold a public hearing on the Alignment Study at the city council meeting on Monday, December 9 at 7:15 p.m. If the city council decides to move forward with this project, a feasibility study and a right of way map will be conducted and be returned to the planning commission in February 2003. He said it's estimated that construction would be started in November 2003. Mr. Ahl said the eastern half would be completed in late 2004 and the western half would be completed in late 2005. Mr. Karl Keel of URS gave a presentation on the County Road D Extension and the Alignment Study. He said during this study URS discovered that many of the intersections in this study area were failing by today's standards and by the year 2010 URS expects that "most" of those intersections will fail. Regarding development, the large parcel located west of Maplewood Mall will greatly impact traffic operations. He said it would be appropriate for the City of Maplewood to consider limits on the development to soften the impacts of future increases in traffic due to development. Mr. Keel showed a traffic presentation of what the traffic would look like by the year 2010 if no improvements were made as well as what the traffic flow would look like with improvements made. He said there are a number of wetlands in the potential alignment paths and this would be a cost factor in any future development of roads. They looked at utilities and the transformers in the area, a soil test was performed, and they looked at the development potential of the large parcels in the area. Mr. Keel said when URS knew what the constraints were they drew up a number of proposals with different traffic flow scenarios. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood that alternative 3 was not a possibility? Mr. Keel said that is correct. Alternative 3 was taken off the table because the right of way could not be acquired. He said another reason was a development was recently built in the City of Vadnais Heights. Also, he said, the project is not within the limits of Maplewood and the city cannot control a condemnation against that property. He said there was a technical problem in that MnDot was somewhat concerned about the grade of those ramps and the grade may not accommodate truck traffic as well as MnDot would like. Commissioner Trippler said the report talked about the unsuitability of the soils by the golf course that is in peat or wetlands. He asked what assurances could anybody give to the City of Maplewood that once the road is in place it is going to stay there and it would be serviceable for any length of time? Mr. Keel said as part of the feasibility report URS will collect soil borings which will give a better idea of what is in that area. He said URS anticipates that one of two types of construction would be done. One would be to excavate the peat underneath the road and the peat could be as deep as 60 feet deep. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -3- He said the second alternative would be to float the roadway on a bed of lightweight fill, Mr. Keel said it is an accepted practice and has been used on several roads in Shoreview such as Lexington Avenue, County Road J, Gramsie Road, and Centerville Road north of Highway 96. Mr. Keel said it really comes down to a cost factor. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the development limits were that Mr. Keel was referring to as part of the development of the 85 aores in the Hajicek property? Mr. Keel said URS wouldn't recommend going to big box retail because that would generate heavy traffic use. He said a mixed-use type of development and a mix of housing would generate less of a traffic pattern. Mr. Ahl commented that question is being studied as part of the environmental documents for the Hajicek property. He said the original land use and zoning is business commercial. Mr. Ahl said that was unacceptable and traffic could not be accommodated in the area roadways. The starting point of traffic was 50% of the site. He said the property should be residential, industrial and other mixed type of uses with small type of commercial development. Commissioner Rossbach asked when was a peat bog not considered a wetland? Mr. Ahl said the characteristics of a wetland are defined by statute. He said a peat bog can become a wetland but you need to meet the three criteria. He said the three criteria are seasonal flooding or periodic standing-water, there have to be certain types of vegetation, and hydraulic soils. Mr. Ahl said peat bogs themselves do not make it a wetland. He said the wetland conservation act is the starting point and legal basis for determining what a wetland is defined as. Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Keel if the costs indicated in the proposal are accurate and do they include the roadways that would be needed in the Hajicek property? He also asked if the developer would incur the costs of this project in that area? Mr. Keel said the cost that is indicated in the report is the estimated cost of the roadway and it does not include the cost of the acquisition of the right of way. He said the next step for this process is to develop a feasibility report that would go into more detail about what'the cost of the right of way would cost, the cost of the roadway and how it would all be financed. Mr. Keel said the financing would include city, state aid and county costs. He said because this includes problems with the interchange there would be a legitimate reason to negotiate with MnDot as well as assessments to property owners in the City of Maplewood. Mr. Ahl said the cost of this project is not the only deciding factor on this project there is also the impact on the wetland. Commissioner Trippler said he is upset that alternative 3 is not an option. He said it's the only option that does not impact the wetlands. He said the costs indicated are practically meaningless because the commission doesn't know how much the right of way costs will be to put the roads on. He asked how could the commission make a determination if nobody knows what the costs will be? Mr. Trippler said there isn't much wetland left and he doesn't see the City of Maplewood doing very much to retain and preserve what "is" left in the city. He said all the alternatives listed, other than option 3, look as if the city is going to go ahead and put the road wherever the developer thinks would be the best for them. He said it should be what natural resources the city has and how they can be preserved. i -- ! Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -4- Commissioner Desai asked if the city is going to eliminate some of the wetlands in the area where in the city would they be replaced? Mr. Keel saidthey have not identified where the wetlands would be replaced but that would be part of the feasibility report. He said there are some upland areas that may be suitable to construct new wetlands on. Commissioner Desai asked if the access to County Road D for the Hillcrest Animal Hospital is closed off how would that effect their business? He also asked about the other businesses on County Road D by the Maplewood Mall such as Slumberland and how would the road effect companies like them? Mr. Keel said they spoke with the Hillcrest Animal Hospital and they were fine with the possibility of having to go to the new County Road D to get back onto Highway 61. Mr. Keel said businesses like Slumberland would not be effected by the change in the road. Mr. Ahl said given all the scenarios alternative 3 is the best option. However, because the area is out of the jurisdiction of the City of Maplewood it cannot be built. This is the reason it won't work. Mr. Ahl said the city looked at three alternatives but because of the impacts to the wetlands as identified by the watershed district, alternatives one and two were eliminated and alternative three was eliminated because it was not feasible. Mr. Ahl said the city does not have input from the developers, this has only been brought to the agencies including MnDot, the county and the city staff. Chairperson Fischer asked what the approximate traffic counts were at 694 at White Bear Avenue as opposed to Highway 617 Mr. Keel said White Bear Avenue carries approximately 20,000 vehicles a day. Highway 61 carries approximately 30,000 vehicles a day. Beam Avenue carries approximately 20,000 vehicles a day, and the new road will carry approximately 15,000 to 18,000 vehicles a day east of Highway 61. Commissioner Rossbach clarified that alternatives 1 through 3 are no longer options. Mr. Keel said correct. Commissioner Rossbach asked why those alternatives were listed as options if they are no longer options? Mr. Keel said yes, alternatives one through three have been eliminated as options. He said they were alternatives through the process. He said in a sense this report is a chronology of the decision making process to come up with the recommended alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -5- Commissioner Rossbach said he felt the report should have had an addendum stating this is how the alternatives were developed and considered, but these options are now eliminated. He is disappointed with the report and felt that option three was the best option but it is not even a possibility anyway. He said it took no wetlands, stayed on the same right of way that already exists and has the best traffic ratings. He said there should be another alternative. He said in his opinion it's ridiculous to wind a road around the wetlands just to get out onto Highway 61 and end up almost onto Beam Avenue..He thought the idea was to get traffic off of Beam Avenue. He cannot recommend any of the other alternatives that are left because he feels that none of them accomplish any of the goals of the city. Mr. Ahl said he disagrees. He said in the traffic model the city is talking about the vitality of one of the major portions of the community in Maplewood. He said if the city does not do the improvements within ten years the traffic system would be unable to deliver the lifeblood to the Maplewood community because the system is failing and will continue to fail. Staff would like to bring the planning commission alternatives. Mr. Ahl said if the report does not provide the planning commission with the type of information they were looking for, staff couldn't recommend that the planning commission doesn't do anything about this due to the future economic distress of the failing transportation system. The city is hoping to build another road that would carry traffic like Beam Avenue does currently. He said to study each alternative would cost between $50,000 to $70,000. Rather than do that study five times staff is recommending tothe commission that the study be done once. Mr. Ahl said if the planning commission feels that they have enough information to make a determination then they should make a recommendation to the city council. If the planning commission feels the alternatives that are provided don't give them enough information then the commission should report that to the city council. Commissioner Rossbach asked what would happen if the city would enlarge Beam Avenue? Mr. Keel said the city could enlarge Beam Avenue but you have significant impacts by doubling the size of it. He said there are a number of wetlands as well as developments on both sides of Beam Avenue that would be encroached upon. He said URS did not model widening Beam Avenue to four lanes in each direction but he suspects that would do a lot to improve traffic in the area. Mr. Keel said it is not "equal" to adding a second Beam Avenue as proposed but it would go quite a distance towards that. Mr. Ahl said the problem is that there would be over 100,000 vehicles per day trying to travel through the intersections of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 and it would probably not function very well. Commissioner Rossbach asked if there could be on and off ramps added between Highway 61 and White Bear Avenue to help with the traffic? Mr. Keel said MnDot would not allow it because they have to have minimal spacing allowances for ramps. Commissioner Rossbach said it was stated earlier that the city is trying to solve MnDot's traffic problem. He said MnDot caused the traffic problem to begin with and rules are made to be broken. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -6- Mr. Ahl said the city brought up the question of traffic from our community access. He said the proposal Mr. Rossbach is referring to was proposed back in 1985 accessing the freeway near Southlawn. He said the access points to the freeway and the freeway system are also being clogged. He said most freeway systems are being clogged at the intersections. Mr. Ahl said adding another intersection on the freeway just moves the problem to another area. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the spacing is that MnDot requires for ramps being added? Mr. Ahl said MnDot requires one mile of spacing for ramps and intersections. Commissioner Trippler said it sounds like these are the alternatives for the planning commission to choose from and if the planning commission doesn't choose one of these alternatives then the City of Maplewood is going to blow away. Mr. Trippler said there are a number of other alternatives to work with that don't use any of the options listed and that don't destroy 50,000 square feet of wetland. He said the traffic report done by URS shows traffic flow getting grades of D's and E's. Mr. Trippler asked why the city would spend all that money to get those types of grades for traffic improvements? Commissioner Mueller said in his opinion the report looks great. He said the city has to solve the problem and there are more problems yet to come. He has to rely on what people at URS tell the planning commission because they are the experts. He said if they say they are going to replace the wetlands that are taken out he has to trust that they will replace them. Mr. Mueller said you can discuss this and come up with more alternatives, but you will never find that everyone agrees with one alternative. He said the planning commission has said in the past they didn't have enough information to make an informed decision and now they have the information but still don't feel it's enough to make a decision. Mr. Mueller said his vote is to move forward on this. Mr. Keel said the main function of putting these committees together of jurisdictional people was to try to get the experts that are most familiar with traffic operations and the rules for the jurisdictions to brainstorm potential options. Mr. Keel said they spent considerable time talking about all the options and some options were dismissed. He said if the planning commission has other alternatives URS would like to see them. Mr. Keel said maybe they were already discussed and ruled out and maybe they weren't. Commissioner Rossbach said this has been discussed for 25 years and he wants to know what the rush is to get it done now? Mr. Ahl said the city council decided 21 months ago to push this ahead. Commissioner Rossbach said in his opinion that is not a good answer it doesn't make sense to push a poor alternative through just so the city can move forward. He said it is not good planning and it's not good thinking. He said there is one alternative and even though the city council decided 21 months ago to move ahead, it has been an issue that has been before the city council for 25 years. Mr. Rossbach said three years ago he stopped voting for any more development in the Maplewood Mall area because there was no traffic plan. He said in 1985 he was the one that suggested the city put a road across at Southlawn. He would recommend that the planning commission should suggest the best plan, figure out how to implement it and when it is finally done the city will have the best solution instead of something that will "sort of" work. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -7- Commissioner Ledvina said he shares the commissioner's frustration that the best alternative, option 3 isn't possible. He said recognizing there are so many factors that are associated with a solution he is inclined to support the staff in their recommended alternative. He said understanding that the remaining parcels have development pressure and the city is trying to work out a solution. He said regarding the wetlands, he is concerned about the loss of the wetlands but it is a little more than an acre of wetland and in the scheme of things there could be other opportunities to enhance that situation. He said there are very good people evaluating these wetlands and the best alignment of the road and recognizing all the factors he would support the staff recommendation. Chairperson Fischer stated this was not a public hearing, did the planning commission feel they want to hear the audience speak regarding this subject? Commissioner Rossbach said he would recommend the audience members go to the public hearing Monday, December 9, at 7:15 p.m: Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission members agreed and they responded yes. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the City of Maplewood adopt the County Road D Realignment Improvement Study and adopt the recommended alternative as the preferred option for implementation of the County Road D Realignment project. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Mueller Nays - Desai, Fischer, Rossbach, Trippler The motion failed. Commissioner Trippler moved that the planning commission recommend to the city council to implement something that coincides with alternative 3 utilizing the existing road grade of County Road D. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes-.Desai, Fischer, Rossbach, Trippler Nays - Ledvina, Mueller The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach requested a list of requirements in order for the planning commission to make a more informative decision. 1. To locate the road as far north from Beam Avenue as possible. 2. Can this be done within our own jurisdiction? What might be a suggestion to get it done? 3. To have this done with minimal wetland impact. 4. To have a reflection of the total cost for the including the right of way costs not just the road cost for the total project. 5. Where would the wetland mitigation occur, preferably in the City of Maplewood? 6. Case law concerning wetlands and changes made to alter them from a wetland. And is a peat bog or a wetland? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS -8- None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the October 28, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Pearson was absent, so Mr. Ekstrand gave a report on the meeting. Mr. Ekstrand said items on the agenda were the CUP for Quality Restoration extended for five years. Jiffy Lube was approved at the old Pizza Hut site. The Maplewood Imports expansion was withdrawn from the applicant and it was pulled from the agenda. The adult use ordinance was approved and granted a first reading. Highwood Farms was discussed and pulled and no action was taken. It will be discussed at a later date pending city council review. b. Ms. Junek was the planning commission representative at the November 13, 2002, city council meeting. Ms. Junek was absent so Mr. Ekstrand briefly reviewed what was discussed at the meeting. CUP's were passed for Ponds of Battle Creek, Hill Murray School, Schlomka Landscaping, Chili's Restaurant, and the Marathon Station on County Road B and Highway 61. The city council discussed and tabled a request of the Hartford Group concerning the Hajicek property. They also gave the second reading for the adult ordinance. c. Mr. Roberts was the representative at the city council meeting on November 25, 2002. Mr. Roberts was not present at the meeting to give a review of the meeting. d. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the December 9, 2002, city council meeting. Items for discussion will be the County Road D Extension and Alignment Study. e. Mr. Ledvina will be the planning commission representative at the December 23, 2002, city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit- Accessory Building 2776 Keller Parkway December 17, 2002 INTRODUCTION Mr. Ron Brown is asking for city approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for an over-sized accessory structure on his property at 2776 Keller Parkway. Mr. Brown has a detached garage with a lean-to or carport on the rear (north) side. The total roof area of this structure is about 1,515 square feet. (See the maps on pages 5 through 8). Mr. Brown uses the garage and carport to store his personal property including cars, a trailer, a lawn mower and a garden tractor (see the applicant's statement on page 9). Request Mr. Brown is requesting that the city council approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to have an accessory structure that exceeds the size limits set by the city code. On a lOt the size of Mr. Brown's property, the code allows a maximum of 2,250 square feet for the combined area of the accessory structures and no accessory structure may exceed 1,250 square feet. The maximum height of accessory structures is limited to 16 feet, measured from grade to the mid point of the roof. The garage and carport exceed the maximum size limit by 266 square feet in area. The code allows the city council to approve a CUP to increase the area or height of an accessory building. BACKGROUND Garage and Carport Construction Mr. Brown built the carport on the garage without receiving a permit from the city. It was after the city received a complaint and Mr. Brown applied for a building permit that staff discovered that the garage and carport exceeded the city code size standards for an accessory structure. Mr. Brown has applied to the city for all necessary zoning and building permits. Currently, the garage and carport are complete. If the city council approves the CUP, city staff may issue Mr. Brown his building permit for these structures. If the city council denies the CUP request, then Mr. Brown must remove the carport to make the accessory structure meet the city size requirements. DISCUSSION Similar Uses The city council has approved CUPs for other over-sized garages and accessory buildings in the past. The council, however, must look at each case on an individual basis and decide on the merits of each application as they come forward. Mr. Brown's Request In this case, the existing garage and carport do not negatively affect the neighbors and are not causing a problem. Mr. Brown's property is in neat condition and keeping the garage and carporl as they are will help Mr. Brown continue to keep his property in an orderly fashion. David Fisher, the Maplewood building official, noted that the city would require the building to meet all code requirements and that the city will collect a double fee for the building permit. Summary The garage and carport are near the rear of the property (near county open space) and only visible to one adjacent neighbor. The garage and carport have not negatively impacted the surrounding properties and, in fact, have resulted in a neater, cleaner property. Also, all of the neighbors that responded to our survey were in favor of this proposal (see page 4). RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on pages 10 and 11. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for an accessory structure (garage and carport) that is 1,515 square feet in area for the property at 2776 Keller Parkway. The city is approving this permit based on the findings listed in the resolution and it 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 from the city. 3. The owner shall not use the garage and carport for commercial or business activities, unless the city council approves such a request. 4. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the property owners within 350 feet of this site to get their opinions of Mr. Brown's request. Out of 14 properties, we received 5 replies that were all were in favor of the proposal. 1. We have no objections to Ron Browns request for his detached garage and carport. (Glasow- 897 Kohlman Lane) Mr. Brown's property is not in view from my property. There are woods between us. Also, the properties at 2756 Keller and 897 Kohlman have dual garage situations anyway. Mr. Brown seems to keep his area clean. We have no issues with this permit. (Laumer- 2764 Keller Parkway) We, the next-door neighbors, have absolutely no objections to Ron Brown's request. It does not obstruct any views, it is not unattractive and he maintains it very meticulously. (Rennet - 2780 Keller Parkway) 4. I have no objections to this carport and see no reason why Mr. Brown should not receive the permit. (Benker- 2786 Keller Parkway) 5. This proposal is OK with me. Mr. Brown is responsible and keeps a neat property. (Rethke - 2828 Keller Parkway) REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 0.791 acres (34,456 square feet) Single Family Home and detached garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Ramsey County Open Space Single dwellings Gervais Lake across Keller Parkway Single dwellings ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 36-77(a) allows a maximum of 2,250 square feet of combined accessory structure area, with no one accessory structure exceeding 1,250 square feet. Section 36-77(c) allows the city council to approve a conditional use permit to increase the area or height of an accessory building. cRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 10 and 11.) APPLICATION DATE Mr. Brown submitted his complete application on November 18, 2002. The usual required 60- day deadline for decisions on this CUP is January 17, 2003. Mr. Brown, however, has agreed to a time extension for the city to decide about his request. Kr/p: Sec:4/2776 Keller Parkway Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's Statement 6. CUP Resolution 4 &ttachment 1 2400N <[ Ld < x co~o~ ~o~ ~ Z ~ ~) ~~ SEXTANT AVE. CO. RD. B2 VADNAIS HEIGHTS COUNTY HIGHRIDGE CT. GERVAIS AVE. VIKING DR. LOCATION 5 MAP 2800~ 2786 CITY OPEN SPACE Attachment 2 Cou, N"Y ¥ D I"r c., H =7 r.--~. GOVT. LOT COUNTY OPEN SPACE ?. .q 6 cal.) ?caaj 2770 2764 GERVAIS LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE 2786 2780 GERVAIS LAKE 2776 AREA MAP 277O Attachment 3 COUNTY OPEN SPACE 2764 2730 Attachment 4 7--:. / -7(- / 2776" __~:..., ,' "-.' .1 -;s_ ' 7'- _. , ' ~ ~ >"- ". / 3""--,q.~/ '?"'--.' ...... .:. ?" >...: },-/ , ~ . ...< : ..: ,' .~,... / / / ?'--~:.~./ ?":..- i ,, -., ~ , , :; _~ / ' , _/ ,-?.. (~~/ ,.( .' ./ _.' , ,,. / ". ,"- , ,/",?" .,:' / ..., .,:' , .~. : .,, .¢~, , -: ,,, ,,--, SITE PLAN 8 Attachment 5 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ronald Brown is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to have a 1,515 square foot accessory building (garage and carport) on his property. WHEREAS, this conditional use permit applies to the property at 2776 Keller Parkway. The property identification number is 04-29-22-32-0024 and the legal description is: BEGINING AT POINT ON NORTHERLY EXT OF EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5, BLOCK 2, LAKE GERVAIS VIEW ADDITION, 39 FEET NORTHERLY OF NE CORNER SAID LOT, THEN SOUTHERLY TO SAID NE CORNER, THEN SOUTH 65 DEGREES, 44 MIN, EAST 100FT, THEN SOUTH 24 DEGREES, 16MIN, WEST TO SHORE OF LAKE, THEN SELY ON SAID SHORE TO LINE RUN PAR TO & 101.14FT MORE OR LESS SELY OF IsT LINE, THEN NORTH 24 DEGREES, 44MIN, EAST ON SAID LINE TO POINT 241.36 FT NORTH OF NORTH LINE OF PKVVY, THEN SOUTH 65 DEGREES, 44 MIN, EAST 119.22 FT TO E LINE OF WEST % OF GL 1, THEN NORTH ON SAID EAST LINE TO INT LINE RUNNING S 61 DEGREES, 24 MINUTES 33 SEC, EAST FROM BEGINING (SUBJECT TO ROAD) IN GOVT LOT 1, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On January 6, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On January ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council opened the public headng and allowed everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 10 The use wOuld be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. The garage and carport are near the rear of the property (near county open space) and only visible to one neighbor. 11. The garage and carport have not negatively impacted the surrounding properties. 12. All of the neighbors that responded to our survey were for this proposal. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 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 from the city. 3. The owner shall not use the garage and carport for commercial or business activities, unless the city council approves such a request. 4. The city council shall review this conditional use permit in one year. The Maplewood 'City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 11 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission's 2002 Annual Report January 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the new year. ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following in: 2002 changes to the land use plan 3 changes to the zoning map 1 preliminary plats 6 ordinance changes 3 conditional use permits and revisions 18 vacations 5 vadances 1 miscellaneous requests and presentations 17 2001 2000 1999 3 5 7 2 2 1 3 6 2 5 3 2 25 21 21 7 0 5 2 7 3 7 6 11 In 2002, the commission also finished work on the comprehensive plan update, initiated the south Maplewood study and took a tour of development sites. In addition to these, the planning commission had a goal setting session with the city council, had a training session with Barb Strandell, had a presentation about rainwater gardens and reviewed the proposed extension of County Road D. 2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES The commission considered three changes to the comprehensive plan in 2002. Changes PC Action Council Action Mall Area Traffic Study Approved Approved Gladstone Park Addition (Burke Avenue at English Street) From P (park) and R-1 to (single-family residential) Approved Approved This change was for a seven-lot subdivision that the city built as part of the English Street improvement project. Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) From M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-3(M) (medium-density residential) Approved Approved This change was for a nine-unit town house development on the south side of Castle Avenue. 2002 ZONING MAP CHANGES The commission considered one change to the zoning map in 2002. Change PC Action Council Action Highwood Farm (Highwood Avenue) From F (farm residence) to R-1 (single-family residential) Approved Pending This change was for a proposed 10-lot single-family subdivison. 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS The commission considered the following conditional use permits and permit revisions in ,2002. Cardage Homes of Maple Hills PUD (Parkway Drive) Maplewood Toyota Expansion (2783 Highway 61) St. Jeromes CUP Revision (380 Roselawn Avenue) Hillcrest Animal Hospital (1320 County Road D) Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD (Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue) Over-sized Accessory Building (1481 Henry Lane) Kline Nissan Dealership (3100 Maplewood Ddve) Dearborn Meadow PUD (Castle Avenue) PC Action Approved Council Action Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Lexus Dealership Expansion (3000 Maplewood Drive) Hmong Alliance Church (1770 McMenemy Street) Sinclair Fuel Station Remodeling (223 Larpenteur Avenue) Bruentrup Farm CUP Revision (2170 County Road D) Keller Golf Course Maintenance Building (2166 Maplewood Drive) Over-sized Accessory Building (1501 Henry Lane) Budget Towing (1291 Frost Avenue) Quality Restoration CUP Revision (1160 Frost Avenue) Jiffy Lube (Maplewood Mall Ring Road) Maplewood imports Storage Yard (Gervais Avenue) MEMBER WHO RESIGNED IN 2002 Eric Ahlness Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Withdrawn MEMBERS WHO WERE APPOINTED IN 2002 Jackie Monahan-Junek, Tushar Desai 2002 ATTENDANCE Name Lorraine Fischer Jackie Monahan-Junek Gary Pearson William Rossbach Tushar Desai Matt Ledvina Dale Tdppler Paul Mueller Mary Dierich Appointed 197o 3-11-o2 12-10-90 10-10-89 7-22-02 12-08-97 6-8-98 7-13-98 12-11-oo Term Expires 12-04 12-02 12-02 12-02 12-o4 12-04 12-03 12-03 12-o3 2002 Attendance 14 out of 17 8 out of 10 15 out of 17 16 out of 17 6 out of 6 12 out of 17 15 out of 17 12 out of 17 15 out of 17 As a point of comparison, the planning commission had 17 meetings in 1999,18 meetings in 2000 and 18 meetings in 2001. 2003 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the planning commission for 2003: 1. Have an annual tour of development and other sites of interest. 2. Have quarterly in-service training sessions or materials for the planning commission. 3. Work with the consultants and city staff on any code or land use plan changes that result from the Hillcrest and Gladstone Area studies. 4. Work with staff on the south Maplewood study. 5. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes. 8. Provide input to HRA on housing redevelopment and program issues. 7. Study the area west of Maplewood Mall (including the Hajicek property) for land use and transportation issues. P:~...~miscell~PC 2002annrep.doc