Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/20031. Call to Order 2. Roll Call MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 3, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 19, 2003 5. Public Heatings a. Van Dyke Village Town houses (Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B) 1. Land Use Plan Change (BC and R-3(M) to R-3(H)) 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development New Business a. Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) Presentation - Legacy Village (County Road D and Kennard) b. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (F. AW) Review - County Road D Improvement Project (Hazeiwood to Highway 61) c. Home Occupation License - Hair Salon (2497 Pinkspire Lane) d. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab (1180 Highway 36) 1. Expansion of Motor Vehicle Repair Facility 2. Expansion of Motor Vehicle Sales Lot 7. Unfinished Business None Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. February 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson b. March 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Monahan-Junek c. Ma rch 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Tdppler 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment ~ T [ ................. ~ ...... T ................. 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: o The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presen'ts 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 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Commissioner Jackie Monahan-Junek Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Absent Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Bruce Anderson, Parks & Recreation Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach added item d. Van Dyke Village under Commission Presentations. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for February 3, 2003. In the absence of chairperson Fischer the chairperson was Will Rossbach. Change the wording co-chair Rossbach to chairperson Rossbach in the minutes. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for February 3, 2003 with changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -2- Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstentions- Fischer, Mueller V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Saint PaUl Soccer Center (County Road B) Mr. Ekstrand said the City of St. Paul's Department of Parks and Recreation is proposing to develop a six-field outdoor soccer park on the northerly portion of the St. Paul Water Utility property south of County Road B. This property is part of the Sandy Lake lime disposal area for the St. Paul Water Utility. The applicant is proposing these soccer fields for use during daylight periods as there would not be lights for night play. There would be 235 parking spaces plus a lavatory building. The applicant proposes to buffer the playing fields by planting a 309-foot-wide wooded area along the south side of the fields. There are areas of existing trees for screening on the north/northeast. This soccer complex would fill a need for additional soccer fields needed by the City of St. Paul for their soccer programs. This facility would be used for regular game scheduling as well as for tournaments. Mr. Ekstrand said that from a land-use standpoint, the proposal would provide an attractive, Iow- density bse for this barren, unappealing land. If the city council were to apprOve this proposal, the applicant must provide the detailed plans as outlined in the staff report for a more thorough review. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Cavett to respond to a letter from a concerned resident regarding the stability of the land after it will be filled in do to the large amount of lime. Mr. Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, said this type of project is actually a good use for this land. When soil is loaded on something that is water bearing like lime it will actually get surcharged and settle out. He said since you are not building facilities on the land, what minimal settlement that will occur will be easy to deal with. He does not see the settling as an issue as long as it is filled in over time. He is sure the applicant will be dealing with soil experts. Commissioner Trippler asked what the long range costs would be on an annual basis for the City of Maplewood? His understanding was the city and the county will aCtually be maintaining the site. Mr. Ekstrand said this proposal will be developed and maintained by the City of Saint Paul. There should be no operational costs for the City of Maplewood. He said any police and fire calls at the park would be handled by the City of Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler said there was discussion about having access to the south of Skillman Avenue and Adolphus Street. He said there's a huge drop-off in that area and he wondered if that area would be filled-in in order to gain access? Mr. Ekstrand said that was not proposed by the applicant. It is not something that the neighborhood wants but from a park design standpoint and an access standpoint they felt that there should be a trail connection. Staff felt it would be wise to connect to the neighborhood to the newly developed park. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -3- Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they knew how the applicant would grow the large trees that are depicted on the plans so quickly? Mr. Ekstrand said staff does not have those details yet. The applicant submitted a tree plan but it does not give details of the size of the trees to be planted. Commissioner Mueller said he thought he read that St. Paul had first rights to the soccer park and if the park wasn't being used, Maplewood's soccer teams could use it. Mr. Ekstrand said he thought that was correct, however he is hearing that is incorrect from the applicant in the audience. He said he would let the applicant answer that question. Commissioner Mueller asked if there have been other proposals for this piece of land? And if this space remains open space what would it look like? Mr. Ekstrand said no there have not been other proposals for this land. He said if it remained an open space it would look unattractive and almost desert like. Because of all the lime he does not believe it would support much growth. Commissioner Mueller asked about the 235 proposed parking spaces. He said he did a calculation and when he includes people coming early, games overlapping, and additional family members coming to the games he finds a shortage of parking spaces. Commissioner Rossbach said he was curious if Sandy Lake is covered under Maplewood's mining and extraction ordinance? Mr, Ekstrand said he would have to do some research into that. Commissioner Rossbach said he thought that came into play during the process. In that mining and extraction ordinance there are some restoration specifications having to do with sights. That would relate to Mr. Mueller's question regarding what this site would look like if it remained an open space. Mr. Ekstrand said staff will look into that further. Chairperson Fischer said she noticed in attachment #19 the reference to the phantom soccer leagues, is this common or uncommon? Mr. Bruce Anderson, Maplewo°d Parks & Recreation Director, said phantom soccer leagues are very common. He said Maplewood has a number of large organizations that participate on Maplewood's soccer fields after the organized play on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. He said from Memorial Day to Labor Day, 9 out of 10 weekends are going to have active organized play which is not scheduled through Maplewood's Park & Recreation Department. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Anderson what problems would that cause for the City of Maplewood and the parks? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -4- Mr. Anderson said, the problem is the extensive use of the soccer fields because the soccer fields get beat up and destroyed. The fields are used seven days a week for several hours a day. ThE fields are designed for the residents and for youth play. During the adult play they often play during the rain and inclement weather and this is when the fields can get destroyed. The parks department has resodded these fields three times in the last seven years. Trying to keep these fields in game ready condition is very difficult. With additional soccer fields, this would hopefully alleviate the problem of the soccer fields being over used in Maplewood. Commissioner Mueller said regarding the soccer fields in Maplewood, can anyone in Maplewood use the fields and are specific organized leagues using the fields from other communities? Mr. Anderson said there have been groups from the outside using the fields and it is very difficult to regulate the use of public fields. He said the Park & Recreation department has posted signs at the sites with "organized play by permit only" signs, but it is very difficult to manage the field or remove players from the field complexes. He said it continues to be a challenge to keep the soccer fields in good playing condition after adult soccer has been played. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Anderson if the hope was that if six more soccer fields were built this would help address the overuse of soccer fields? Mr. Anderson said yes. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Anderson if the issue of phantom soccer leagues wasn't more of a police enforcement issue rather then the need for additional soccer fields? Mr. Anderson said it's a difficult public policy issue. He said the police department doesn't enjoy having to go to a park and ask people playing soccer to leave a public park. He said it isn't that the people are doing anything wrong at the park it's just that the soccer fields are getting abused because of overuse. Commissioner Pearson said his point is he believes the problem will still exist even if there are six more soccer fields built. Mr. Anderson said having six more soccer fields would still alleviate the problem. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Bob Bierscheid, the Director of Parks & Recreation for the City of St. Paul, 25 West Fourth Street in St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Bierscheid said this proposal has been brought before the City of Maplewood before. He said the issues that were brought up by the residents in the past have been addressed this time. He said there is a desperate need for soccer fields throughout this entire area. They have been participating with Ramsey County and the Soccer Partners program whereby they give additional funding to municipalities to develop soccer fields. This development would be supervised, enclosed by a fence, be locked and not open to the public to use except by a permit. The proposal is recognizing that the soccer fields are in the City of Maplewood and that by agreement specified use could be given to the City ¢ Mapiewood when and how many soccer fields could be used by residents. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -5- Mr. Bierscheid said the soccer fields will be maintained by the City of St. Paul, there would be specified hours of operation, be no festivals, there is no lighting proposed, and there would be a specified limited number of youth tournaments by agreement. Another reason there is a need for the security of the fencing, locked gates, single access and the supervision on site is to control the overuse of the soccer fields. Mr. Tim Agness, the Principal Designer for the Parks & Recreation department for the City of St. Paul, addressed the commission. He said when this proposal was presented to. the neighbors in 2001, the residents said they did not want a trail connection or play area. Those items have been removed from this proposal. He said there are alternatives that have been offered by the water utility for additional parking. At this point and time, the research they have done across the country show this number of parking spaces would exceed the number of spaces necessary for these six soccer fields. When parking problem's occur'it's usually because of a scheduling problem. They hired a geo-technical firm called American Engineering and Testing to do soil borings in 2001 to see how these lime pits would be managed. Currently, the water utility is driving on areas that were once lime. The water is compressed and eventually it ends up stable. He said they were told the land would never be perfectly stable and there would be some continuous differential settlement unless the drainage as it is on a really good athletic field. There was a study done by the water utility in 1995, which covered case histories and abandoned lime pits. They would try to plant trees that are 2 to 2 Y2 inch caliber like those planted on boulevards. The trees have to be lime tolerant and would have to have enough fill to be able to care for the root system. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she read a residents concern regarding what other areas the applicant has checked into to build these six soccer fields. She said maybe there aren't any areas large enough? Mr. Bierscheid said they have checked extensively throughout St. Paul and there are no other areas to build this proposal. He said the land is owned by the water utility and when the land became available they proposed to build this soccer complex there. In St. Paul, four soccer fields is the most that could be built. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Bierscheid what the City of St. Paul was going to do with the land at the Pig's Eye site? Mr. Bierscheid said the Pig's Eye site is part of the regional park plan and for the most part that is to remain a large open space area. He said there is a slightly different environment at Pig's Eye then there is at Sandy Lake. Commissioner Trippler said he was the project manager for the Pig's Eye area five or six years ago. He knows there were plans to put soccer fields in there but District One was opposed to the soccer fields being put there for various reasons. He said one reason was because it obstructed District Ones view of the river. He believes that sight would be perfect for soccer fields. He does not understand why the City of St. Paul does not pursue that area further. This is where the population lives that needs these soccer fields. Mr. Bierscheid said they won't put.soccer fields there because of the environmental concerns and native species. The primary reason is they do not want to disturb the land. ! Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -6- Commissioner Trippler said he vehemently disagrees. There are no native species left there. He said the land isn't virgin, it's an old dumpsite. The Pollution Control Agency along with the help o the EPA is removing all of the toxic materials off the site and when they are done it won't be the problem it was five years ago. Mr. Bierscheid said the intention of this proposal is for the soccer youth. They are desperately trying to find soccer fields for youth organizations to use. Commissioner Mueller said the applicant stated a St. Paul Park & Recreation person would supervise this complex and it is funded by the City of St. Paul. He asked if there has been conversation regarding the residents of Maplewood and St. Paul sharing the use of this complex? Mr. Bierscheid said yes, St. Paul will be supervising this complex and it is funded by St. Paul. He hopes the two cities could reach an agreement about the use of this complex either for a specified time or for a certain number of days. Commissioner Mueller stated the residents are afraid their homes will go down in value if this soccer complex is built. Mr. Bierscheid said in his 35 years of experience, he has seen property values not only maintained but they have gone up when next to a park. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Bierscheid if the City of St. Paul was bearing this cost and what would this project cost? Mr. Bierscheid said the project would cost $7 million dollars. The cost would be covered by the City of St. Paul and by Ramsey County in terms of development costs. Commissioner Mueller asked if this soccer complex is completely fenced, and his backyard backs up to this area would he be able to go play on these fields, or is that not a possibility? Mr. Bierscheid said that depends on whatever the City of Maplewood sets for conditions and access to the property for the residents. Commissioner Mueller asked what if one of the conditions was to eliminate one of the soccer fields in order to put in a picnic area and tot lot? Mr. Bierscheid said they would like to have as many soccer fields as possible. He said they would be willing to discuss having only five soccer fields and before it's finalized they would hope to come to some kind of agreement. Chairperson Fischer asked audience members to sign in on the sign up sheet if they would like to speak. They would be called up to speak in the order they sign up. She asked speakers to keep their comments to five minutes or less in length. She also said neighbors should have respect for others and their opinions. The following people gave their comments: Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -7- 1. Travis Gaueberg at 167 East Skillman Avenue, Maplewood He said he has a young son and plans on having more children. He does not believe this plan can handle the parking for this proposal. There is not a direct connection to this area and people will drive through neighborhoods looking for shortcuts. He said the community is very quiet and they would like to keep it that way. People would be driving fast and he is concerned about the safety of children. He believes that the restrooms are too far from the soccer fields. Because of this he is concerned that adults who have been drinking beverages all afternoon will not walk to the bathroom but will urinate on his property. When he bought his property four years ago Sandy Lake was considered open space. He was told it wasn't going to be developed into anything and that is why he liked this area. The park nearest to him is a few blocks away and it attracts some shady characters. Because of this he will never take his family there again. He believes developing this soccer complex will attract trouble and he doesn't want it in his backyard. He wants the planning commission to vote no on this proposal. 2. John Chapman at 160 County Road B East, Maplewood He is not in complete opposition of this proposal. Many of the changes that were made in earlier plans appear to be made to benefit the residents south of the project. He does not want the concerns of the people north of the project ignored. He has concerns about the screening of the area to the north as well as the increased traffic on County Road B East. Between the two schools, St. Jude Medical and the new Joe's Sporting Goods being built there, is a lot of traffic throughout certain times of the day on County Road B. 3. John Hackman at 2011 Jackson Street, Maplewood He has lived here for 17 years. His neighborhood has put up with a lot from the water utility as far as building the dikes, and repositioning the ponds to the west of him. He's had to live through troubles with Sandy Lake. Sandy Lake had to be pumped out and there were generators running all night. When they were building the dikes he lived with constant noise and he had nails popping out of the walls in his house, which he had to repair. When he comes home he finally has peace and quiet and he enjoys this. The Business Centers by the highway buffer the highway noise. Because of everything he has put up he would like to leave it open space so he can continue to enjoy his peace and quiet. He is against this proposal. 4. Joe Plumbo at 176 East Skillman Avenue, Maplewood He comes before the planning commission to ask that they vote no for this proposal. He sent a letter to the city with his concerns and comments. Because of the problems over the decades that this neighborhood has had to endure, it is time to give some consideration to this neighborhood to finally enjoy some peace and quiet and be left alone. The soccer fields will not provide peace and quiet but will cause problems and bring increased traffic down County Road B East. The neighborhood went before the parks commission last year and they decided to take no action, which he believes was a good decision. The neighborhood wants Sandy Lake to be capped and left as open space. 5. Shelly Strauss at 2153 Arkwright Street, Maplewood She said her neighborhood wasn't notified or surveyed for this proposal. The traffic would come through her neighborhood and this concerns her. This is a proposal for a regional center for the residents of St. Paul and secondly for the residents of Maplewood. She believes the parking is not ample enough for this proposal. 235 spaces is not enough for six soccer fields, the home team, visiting team, and other spectators besides the overlapping of soccer games. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -8- Ms. Strauss said once the parking spaces are full people are going to park in the closest neighborhood. Eventually someone will cut a whole in the fence so people can gain access ant' get in faster. She believes that even though there are no plans for lighting at this time in Phase I, the games are 1~ hour long and eventually the applicant will come back and ask for lighting to be added. She is against this proposal. 6. Dorothy Haas at 129 Bellwood Avenue, Maplewood She is concerned about the screening along the fenced area. In St. Paul, 30 years ago, there was a rape that occurred at a park off of Maryland Avenue and Rice Street where there was also screening. That screening has since been removed due to the rape occurring. She said the problems associated with screening is just something to think about regarding this proposal. She is concerned about the wildlife that will be disturbed in the area. When they moved here 30 years ago they had deer go through their property and she is concerned the wildlife will disappear. She is against this proposal. 7. Pete Frank at 1921 Price Avenue, Maplewood He said he is speaking in favor of this proposal. He's dealt with traveling soccer and the fall soccer program a great deal. Parking is basically not a problem but there have been a handful of problems on the weekends. When parking is a problem it is usually because of poor scheduling. Kids games are usually 1 hour long, in the fall the games start at 6:00 p.m. and the second game starts at 7:00 p.m. so the 'kids are usually done playing around 8:00 p.m. The older kids will need fields that are lit for their games. Most fields do not have lights, basically because of the added cost and to keep the use of the fields down. Hazelwood Park is one ofthe few parks that have lit fields. Soccer games are quieter than baseball games or other sports that are being played. Si: soccer fields is the ideal number as shown on this proposal. Property values do not decrease and if anything, they increase. Although he said he is not an expert, he has heard that living by a school or by a park will increase the value of your property. 8. Larry Peterson at 351 O'Day Street South, Maplewood He is speaking in favor of this proposal. He has two daughters and they have been involved in playing soccer for District 622 and the Northeast Soccer Association. He credits the self- confidence and good grades of his children because of their involvement in youth activities. He does not live near this location but does live in south Maplewood. He lives by the Ramsey County Workhouse. There is a nine-hole golf course being built there, which will be run by the Ramsey County Workhouse inmates. His neighborhood supported that project for the better of the neighborhood and he believes the residents should support this project for their neighborhood as well. 9. Rob McHattie at 1412 Almond Avenue, St. Paul He is the Chairman for SoccerSpaces. He has been involved in finding places for kids to play soccer for about five years now and his kids have played soccer for about fifteen years. Sandy Lake is the ideal site .because the land is inexpensive, it really can't be used for anything else, the soccer fields can be shared by multiple communities and it does not effect a huge amount of homes. He said if this space is left as open space there is only a small amount of people that would enjoy this open space. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -9- Mr. McHattie said if the soccer complex is built, there could be 600 people enjoying this space daily. There could be parking problems on the weekend but it is possible to have overflow parking at a nearby school or at the industrial area. They like this site because there is space for six soccer fields, which is critical for getting teams from neighboring cities to compete there. They have looked at other sites as well as the Pig's Eye site but there is not enough space to have six soccer fields at any other location. 10. Sean Nicholson at 2381 Chippewa Circle, Maplewood He supports the soccer proposal. He grew up playing soccer for a great coach Buzz Lagos and as a result he has been involved in soccer his whole life. He is the past president of the Northeast Soccer Association, which is the home team for the Maplewood community. They are probably the ones that use the Hazelwood Park soccer field the most. He is here representing a few soccer Clubs. Twin City Fire has about 200 youth players, St. Paul Black Hawks have about 500 players and there is another club that has 400 players. They all play against each other. They have a hard time finding soccer fields to play at and many times they have to travel to Blaine to find available soccer fields. There is usually one tournament a year. He said Soccer is the fastest growing sport in America. This is an opportunity to get a $7 million park in their backyard, There is not a lot of noise from soccer. The kids are running and don~t have the energy to yell and scream. He would love to have this beautiful park in his backyard for the kids and the community to use. 11. Don Lubke at 1825 Hyacinth Avenue, St. Paul He is the preSident of the Northeast Soccer Association. The number of soccer fields do not correspond with the number of kids playing soccer. The kids don't have enough places to play soccer at. If you are a young family with children buying a home by parks and schools would draw families to those neighborhoods. The wildlife will stay and will continue to grow with the trees and ponds. He is in favor of this proposal. 12. Sharell Babin at 150 East County Road B, Maplewood They bought their house many years ago when before Cub Foods was there it was a riding stable. Sandy Lake was Iow enough that they could look out their house and see onto Skillman Avenue. They would call the water utility and ask what was going on only to be told not to worry that nothing was going on and her family was strung along for years. Then the dikes were built and Sandy Lake became so high that you cannot see across to the other side anymore. They have lost a lot since they moved there. St. Jude's built and their road comes out directly onto hers and they get the traffic from St. Jude's along with the shift changes, traffic from Cub, traffic from the two schools and now they want to add the traffic for the soccer fields. The entrance to the soccer complex is proposed to be only two doors down from her house and it will bring problems and elements to their neighborhood that they don't want. They want to come home to peace and quiet and enjoy their neighborhood and not to deal with traffic and noise. She wants the planning commission to vote no for this proposal. 13. Milo Thompson at 1794 Onacrest Avenue, Maplewood His sources state that Sandy Lake has to be capped. The water utility would like financial help in covering the cost. There is a conditional use permit mentioned here. This CUP comes up for an annual review and the residents could come back to the city with their protests through the year and get the problems resolved if any were to occur. The residents still have avenues to be in control of their neighborhoods. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -10- 14. Manuel (Buzz) Lag°s at 1889 Lincoln Avenue, St. Paul He is the coach of the Minnesota Thunder Soccer team. He does soccer clinics in Maplewoo( and works with soccer clubs and the schools. Living in St. Paul he recognizes the need for soccer fields for the youth of today to play soccer. Being a homeowner, he knows that people have the right to be concerned about their property if a soccer complex was proposed to be built. This would a very nice complex, it'would keep the wildlife, it would be maintained very nice and be aesthetically pleasing and it would overall enhance property values. The parking and traffic problems can be addressed and can be minimized. The fields will be managed properly and the use of the six soccer fields could be rotated to help save the fields. 15. Aaron Tilsen at 6097 Courtly Alcove, Woodbury He coaches soccer for about 150 to 200 kids and 10 to 20 of those kids are from Maplewood. They run int° this issue of using soccer fields and how many kids do you have to have on a team in order to use their city's soccer fields. For the last four years he worked at the indoor soccer facility on Cope Avenue. At Harvest Park they put a soccer field in at the park. They ran soccer camps there but now it has been rented out to Hispanics and the soccer field has been destroyed. That is what will happen to Hazelwood Park because there is no place to go to practice soccer. In St. Paul almost all the parks are set up for baseball and softball and there are very few soccer parks. If Maplewood does not allow St. Paul to put in these soccer fields, Maplewood's parks will be over used and destroyed. Every year the Park and Recreation Department spends a lot of money fixing the soccer fields up. Building these soccer fields would take some use off of Maplewood's parks. He is for this proposal. 16. Joel Hollenkamp at 1984 Adolphus Street, Maplewood His concern is the traffic flow. He feels with only one entrance/exit people will use County Road B East and any other street people can gain the quickest access they will use. There will be a lot of congestion no matter how much. time you put in between the game times. He is also concerned about the noise level. Since the concrete wall was put up by the freeway the noise does not bother him. He appreciates the opinions of the people who are for the soccer park but none of them live in this area so it is easy for them to be in favor of it. 17. Joanne Ronning at 144 East Skillman Avenue, Maplewood She is confused because they were told the soccer fields would be used for adult soccer games and for tournament plan and now she hears the kids have no place to play and the fields would be used for youth soccer. Their neighborhood signed a petition with over 100 names on it stating that they don't want this soccer complex here. She wants Sandy Lake to be capped and then left as open space. She read St. Paul does not want anything less than six soccer fields so you are not going to get them to go down to five soccer fields. Hazelwood Park originally did not have lighting on it but it was installed. She thinks the same thing would happen at this complex, it is just a matter of time. At a meeting in the fall of 2001 at the Parkside Fire Department, there was a Maplewood Policeman there and he said there would not be extra police patrol if this Sandy Lake soccer field were built. There is increased concern for kids to congregate there with or without a fence. Property values are another concern of hers. Having a park in someone's neighborhood with a picnic area and swings is far more desirable then having six soccer fields in their neighborhood with soccer tournaments being played all the time. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -11- Ms. Ronning said it also seems ridiculous to have only one bathroom for this proposal with 600 people there at one time. If someone from the city council lived in this neighborhood she does not believe this proposal would even be heard. She is not in favor of this proposal and urges the planning commission to vote no. 17. Charles Gershner at 176 Mount Vernon, Maplewood He understands that St. Paul Regional Water owns the land right now and wondered who would be responsible for capping Sandy Lake once the contaminants were covered over with fill and grass? Mr. Anderson said St. Paul Regional Water would still own the land and the City of St. Paul would be responsible for the property. 18. Brett Looney at 1985 Jackson Street, Maplewood A lot of people walk through his neighborhood and he has concerns about the traffic especially with children around. He is concerned about kids sitting in the parking lot causing trouble and a police patrol comes and the kids run over the fence and into their neighborhoods. People will be in a hurry and may drive through' the neighborhoods fast trying to get to the kids soccer games. Say people are lost, they will drive fast through the neighborhoods looking for the entrance to the soccer complex because they are late. There are kids playing in the streets all year round. He is against this proposal. If this happens to get passed he wants to make sure the city considers the neighborhoods surrounding it. 18. Steven Condiff at 133 Skillman Avenue, Maplewood. He was one of the spearheads on the last rejection for this proposal last time. He thinks this will turn into a money making proposition. He has watched his community grow and the neighborhood enjoys the peace quiet despite the noise of the freeway. The vegetation and the buildings help drown out the noise of the freeway. He has heard the pros and cons of this proposal but these people don't live in this area. The MPCA told people that Sandy Lake has to be capped no matter what and eventually something will grow on the land once it is made into an open space. Soccer is a great sport but not in his backyard. He is against this proposal and he would like to keep it quiet. 19. Peter Fischer at 2443 Standridge Avenue, Maplewood. He is in support of this proposal. He believes the City of St. Paul has taken into consideration a lot of the concerns from the neighborhood and the citizens, which are now reflected in the plans. He knows there is a shortage of soccer fields in the community. There are many programs that are offered by St. Paul that Maplewood take advantage of. This proposal is not only a benefit for St. Paul but surrounding communities as well. The applicant seems very open to suggestions and has concerns about the needs of the neighbors. Many times there are developments that are built and the developers only have concerns for themselves and not for the residents. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if they had a chance to get an answer to his question earlier regarding the mining ordinance? Mr. Ekstrand said the city did approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for the removal of lime from the lime pits in the late 80's, which expired 12-1-01. In 1997 the city council did approve a landscape plan for the southerly part of the property. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -12- Commissioner Rossbach said the St. Paul Water Utility has an obligation to restore the site in its entirety whether there is a soccer field built or not. He said there must be some criteria that thc restoration is defined in one-way or another. Mr. Ekstrand said he would continue to study this. Commissioner Trippler said in most of the capping regulations it rarely limits it to just capping. There are engineering and aesthetic considerations in any capping order that is put out. He can't imagine that the MPCA would say to pave over it. It will have to have a certain amount of growth material, clay for imperviousness and possibly an 18-inch zone of rooting soils. He asked staff if the city will see any tax revenues from this proposal as opposed to an open space proposal? Melinda Coleman said the city will not see any tax revenue from the St. Paul Water Utility. County Government is tax-exempt whether it is left open space or not. Commissioner Pearson asked where the closest playground is in that neighborhood? Mr. Anderson said Western Hills Park is the closest playground, which is about 3 blocks away. Commissioner Rossbach said the commission does not get a regular audience and he said he usually sticks his foot in his mouth once during a meeting. He would vote no on this proposal because the people say they don't want the complex built. One of his main driving criteria is the planning commission should listen to the voices of the residents whenever it is possible. The planning commission is limited in many developments because they don't have a lot of choices He would further say that he thinks the residents are "blowing it". This would be a great use. From his own experience from living across the street from Hazelwood Park, there are the largest baseball and soccer fields there, he lives on the county road that carries way more traffic then the area for this proposal and the biggest problem is listening to sOftballs being hit against steel bats. None of this is really a "problem". He never hears the soccer field noise. Only on occasion is there a parking problem. The biggest parking problem is for the 4th of July celebration when there are 10,000 plus people there. He thinks the residents are making a big mountain out of a tiny molehill. This is a very minimal use and the residents are turning it down. The residents would rather have an area that is going to get capped, filled in and sod put on top to look at rather than an area of 400 feet of trees blocking the neighborhood from seeing six soccer fields. He thinks by the time the residents go to the public hearing for the city council on March 10th the residents should reconsider this proposal. Commissioner Mueller said personally he would vote yes for this proposal. When there is a 310- foot sound barrier of trees around this area he would take it. The freeway is his backyard and he hears the freeway noise. Someone wrote a letter to the planning commission asking if this proposal was in your backyard would you want it there? He said he sure would want that proposal in his backyard. It's a great proposal and the value of his home would skyrocket. It is a value to the community as well not only for Maplewood but other surrounding communities. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what kind of screening is around the parks in Maplewood such as Goodrich Park? Mr. Anderson said the screening is minimal at Goodrich Park. Some parks are surrounded by residential homes. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -13- CommissiOner Monahan-Junek said when she saw this proposal with a 310~foot buffer of trees she said she thought it was fabulous. She said go to other communities and many people don't get that kind of a buffer. It bothers her that most of the dialogue is that we haven't gone beyond "your own" interest and started thinking about the "communities interest". Her child takes swimming lessons at Skyview School in Oakdale but she lives in Maplewood, should she not be going there because she doesn't live in Oakdale? A lot of people have asked, "would you want this proposal built in your backyard"? She said yes, she lives on Larpenteur Avenue between Century Avenue and McKnight Road. She said there is traffic from Hill Murray School, from 3M and the road is very busy. She made the decision to not let her child play on the road because it is not safe. She made the decision that her child only plays in her yard. She is careful driving and she watches the traffic. She empathizes with the reSidents. The fact is that times have changed and if she had a choice to have soccer fields across the street from her house instead of the Maplewood Apartments she would rather have the soccer fields. She feels this is a fabulous opportunity for the community. She said everyone would like peace and quiet but the community is changing. She said if it wasn't for places like 3M, Maplewood Mall, and recreation areas, it would not be a thriving community. She supports this plan. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on page 45 approving a comprehensive' land use plan amendment from OS (open space) to P (park) for the City of St. Paul's proposed Sandy Lake Soccer Complex. Approval is based on the following reasons: The proposed soccer complex would conform with Maplewood's mission to provide a comprehensive, balanced and sustainable system of parks, open spaces/natural areas, trails and leisure-oriented activities/programs for city residents to use and enjoy in as cost-effective manner as possible. It would provide city residents with parks and natural areas for recreational uses as visual/physical diversions from the hard surfacing a urban development and as a means to maintain the character, ambience, appearance and a sense of open space. It would maximize the recreational opportunities available to city residents through the development of fair and equitable working partnerships between the city and the local school district, adjacent cities, county, churches and civic organizations. It would provide city residents with an interconnected trail system for transportation and recreation purposes and as a means to tie divergent parks and open space with the broader community. 5. It would convert an unattractive and unusable lime pit to an attractive and useable park. 6. It would provide relief for existing soccer fields that are heavily used. 7. It would create and foster a cooperative working relationship with the City of St. Paul and Ramsey County. 8. It would serve as a regional recreational facility that would serve many communities. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -14- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 46-48 approving a conditional use permit for the Sandy Lake Soccer Complex. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions: 1. A detailed site plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall submit detailed plans that include, but are not limited to, the following: · A detailed landscape and tree-buffer plan with quantities, sizes, species and locations. · A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plan. The utility plan must show how sanitary waste would be removed from the restroom building. · Storm run-off calculations. · A site plan that provides setback dimensions, the location of trails, parking-lot dimensions and the location of any fences. · A trail connection to the corner of Adolphus Street and Skillman Avenue. · A right-turn lane into the proposed site. · Showing an area for "proof-of-parking" should the proposed 235 spaces be insufficient. · Post "no parking" signs within the main driveway. · Revise the plans to show a five-field soccer complex with the field space closest to the restroom building reserved for development as a neighborhood park with picnic facilities, tot lot, swing sets, etc. · The revised site plan should include a paved bike path around the perimeter of the site. · Widening the driveway entrance to 26-32 feet. · Provision of a gate at the driveway entrance. 5. Site lighting shall not be allowed for night play. Staff may approve security lighting if it is found to be needed by the police chief for security reasons. 6. Park maintenance shall be provided by the City of St. Paul. 7. No festivals shall be held at this soccer park. Youth tournaments are allowed. 8. The applicant shall be responsible for locking the gate each evening. The applicant shall also submit a program identifying the hours of use, the teams or groups using this facility and their ages. They shall also submit the management plan for the facility as well as a plan for enforcement should there be any problems. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -15- Chairperson Fischer took a vote on the Comprehensive Land Use Amendment with the conditions outlined on page 6 of the staff report. Ayes- Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler Nays - Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed 4-2. Chairperson Fischer took a vote on the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. Ayes - Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler Nays- Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed 4-2. This item goes to the city council March 10, 2003. b. Sibley Cove Apartment Building (County Road D) Mr. Roberts said Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, is proposing to build a 100-unit apartment building. He is proposing this project on a 7.1-acre site on the south side of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street. The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 100 cars. In addition, the plans show 100 surface parking spaces and 18 future parking spaces on the site. The building would have a mix of 86 two- bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units and a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. Mr. Roberts said to build the proposed apartment building Mr. Steele wants the city to change the land use plan for the site. This change would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3 (H) (residential high density). The city intends R-3 (H) areas for a variety of housing including double dwellings, town houses or apartments of up to 16.3 units per gross acre. For BC (business commercial) areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, restaurants, day care centers and retail businesses. Mr. Roberts said the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (cUp) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 100-unit apartment development. They are requesting the CUP because the BC (business commercial) and LBC (limited business commercial) zoning districts limits the uses on the site to commercial, office and retail uses and requires a CUP for multiple- dwellings. Commissioner Trippler asked if the'sidewalk that was just put in on the north side is going to be part of this development? Mr. Roberts said yes. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -16- Commissioner Trippler said he had a complaint regarding the Birch Glen Apartment site. When he went to the site, at the end of the building on the south side, there were two large BF~ dumpsters with garbage spilling out of them. He asked why are the dumpsters are sitting there and if they are permitted? When he got to the end of the development that goes behind the building in the area of 2029 and 1985 Woodlynn Avenue, he saw one dumpster after another. He said there are at least 2 metal storage containers that look like they have been there forever. He thinks it looks really bad there and if this proposal is going to be developed he believes it is going to be a real eye sore. He wondered who is responsible for getting this area cleaned up? Mr. Roberts said one of the developers of Birch Glen Apartments is in the audience and maybe he can speak regarding this situation. He said this development is just finishing up and if it doesn't get cleaned up the city will be making a phone call to the developer. He said it sounds like a planner and the Environmental Health Officer need to visit the site. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the planning commission. The applicant Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, residing at 4807 Slater Court in Eagan, addressed the commission. He handed a booklet out to the planning commission. He discussed some issues but they will be dealt with at the CDRB meeting on February 25, 2002. Commissioner Mueller said he noticed in the booklet that was handed out it says future addition and wondered what that meant? Mr. Steele said that future addition refers to the 80 units that will be done in Phase I and the 20 units done in Phase II, which total 100 units. Mr. Roberts said the staff recommendation is for all 100 units so this does not have to come back to the planning commission again for approval. He said it is fine if the developer chooses to build it in two phases. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else would like to speak regarding this development. Mr. Pat Flaherty with Birch Glen Apartments addressed the planning commission. He said the garbage dumpsters are rolled out for 1 hour on Tuesday mornings and 1 hour on Friday mornings for pick up, otherwise they are stored in the trash area in the building until pick up day. Commissioner Trippler said he was at the site on Monday February 17, which was President's Day and he questioned why the garbage was out if the dumpsters aren't rolled out until Tuesday morning for one hour? Mr. Flaherty said he did not know why it was out then. Mr. Flaherty said he is opposed to this development being built. He is concerned do they need more apartments in this general idea? Birch Glen Apartments is only at 50% full now. When he came before the commission two years ago he thought he had a nice building to be built. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -17- Mr. Flaherty said the planning commission said his building was a very unimaginative building proposed and he disagreed with the planning commission. In his opinion, the proposal for Sibley Cove is very unimaginative. He said there are no decks, it is very plain and it looks like a warehouse. He feels it will be detrimental to the housing stock in the area. He was not allowed to build this building two years ago so why should this developer be allowed to? He spent several hundred thousand dollars adding dormers and other features to his building for approval. He wondered what work-force housing means? Mr. Flaherty asked if that is a politically correct term for Iow-income housing or subsidized housing? He said if it is Iow-income housing, he does not want it across the street from his development. He said he has a very nice building and does not want subsidized housing there. He was told this was going to be business commercial and that is what he would like to see there. He does not think there needs to be more apartments in this area especially since his building is only 50% rented. He thinks this developer should be held to the same or better standards that he was for Birch Glen Apartments. Commissioner Rossbach said it was the CDRB that required Birch Glen Apartments to have dormers and other features added to the building. He. thought Birch Glen Apartments was too large of a building for the footprint of land and he still thinks that. He believes the CDRB will require Sibley Cove Apartments to add similar features to their building as well, Commissioner Mueller stated Birch Glen Apartments is only 50% rented. Either this developer is stupid for wanting to build when the rental market is not renting to full capacity or the developer of Birch Glen Apartments has too small of a vision for competition to be out there. Mr. Flaherty said there were three new apartment complexes built recently in the surrounding areas. They are all at 50% capacity. The market for rental housing has slowed in the last couple of years. The interest rates have been Iow so people that were renting are now getting into housing that they could not get into before. It has affected the rental market. The last thing he needs is to have a building that is a much lesser quality than he was allowed to build to be in direct competition with his building. The building he was allowed to build cost more. If this developer is allowed to build a cheaper building the rent will be lower than Birch Glen's is. He said he wants a level playing field. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Flaherty if he has heard of the Hajicek property that is going to be developed on the other side of Maplewood Mall? Mr. Flaherty said yes. Commissioner Trippler said once those buildings are built Birch Glen Apartments will be fully rented. If the Sibley Cove Apartments are not as nice as the Birch Glen Apartments then his building will look nicer then the Sibley Cove Apartments. Mr. Flaherty said he just wants this developer to be held to the same criteria and standards as he was. Chairperson Fischer clarified work force housing used to be called affordable housing. It was housing within certain rental cost factors that were determined by Metropolitan Council or HUD and is based on median income in the area. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -18- Mr. Roberts said the term "work force housing" is for young professionals trying to get into their first or second rental property. The renters are typically entry-level workers starting out at a Iowe, income not making a lot of money. An example would be a police officer, teacher etc. just starting out. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Flaherty's associate called him today with comments regarding this proposal but he did not have time to get the comments ready for the meeting. He will provide comments for the CDRB meeting on Tuesday, February 25, 2003. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the resolution on page 38 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3 (H) (residential high density) for the 7.1-acre site of the Sibley Cove housing development. The city bases these changes on the following findings: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high- density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. b. Being near a collector street, between two arterial streets and would be near open space and shopping and services. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on-site pond and large setback from Woodlyn Avenue will separate the apartment building from the properties to the south. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences. c. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the resolution starting on page 39 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Sibley Cove apartment development on County Road D, west of Ariel Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped January 24, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. *Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans sha" include: grading utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, tree and driveway anr~ parking lot plans. In addition, the applicant shall include: Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -19- ao Changes to the plans to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees along the north and east property lines (near the daycare center) as possible. b. Revised plans for storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical, c. A storm water management plan for the proposal. d. All the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated February 10, 2003. The design of the pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall provide the city a 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer pipe between the pond and the Ariel Street right-of-way. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk and garbage from the site. d. Install a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Ariel Street between he south property line of the daycare center and the sidewalk north of Woodlynn Avenue. Provide the city with verification that the apartment building will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the apartment building so that it can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the apartment building. 6. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. o The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -20- *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. · Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Commissioner Rossbach made a recommendation to the CDRB and City Council that the applicant should be held to the same or similar design standards as the Birch Glen Development at 3100 Ariel Street. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes- Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item will go to the CDRB on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, and to the city council meeting on Monday March 10, 2003. c. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Site (City of Maplewood) Mr. Roberts said the city has acquired five single-family houses located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with the city's Housing Replacement Program funds. The City of Maplewood originally purchased three of these houses after they were flooded during a rainstorm in April 2001. The two adjacent older houses, which were not flooded, wer~ purchased by the city last year in order to combine all five properties to create a more comprehensive land use plan. Mr. Roberts said the city is proposing to rezone and change the comprehensive land use plan for the five city-owned properties (189, 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street). The city is proposing this change to accommodate the development of up to 11 townhouse units in the future. The development of the townhouse units will require a separate review and is not being considered at this time. Mr. Roberts said the combined land area of all five lots is 79,992 square feet, or 1.84 acres. Approximately two-thirds of this area is considered developable because of the pond and required setbacks from the pond, as well as a future storm sewer to be placed in the center of the property. The city council reviewed two redevelopment proposals for the Larpenteur Avenue properties last December. Proposal One in the staff report shows the five lots rezoned to double-dwelling residential (R-2)for a total of six units, and Proposal Two shows them rezoned to medium multiple-dwelling residential (R-3M) for a total of 11 units. Mr. Roberts said in the newly created single-family Gladstone Park plat, the city was successful in acting as the developer in platting and selling the land. Staff foresees the same development scenario with the Larpenteur Avenue properties. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -21 - Mr. Roberts said the city should change the zoning and comprehensive land use plan to reflect the desired number of units. Once this is complete and all houses are removed from the site, the city's public works department should prepare the site for development including installing storm sewer and rough grading. Unlike the single-family Gladstone Park plat, however, platting of a townhouse development is not possible until a development plan is approved. This proposal would be finalized after the sale of the land to a builder. Commissioner Trippler stated he thought when the planning commission-looked at this before it was decided that the exit should not be onto Larpenteur Avenue because of traffic concerns. He asked staff if that had changed? Mr. Roberts said traffic is still a concern of the city. He said the plan that is included in the staff report is a conceptual plan done by staff. If there is a creative or innovative developer they would like to have the exit onto Adolphus Street. The factors that come into play are the storm sewer, the pond and the number of units and the way it lays out. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks it is critical that the city has the same standards that the city asks the developer to have. He thinks the city should stay with the same density that was there already. The Metropolitan Council has already accepted the.density standards. In the one plan that shows the six units that violates the front yard setback ordinances. There are homes on the street already.' He believes the city should not exceed the density that is currently in place with the R-1 lots. ChairpersOn Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak on this proposal. Ms. Shirley Taugner at 1730 Agate Street N., Maplewood, addressed the commission. She thinks it should remain five residential single-family homes. Having more homes in there mean more cars coming and going onto Larpenteur Avenue. When Champp's restaurant has holiday parties it is very busy and very difficult to get out onto Larpenteur Avenue. She asked if the residents would have to pay for the sewer? She said the pond in the back of that area is filled with tires, refrigerators, bikes, etc. from people throwing things in that pond for over forty years. It is going to be a big job. Mr. Roberts said no, the city or the developer would be responsible for that. The city is not going to completely drain the pond but just put a pipe in the pond so if it gets to a certain level it will empty out. Ms. Taugner asked staff if these townhomes will be rental or will people own them? Mr. Roberts said that has not been decided yet. This is just a preliminary meeting. Ms. Taugner said I guess you don't too much at thiS point then. Ms. Barb Bettinger at 1714 Agate Street N., Maplew°od, addressed the commission. She asked with the 11 proposed housing units, how tall are they going to be and how many levels are they going to be? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -22- Mr. Roberts said at this point the city does not have any design details yet. It could be designed in a number of different ways. This is simply to determine the number of units to have on tht- property. Ms. Bettinger said she would like to keep the neighborhood as single-family housing. She doesn't want the traffic to increase anymore on Larpenteur Avenue. There is also a bus stop on Larpenteur Avenue, which adds to traffic. She asked if it would be Iow rent or subsidized housing? Mr. Roberts said based on the amount of money the city has invested in this project from buying these homes it would not support Iow-income housing. None of this has been determined yet though. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if the sewer problems have been corrected or will it be a continuing problem? Mr. Cavett said the sewer problem was a problem in the main itself. When this gets proposed the city will bring in a private sewer main off of Adolphus will completely eliminate the sewer problem. The previous homes sat so Iow below the road. When this is redeveloped and re-graded this area would be raised quite a lot higher then the homes that were located there. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 13 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for five city-owned properties (189, 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street) from single dwelling residential (R-l) tr multiple dwelling residential (R-3). The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. bo 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. c. 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. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the land use plan change resolution on page 14 of the staff report. This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan map for five city-owned properties (189, 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street) from single- dwelling residential (R-l) to medium multiple-dwelling residential (R-3M). The city is making this change because: The site serves well as a transition between the double-dwelling property to the wes and the commercial property to the east. b. The site meets the city's policies for medium multiple-dwelling residential uses since it: Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -23- 1) Includes a variety of housing types for all types of residents. 2) Supports innovative subdivision and housing design. c. The site meets the city's goals for medium multiple-dwelling residential uses since it: 1) Provides for orderly development. 2) Protects and strengthens neighborhoods. 3) Preserves significant natural features where practical. 4) Minimizes the land planned for streets. 5) Minimizes conflicts between land uses. 6) Provides a wide variety of housing types. 7) Integrates developments with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. Commissioner Rossbach made a motion to allow no more than 8 units on the property for this proposal. Also that the city should be held to the same standards that the city requires other developers to be held to. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nays- Fischer, Mueller This item will go to the CDRB on Tuesday, February 25, 2003. This will go to the city council on either Monday, March 10 or March 24, 2003. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None, Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-03 -24- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the February 10, 2003, city council meeting. Items that were discussed were the Highwood Farm development and it was approved to put in 18 townhomes. The Tillges Medical Office sign setback variance was approved. b. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the February 24, 2003, city council meeting. Ohlson Landscaping will be discussed. c. Ms. Monahan-Junek will be the planning commisSion representative at the March 10, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Sibley Cove apartments, and the Sandy Lake Soccer complex. Possibly the Larpenteur redevelopment proposal or it could be scheduled March 24, 2003. d. Van Dyke Village Commissioner Rossbach said the density is allowing 21 units and Mr. Bruce Mogren is quoted as saying, "he did not think the three additional units would make a difference in th~ neighborhood". He said if the city keeps exceeding the density on every site the city may as well as make the density different. The city should stick with the density they agreed to. He said he is always happy to reduce the density. He is specifically bringing this up because of the proposed Hajicek property and the density. Other planning commissioners agreed that it seems the footprints are getting larger and smaller green space or areas around the development. Commissioner Pearson said as an example the City of Eagan went into a lot of high density and they wish they did not go into such high density. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts said the developers for the Hajicek property want to be all approved by June 1,2003. He said he has been told the developers are on a very aggressive schedule. The developer is asking for higher densities then what is allowed in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Chuck Ahl will be discussing the AUAR and EAW for the County Road D road extension will be reviewed at the next planning commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at'l 1:03 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Van Dyke Village West side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B February 25, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24-unit town house development on the vacant property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. Refer to the maps on pages 17-23. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be for work force housing for Iow and moderate- income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the property. The proposal would have four, six-unit townhouse buildings. Each town house would have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap steel siding with cedar trim boards. (See the plans on pages 23-29.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A change to the comprehensive plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) and R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H) (residential high density). Please see the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 19 and 20. A conditional use permit (CUP) for that part of the development that would be on property zoned BC (business commercial). The code allows multi-dwellings on BC-zoned land by CUP. (The easterly portion of the site is zoned R3 [multiple dwelling residential]. The westerly portion is zoned BC.) Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 22. 3. The building, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND In 1995 or 1996, the city acquired use deeds on these properties from the State of Minnesota. The city originally thought that the new Gladstone Fire Station might go on these properties or that the city would use part of the property for drainage or open space purposes. On March 27, 2000, the city council directed city staff and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to buy from Ramsey County the four tax-forfeited properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street for the development of Iow to moderate or mixed income housing. On June 22, 2000, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing the reconveyance and the purchase of the tax-forfeited properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street for the development of Iow to moderate or mixed income housing. City staff, based on this council approval, bought this property from the county for the city. On October 22, 2001, the city council, dudng the council/manager workshop, reviewed the proposed purchase agreement from Mr. Mogren to buy the subject property. The council was generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the applicant making changes to the purchase agreement as recommended by the city attorney. On December 17, 2001, the city council authorized city staff to finalize and prepare for signature the purchase agreement for Bruce Mogren to buy the city-owned properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street between County Road B and Cope Avenue. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build the proposed town houses, Mr. Mogren wants the city to change the land use plan for the site. This change would be from BC (business commercial) and R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H ) (residential high density). (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 19 and 20.) The city intends R-3(H) areas for a vadety of housing including double dwellings, town houses or apartments of up to 16.3 units per gross acre. For BC (business commercial) areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, restaurants, day care centers and retail businesses and R-3(M) areas are intended for residential developments with up to 6 units per gross acre. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including: · Provide for orderly development. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Provide a wide vadety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. Include a variety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These aro to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and pdce ranges through its land use plan. This is a good site for town houses. It is between two collector streets (Cope Avenue and County Road B), is near an arterial street (White Bear Avenue) and is near shopping and other services. In addition, this property would not be a groat site for a commercial or retail business as it is hidden from the main commercial area along White Bear Avenue. As proposed, the 24 units on the 3.56-acre site means thero would be 6.74 units per gross acre. This project density is higher than the currently allowed density of six units per acro but significantly less than the maximum density standard (10.4 units per acro) in the comprehensive plan for town houses in high-density residential areas. However, for consideration of the increase in density and the PUD, the city should require the developer to construct the town houses with the same or a better level of architectural design and landscaping elements as Emma's Place. This would include the view of the development from Van Dyke Street and the size and quantities of the landscape materials. Workforce Housing Many of the neighbors who contacted me expressed concerns about the proposed housing and the residents who would live thero. Workforce housing is for Iow-to-moderate income residents. To qualify as a resident, Ramsey County sets the income levels based on the household size and their percentage of average median income of the Twin Cities area. For example, a three-person household at the 50 percent median income level has an annual income of about $34,500 per year and a three-person household at the 60 percent income level earns about $41,000 per year. These could be people working at the Maplewood Mall, Saint John's Hospital, teachers, police officers or others starting out in their careers. It is these types of working families that this development would serve. The proposed 24 town house units would have a mix sizes and bedrooms -16 would have 3- bedrooms and 8 would have 2-bedrooms. Each unit will have a patio on the roar, will have a 1-car attached garage and have its own washer and dryer. As a note of comparison, Emma's Place is supportive housing. This is housing for persons with many needs and support services. This may be help with chemical dependency, money management issues, abusive relationships or other problems. This is not the type of housing Mr. Mogren is proposing with these town houses. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages and incomes. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle to meet housing needs. Conditional Use Permit As proposed, thero would be 24 town houses on the 3.56-acre site (for an average of 6.74 units per acre). The proposed density is consistent with the city's high-density residential guidelines and slightly above the density standard for medium density development in the comprehensive plan. 3 For comparison, Emma's Place to the south of the site has 13 town houses on a 2.24-acre site for and average of 5.8 units per gross acre. The comments we received from the neighbors were concerns about compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood, the potential for nuisances, increased traffic, effects on property values, loss of open space and concerns relative to the management of this complex. (See the summary of the comments on page 14 and the letters on pages 34-35.) Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with compatibility in terms of land use. Townhomes are often built next to or across the street from single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. We have many other examples in Maplewood (including Southwinds along Beebe Road and Crestview Forest on Mailand Road) where this is the case as well. Nuisances A concern of some of the neighbors is unsupervised children hanging around the neighborhood. The neighbors told me that there have been more children loitering in the area and looking for places to play in their neighborhood since Emma's Place opened in 2002. This is a potential concern with children from any development. Monitoring this depends on parental and management supervision. The developer is proposing a tot-lot and on-site management to help with this situation. Traffic Traffic-generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of seven vehicle trips per day. In this case, with 24 town houses, there would be about 168 vehicle trips per day generated by the site. In a 12-hour period, the 168 vehicle trips would mean an average of 14 vehicles per hour or one vehicle (on average) eve~ 4.3 minutes. This would not be a large increase to the number of vehicles added to this neighborhood nor would it cause a large impact to the area. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual review of the conditional use permit is a built-in safeguard to ensure that the city council will regularly review this development. As stated above, it is common that residential developers mix single dwellings and townhomes in their projects. This is an indication of their compatibility. Loss of Open Space Preserving this property as open space is not feasible. In 1992, Maplewood citizens voted to approve a $5 million referendum to purchase land throughout the city to hold as open space. This property was not one of the target sites that the city council and open space committee considered to save for open space. DESIGN AND SITE ISSUES Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would have two stories above grade and each unit would have an attached garage. As proposed, the buildings would have an exterior of horizontal steel siding with cedar trim boards and vinyl-clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the building elevation drawings on pages 27-29 and the proposed .project plans). The developer has not yet proposed colors for the buildings. I would recommend that the colors of the buildings be primarily earth-toned rusts and creams (red, brown and tan) to closely match those of Emma's Place. City staff, however, is still concerned about the look of the development from Van Dyke Street. The applicant could do more with the buildings to make them look more interesting and more aesthetically pleasing (especially the building sides visible from the street). Such changes could include adding shutters, window grids and dormers in the roof area, having the second floor of the units'extend out past the first floor at least one foot (to breakup the vertical face or wall of the building), add windows to both the first floor and the second floor, having the first floor and second floor each with a distinctive color and having more distinct vertical features at the common wall between the units. Since the initial submittal, the applicant's architect sent me a revised side elevation plan (page 29) that shows additional windows on the east elevation of the buildings. These windows are a welcome addition to the plans and should be required by the city. In addition, the architect told me that the buildings would have a two-tone color scheme with the lower floors having a different color than the upper floor (much like Emma's Place). These additions to the plans are good steps toward improving the looking of the development. In addition, having more landscaping near the street and around the foundation would help enhance the appearance of the building and the site. The building styles, with the proposed materials and recommended changes and colors, should be compatible with and equal in quality to the buildings in the area,' including Emma's Place. City Engineer's Review Chris Cavett of the city engineering department has reviewed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included his memo with his comments on pages 32 and 33. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Van Dyke Street to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the storm sewer in Van Dyke Street was designed and installed to accommodate drainage from a large area north of County Road B. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into three rainwater gardens on the east side of the site (near Van Dyke Street). In times of large storms, storm water 5 may overflow out of these gardens into the existing city storm water system. The city will not need drainage and utility easements over the ponding areas, as they will be pdvate ponding areas. This project will need a permit from the watershed district. Sidewalk The applicant's plans do not show a sidewalk along Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk at Emma's Place to the north property line of the site (near the day care center). This sidewalk would facilitate pedestrian traffic from this development to County Road B and then to the Oasis Market and White Bear Avenue. In addition, the sidewalks should have pedestrian ramps where they intersect a driveway. Landscaping/Trees The applicant had his surveyor identify the large (greater than 8-inch) trees on the site. Most of the identified trees are cottonwood and elm, with a few willow and aspen as well. None of the trees that the surveyor identified meet the city's definition of a large tree that the city would have a developer try to save. The proposed site plan, however, does show the applicant saving some of the existing trees on the south, west and north sides of the site. The city should require the developer to preserve most of the existing vegetation along the north, west and south sides of the site. This existing vegetation in these areas will help provide screening of the existing businesses for the new residents. The proposed landscaping plan is a good start but it needs more work. It shows the developer planting at least 11 new large trees including 8 Balsam Fir and 3 Red Maple trees. In addition, the plans show the planting of a vadety of ornamental trees and shrubs on the site and the landscaping for the three proposed rainwater gardens, The proposed plans (pages 27 through 29) show most of the site being graded and the construction of three rainwater gardens along Van Dyke Street. This will remove much of the existing vegetation and many of the existing mature trees on the property. The landscape plan does not show any planting around the units -whether in trees, shrubs or foundation plantings. In additiOn, the plans do not show any screening of the site and the buildings from Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to provide a revised landscape plan that would include the landscaping treatments for the areas around and near the town houses and to increase the landscaping/screening between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. Fencing/Screening This site has commercial properties on two of its sides, including an auto repair facility and a bar to the west and the Goodwill Store and parking lot and a daycare center to the north. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the west and north sides of the project to help ensure that the new residents and the outdoor play areas are separated from the adjacent commercial properties. This fence should be solid, be constructed of Iow-maintenance materials and be six-feet high. In addition, the fence should run along the north and west property lines, subject to staff approval. Site Lighting The applicant had a site lighting plan prepared for the development that shows the expected light spread from the proposed parking lot lights. The proposed poles would be 20-feet tall and would have a sharp cutoff shoebox luminaire with a 175-watt high-pressure sodium light bulb. The city code requires the light fixtures have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any of the proposed lighting on the buildings or any lighting in or near the proposed tot lot. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting where the two driveways on the site would meet the public streets. The applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and the driveways, where they intersect Van Dyke Street, so they are adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Other Comments Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that emergency vehicles must have clear passage to the site and to buildings. This includes haVing the driveways at least 20 feet wide. He also noted that the buildings and the individual units must have clear addressing to direct people to the buildings and within the site. Police Department Comments Deputy Chief John Banick reviewed the proposed plans. His comments are on page 31. Watershed District Permit Required The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct noted that this development requires a permit from their office. The applicant must contact Karl Hammers of the watershed district at (651) 704-2089 to find out about their plan review and permitting requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 36. This resolution changes the land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R-3 (M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H) (residential high density) for the 3.6-acre site of the Van Dyke Village town house development. The city bases these changes on the following findings: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high-density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. b. Being between two collector streets, near an arterial street and would be near shopping and services. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on-site ponding and landscaping will help separate the town houses from the properties to the east and from the town houses to the south. There should be no significant increase in traffic from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern directs the traffic from the town houses to two nearby collector streets. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. Approve the resolution starting on page 37. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Van Dyke Village town house development on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans for 24 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the .grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible, The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated February 24, 2003. These shall include: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, ddveway and parking lot plans. b. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. The design of all ponds and rainwater gardens shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at. the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Van Dyke Village PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 40 feet b. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 40 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the south property line. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 9. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. ApProve the plans date-stamped February 12, 2003 for the proposed Van Dyke Village town house development at the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans, These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covedng these slopes with wood fiber blankets and Seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north, west and south sides of the site (near the businesses and the daycare center), (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The design of the rainwater gardens shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off- site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width-parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north, west and south property lines near the daycare center and businesses. Change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. (8) The developer shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street between the existing sidewalk north of County Road B and the south property line of the daycare center to the north. The contractor shall ta per the sidewalk to match the driveways. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. l0 b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the northern, westerly and southerly property lines as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowedng plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional screening (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street dg ht-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the east and west property lines and five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the north and south property lines. (2) The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. i. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north and south side) of the buildings for firefighting needs. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. 3.3. k. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Submit for staff approval revised building plans and elevations that include (but not limited to) adding windows to the east elevations, adding shutters, window gdds and dormers in the roof area, having earth-toned colors (red, brown and tan), staggering the setback of the units from Van Dyke Street and having the second floor of the units extend out past the first floor at least one foot (to breakup the vertical face or wall of the building). m. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. do Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street to match the driveways. g. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. jo Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the west and north property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses from the businesses. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. 3.2 k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 21 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the seven replies, two had no comment, four objected and one had a miscellaneous comment. Opposed I do not want this townhome project here because of too much traffic, more people, cars, depreciation of home value, loss of wildlife, seclusion and privacy. (Miller, 2172 Van Dyke Street.) We would have no problem with the proposed development or its location if not for the fact that in our area we already have a battered woman's shelter (2 mile), a troubled boys home (1/4 mile), and the housing projects by Phalen Lake (3 miles). We think it may become counterproductive to place so many havens for people with problems so close together, and despite assurances, we have some concern over the ability of management to control or evict troublesome tenants. (Hardwick, 2182 Van Dyke Street.) 3. Refer to the letter on pages 34-35 (Bjork, 1849 County Road B.) A summary of the concerns expressed in the letter and in telephone calls is: The added number of living so close together. Would the property go off of the tax rolls? How would more kids in the area affect the community center?. Effect of trespassing on neighboring property. This development would hurt property values. This development will put a burden on the local schools. Save the trees. Townhomes are not compatible with the single dwellings in the area. Kids hanging around, loitering, being noisy, causing disturbances. They need to supervised and not getting into trouble. Preserve this space. There should be a better use of this property than this proposal. Miscellaneous Comment Well, well! Mr. Mogren has found a nice piece of property to hopefully build on. I have been waiting for years for someone to develop this space (eyesore). Best wishes, good luck and no hassles. (Art Engstrom - 2525 Highwood Avenue) - REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size (project area): 3.56 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed facility) North: Goodwill and undeveloped property owned by the adjacent daycare center South: Emma's Place town houses West: Finalube, NAPA Auto Parts and Auto body shop on White Bear Avenue East: Single dwellings across Van Dyke Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R3-M (medium density residential) and BC (business commercial) Zoning: R3 and BC Land Use Plan Provision The land use plan provides that most of the land use plan categories coordinate with the city's zoning categories. The uses permitted in these land use categories are the same as those in the corresponding zoning district. Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(1) allows multiple dwellings in a BC district by CUP. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings 'to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. 15 ! ! Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of CUPs on the nine findings listed in the resolution on pages 37 and 38. Application Date We reCeived the complete applications and materials for this proposal on February 12, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city council must act on these requests by April 14, 2003, unless the applicant requests a time extension, p:kr/secl 1\Van Dyke Village housing.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map (Existing) 4. Land Use Map (Proposed) 5. Area Map 6. Property Line/Zoning Map 7. Site Survey 8. Site Plan 9. Landscape Plan 10. Proposed Utility Plan 11. Building Elevations 12. Building Elevations 13. Revised Side Elevation 14. Floor Plans 15. 2-21-03 Memo from John Banick 16. 2-24-03 Memo from Chds Cavett 17. Letter from Susanne Bjork 18. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 19. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 20. Project Plans (separate attachments) 3.6 Attachment 1 FEB ! 2 2003 RECEIVED Van Dyke Village Planned Unit Development The intended use of this property is for the development of twenty-four townhomes. This proposed development has been approved by the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency for the financing of "Workforce" housing. It is the intention of this developer to reserve many of the townhome units for tenants who qualify for the "Workforce" housing income criteria. The property that is under consideration in this proposal is approximately 3.62 acres. This property is currently planned "medium density residential" which allows for six housing units per acre or 21.72 units for the entire site. The developer is requesting an amendment to the comprehensive plan that would change the allowed density on this site from medium density to high density. The site plan, which is being submitted to the City of Maplewood, shows 24 units or an increase of 2.28 units over the number of units allowed under the current density. The developer feels that the extra 2.28 units do not pose a significant additional impact on the neighborhood. The subject property is bordered on the North and West by commercial businesses and on the South by another multi-family development. Other than the request of an amendment to change the comprehensive plan from medium to high density, no other special land use or development approvals are being requested. 17 Attachment 2 NORTH SAtA AV~.. O' 1700' O" NORTH LOCATION MAP ~ · 1 Attachment R-2 I._. ~ LEGEND ~ R-3(M) = RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY R-3(H): RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS BC -- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL 19 Attachment 4 E F-'-BC. R-3(H: E ;~~ LB 'ipal -~ M-1 R-1 . ~~,.. - ~ ~ ;[" '-':-"..'..' "~ll~- , 13. -'~ - -' - '~~: R-3(M), ! .,,. · '": ': ~ '~ ~' ~3~ .~.~ .Ia min~-~-()=RESlDENTIALMEDIUMDENSITY ~ ~1-- ~1__ ~ [ _.TI~E----F- ___,j, i I ' ~BRB~c_~sM~EN~G~C(~~R-3(H) = RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY 1766 1797 2303 / // / // /, // ~ // / -- -- -- L~RK A~TE'E -- ~ // BLEACHER'S / '~ AUlZS.Or' NAPA 219 OASIS BURKE AVE E 0 2251 0 PROJECT SITE 0 PROJECT SITE 0 EMMA'S PLACE COUNTY ROAD B E 1810 Attachment AREA MAP I 21 --I :~ BLEACHER'S 'AUTOBODY SHOP 2 I J7~I3G~ · V A_C_A !mD ...... ~ NAPA(.¢ ~) ~:: .... EMMA'S PLACE -- ~,~.OASIS '""' ~' ,-mi-, LARK , COU Attachment 7 suRvEY FOR: BRUCE MOGREN L ~ { n"~ . '"~ ' ~ ...................... -- ~' ~ ~ ~~_ /'....'.. [ ~,-~ PARCEL .... . ' ,~ ~ .......... {p ....... ~.,. ----~ ............. ~ ~' ~.. ' .... e~ ' ~ VACATED / ~A~. . ~ ,. ,. ......................................... ~ ................. ........ . ~ / ~~ ~ c v .. 0 If PARCEL 3~,~-~ ' ~-~.., . ~ ..~,,,,.,,., e~; ......... ~ ......... '1 ........ r ~Bg~2*2B'W n'~ ~ NBg~:'28'W L-.--- , . ~ 4~.~ ~ ~,~ T [ 2 ~ ~ , ~ : B L'... 0,. C~,K ~ ,~ / t ~ "-'~.~.~] . h :/ i~%~ }~ . / .............. ~ ,- ,..--- ~.. .~ ~ , ~--~ ......... ~ ........ ~.~ ...... ~9.~ ..... ~ ,, I''~,.~ ~ ~ ~ ""~.~ ~ , . VACATED SITE SURVEY 23 Attachment 8 4 > 'E]A~ J.g~flHdNVg SITE PLAN 24 Attachment PLAN TING SCHEDULE 6 UNITI~/~ ~ 6 LANDSCAPE PLAN 25 7-B Attachment (TYPICAL] 6 UNIT F.F. ~Z4,.2~ 2 BR ~.F, UNIT(4)_. 3 m BASIN NW HDP[ · 2.0~ ~*~T TAP EX~STING WATER MAIN INSTALL. 6' Ga, T~ VAL~ (SIZE UNKNOWN, CHECK WI"~I ('r'~CAL) PROPOSED UTILITY 26 PLAN Attachment ll BUILDING ELEVATIONS Attachment 12 BUILDING ELEVATIONS "tOU u,au p.~ Attachment 13 ~INi~O~ ON VANDYKE STREET 51DE FAX Project VAN Bulletin No. Date: 2/21/68 29 F_EB 2 ~ 2003 Attachment 14 FLOOR PLANS 3O Attachment 15 Memo To: CC: Date: Re: Mr. Ken Roberts ~' Deputy Chief John Banick~~'~ Chief Dave Thomalla 2/21/2003 VAN DYKE VILLAGE - Van Dyke north of Emma's Place FEB 2 1 200) RECEIVED ! have reviewed the attached project proposal and currently have the following thoughts regarding it: I am concemed about the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area. Recently, two police department employees commented about how unsafe it has become to turn out of the City Hall entrance onto County Road B. However, the accident history at the intersection of County Road B and Van Dyke Street is remarkably Iow. A search of police records indicates that only three reported accidents have occurred at that intersection between 1998-2002. Additionally, I don't believe that the design of the intersection of White Bear Avenue and Cope Avenue to the north of this project was designed to handle much more tmff~ than it currently does. To improve pedestrian safety in this area, I recommend that a sidewalk on the west side of Van Dyke Street be included in this project. This project has the potential to increase police and medical calls for service in this area. The population density of an area generally has a direct correlation on the amount of cdme in the area. We should consider the potential increase in calls for service to the surrounding area (e.g. Maplewood Community Center, local businesse& and the entire neighborhood) that will be generated from the residents whom will reside at this location. However, the police department has not experienced a large increase in calls for service in this area due to the addition of Emma's Place. Lastly, since this complex will be rental property, I recommend that the owner of this property be encouraged to participate in our local Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. To obtain further information about this program, the owner may contact me directly at 651-7704502. If you have questions, you may contact me at extension 4502. 31 Attachment 16 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Van Dyke Village PROJECT NO: 03-11 REVIEWED BY: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer DATE: February 24, 2003 The applicant or his engineer shall address the following comments: Gradine and Drainage Plan: The applicant's engineer should discuss the following drainage issues with Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, 651-770-4554. Volume calculations provided by the applicant for the rainwater gardens are acceptable. However, the applicant appears to have overlooked the fact that runoff appears to be draining fi.om of the Goodwill site. Though the applicant is not expected to treat the volume of runoff coming fi.om the Goodwill site, the applicant should take measures to ensure that the rainwater garden, overflow pipe and the subsequent site are not unnecessarily impacted by that amount of flow. Verify that there is not already some type of inlet structure already located at the spillway fi.om Goodwill. It would seem odd that a connection was never made in the past with the storm sewer at that exact location. Maybe it has been covered over by trash and sediment? This will have to be investigated in the spring. If heavier soils are located on this site, there is the likelihood of water standing in the rainwater gardens more than the 24-48 hours that the city prefers. If this is a concern, it is recommended that the bottom of each garden, be raised, by placing ½ -foot layer of sand on top of the scarified subsoil in the bottom of the garden before placing the bedding material and shredded mulch. This would permit a depth of only 1.0-foot before water is able to drain out 3. Provide instruction on the plan for the proper preparation of the Rainwater Gardens: Provide a comment on the grading plan about staging, preparation and protection of the garden areas. Once the contractor has prepared the rainwater garden areas, the contractor shall mulch and protect them with heavy-duty silt fence. Provide a comment on the grading plan that the entire garden area must be thoroughly and deeply scarified before the contractor places the bedding material and the shredded mulch. Scarifying must be done with a "toothed" backhoe. 32 · On city projects, Maplewood has used a mixture of 50% salvaged topsoil and 50% clean organic compost as bedding material. Revise the two items on the rock infi trafion sump detail: revise to show geotextile "Filter" fabric, "(Felt)", as there has been confusion in the past. And correct "s_lumps" to read "sumps". 4. Submit for approval the detail of the curb cut/concrete spillway. Design is critical to ensure runoff can be diverted to the rainwater gardens in all seasons. The applicant must sign a best management practices (BMP) maintenance agreement with the city. This agreement is to ensure that the applicant/property owner will maintain the storm water facilities, including the rainwater gardens. The maintenance agreement will be made part of the utility permit and must be signed and returned to the city before final site approval. Site Plan Install 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the Van Dyke Street frontage. Typically the sidewalk is located 7-feet behind the curb and it must be at least 5 feet behind the curb. This may require shifting the gardens slightly to the west. Utilities o Sanitary sewer between the two northerly buildings extends further to the west according to the city base maps. Confirm the existing location with record drawings and field observations. The applicant's proposal to relocate the manhole west of the two buildings may not be possible. Consider shifting the northern two buildings slightly to the south to provide more clearance between the sewer main and the building. There shall be a minimum of 10-feet between the main and the comer of the proposed building on the south side of the existing main. City records, (resolution 66-11-318, Nov. 29, 1966), indicate that the easement was "vacated subject to the granting of an easement to the Village for maintenance of the sanitary sewer main constructed in the street right-of-way". Provide or verify from title records that the appropriate easement exists over this sewer main. If there is not an easement or the main must be relocated, the applicant shall provide the city with a utility easement for the sanitary sewer main. 33 Attachment 17 The following are questions we have for the developer: 1. Why do you need so many units compared to what it is zoned for? Is it your ~:EB profitability that you are worried about? IF THE SPACE COULD ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE THE EXTRA NUMBER OF PEOPLE, 1~ E C WOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED THAT WAY ORIGINALLY. TRAFFIC HAS ALREADY INCREASED DUE TO EMMA'S PLACE ON VAN DYKE- ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT SO CLOSE WILL REALLY CAUSE PROBLEMS. 2. What kind of tax breaks are you getting for developing this type of housing and when can you take them? 3. Are you entering into a contract with the city that you cannot sell the property or change tenant structure without city council approval? THE PROPOSAL LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER NOW, BUT WHO'S TO SAY THAT IN A YEAR OR TWO SOMEONE ELSE BUYS THE PROPERTY AND IT TURNS INTO A DUMP. 4. How many of the. units are going to be owner occupied? 5. Are you going to have a full time person on staff for problems and emergencies? Who will be the contact person for the issues and problems that come up? 6. What is the number of vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, snowmobiles, etc.) residents can have? 7. Maximum amount of people per unit? Max number of kids? 8. How many guests can they have over at one time? What about overflow parking? 9. Are residents going to have to go through a background check? 10. What are the qualifications to live in these units? 11. How will residents that don't follow the rules be dealt with? 12. Could I get a copy of the rules? 13. Are you requesting road improvements because of this development? What will this mean to residents that live on Van Dyke? 14. What is the rent range? Association fees? Are there any subsidies that will be given to residents? 15. Plans for construction crew and garbage that they generate and leave behind? THIS WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH EMMA'S PLACE 16. Are you having a playground? Hours? 17. Who will take care of the unit outside as far as the lawn, plowing, etc.? General concerns and thoughts for Maplewood planners: AS RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED WITH THE ADDED NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING SO CLOSE TOGETHER. WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH EMMA'S pLACE AND THE MANY DISTURBANCES THE KIDS ARE CAUSING. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT. WHAT IS THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD--~--~ GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT THE KIDS IN THESE UNITS ARE SUPS? 34 CAUSING TROUBLE? ONCE EMMA'S KIDS AND THE KIDS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT GET TOGETHER, IT IS GOING TO BE DOUBLE THE TROUBLE. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE ~THAT I WILL GET A DECENT NIGHT'S SLEEP ONCE THE WARM WEATHER COMES AND MY WINDOWS ARE OPEN. I ALREADY BATTLED THIS LAST SUMMER WITH EMMA'S PLACE. 35 FEB '2 1 2003 Attachment 18 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Mogren, applied for a change to the ci~s land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H) (residential high density). WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B and east of VVhite Bear Avenue for the Van Dyke Village town houses. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On March 3, 2003, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On March ,2003, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described changes for the following reasons: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high-density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. Being near a collector street, being between two arterial streets and is near open space and shopping and services. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on-site pond and large setback from Woodlynn Avenue will separate the apartment building from the properties to the south. Thei'e should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences. c. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on March ,2003. 36 Attachment 19 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit to build a 24-unit town house development known as Van Dyke Village. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B and east of White Bear Avenue. The legal descriptions are: Parcel 1: That part of the West 90 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, Block 20, Smith and Taylor's Addition of North St. Paul, lying East of the West 41 feet thereof; including that part of the North half of adjoining Sandhurst Avenue, vacated, lying between the extension and across said street of the East line of the West 41 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, and the West line of the East 270. feet of said Lot 2. Parcel 2: The East 270 feet of Lot 2, Block 20, together with the North 2.65 feet of said Lot 2, Block 20, except the' West 233.14 feet thereof, and the South 2.65 feet of Lot 1, Block 20 except the West 233.14 feet thereof, all in Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul, accruing thereto by reason of vacation thereof. Parcel 3: All that part of Lot 1, Block 20, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul, except the South 2.65 feet thereof, and except that part described as folloWs: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Lot 1, distant 2.65 feet North of the Southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence East parallel to the South line of said Lot 1 a distance of 271.49 feet; thence North on a straight line to a point on the North line of said Lot 1, distant 272.06 feet East of the Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence West along said North line of Lot I a distance of 272.06 feet to said Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence South along the West line of said Lot 1 a distance of 121.38 feet to the point of beginning, and except the South % of vacated Laurie Avenue lying adjacent to the North of the excepted tract and herein described. Parcel 4: All that part of Lot 2, Block 13, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul including the North half of vacated Laude Avenue, lying adjacent to and South of the tract herein described, except that part of Lot 2, Block 13, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Lot 2, thence East along the South line of said Lot 2 a distance of 272.33 feet to a point, thence Northerly on a straight line to a point of the North line of said Lot 2, a distance of 272.01 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 2; thence southerly along the West line of said Lot 2, to the point of beginning and excepting there from that part taken for widening of White Bear Avenue, and except the North % of vacated Laurie Avenue lying adjacent to and south of the excepted tract herein described. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On March ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present 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 conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 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 siteF]s natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans for 24 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed distdct or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated February 24, 2003. These shall include: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, ddveway and parking lot plans. b. Include a storm water management Plan for the proposal. The design of all ponds and rainwater gardens shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. d. Remove any debds or junk from the site. o The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Van Dyke Village PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 40 feet b. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 40 feet from the west 'property line and 50 feet from the south property line. 7.The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 9.The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and propedy managed. 10.The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2003. TO: AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT FROM: SUBJECT: Planning CommisSion r.~~ Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Enginee Legacy Village at Maplewood (Hajicek Property), 0i17 Project 02-t 8 - Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Presentation DATE: February 26, 2003 Introduction On November 25, 2002, the city council authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) of the Hijacek property in north Maplewood for a mixed land-use development proposed on the site. A development of the size proposed exceeds the threshold for environmental review, requiring that the city council designate a process for this environmental review process to occur. The developer of the property is the Hartford Group. They have hired SRF to prepare the AUAR environmental study and have a draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) prepared for the development scenario. A presentation on the AUAR document will be made on March 3, 2003 for information to Planning Commission members. Any comments or issues raised by the Planning Commission will be included when the AUAR is presented to the City Council on March 24, 2003. Backclround The Hartford Group has proposed development of the Hijacek site in north Maplewood with a mixture of single-family, senior housing, high-density residential property, retail property, medical office, and corporate office property. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan for this area of the city. The attached drawing shows a draft concept for the proposed development. The AUAR is an extensive review of the environmental impacts of the proposed development. The following page includes a number of the specific impacts identified. The AUAR provides a mitigation plan that the council, acting as the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU), will be required to adopt. The EQB guidelines for an AUAR state: "It must be understood that the mitigation plan in the final document takes on the nature of a commitment by the RGU (City Council) to prevent potentially significant impacts from occurring from specific projects. It is more than just a list of ways to reduce impacts - it must include information about how the mitigation will be applied and assurance that it will. Otherwise, the AUAR may not be adequate and/or specific projects may lose their exemption from individual review." The council on March 24th will be considering making a major commitment that the mitigation identified will occur, either as a requirement by the developer through the development contract, by a commitment to a public improvement, or involvement of other agencies, if appropriate. This includes the extension of County Road D, west of Hazelwood, which will be shared by the city and the developer in terms to be established in the development agreement. Planning Commission Agenda Report AUAR For Legacy Village At Maplewood February 26, 2003 Page Two AUAR Summary Development scenario includes 318 units of multi-family town homes; 244 units of multi-family row houses; 88 units of multi-family residential; 200 units of senior housing; 7.3 acres of retail / restaurant; 9.8 acres of commercial/office; 3.1 acres of medical office; and 9.8 acres of green / public space. Proposed construction of the development is assumed to begin during spring of 2003 and anticipated completion is 2006. The traffic analysis indicates that the extension of County Road D west from Hazelwood Street must be installed for roadway impacts from the development to be mitigated. An extension of Kennard Street north from Beam is also required. Future improvements to White Bear Avenue, as recommended in the Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be needed to mitigate area traffic growth and to solve the long-standing Mall area traffic problems. The White Bear Avenue improvements are not a required mitigation listed within the AUAR but will continue to be a high priority due to development and growth related traffic impacts. Sanitary sewer capacity is adequate in local sewers; however, the site is proposed to generate more flow than allocated by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and further discussions are needed to increase MaplewoOd's allocation of flow. Water supply is adequate if a 12-inch water main is extended from TH 61 along the existing County Road D alignment as recommended by the TH 61/County Road D (Hillcrest Animal Hospital) Water Study in 2002. A comprehensive storm water plan will be required as part of the development process. The development will be required to limit post-development runoff to pre-development levels using infiltration and storm ponds on-site. No new storm water infrastructure is anticipated off site. Significant tree removal is anticipated due to project development and grading. The developer has proposed that existing trees be "...evaluated by an urban forester to identify important specimens that should be preserved and/or existing trees that could be relocated within the development using a tree spade." The DNR has noted that areas of the development have habitat similar to that preferred by the Blanding's turtle, a species listed as threatened in Minnesota, but no Blanding's turtles have been observed on the site. The DNR notes that the project site is not designated as an area of statewide importance for Blanding's turtle and no impact is anticipated. Wetland impact is anticipated on the site. A total of six wetlands were identified during the site review. Attached is a map from the AUAR document that identifies Wetlands A through F. Wetlands A and B are proposed to be filled and mitigated within the site. The drainage ditch connecting to Wetland C will be filled and mitigated, All mitigation will be proposed on the project. The development is not proposed to impact the main basin of Wetland C, and is not proposed to impact Wetlands D, E or F, although the requirement to realign County Road D will likely impact Wetland D. That wetland impact will be covered in the EAW being prepared for the County Road D extension project. Wetland buffer requirements have been identified and are proposed to be implemented. Storm water will be required to be pre-treated before discharge to the wetlands Planning Commission Agenda Report AUAR For Legacy Village At Maplewood February 26, 2003 Page Three · A study of the air quality in the area indicates that no problems are anticipated. A study of the noise in the area indicates that the northern-most portion of the site does not currently meet state nighttime noise standards due to the 1-694 freeway noise. The residential units will be required to be designed to minimize noise impacts by providing climate-controlled units, increasing wall insulation and by providing common areas within the building courtyards. The need for increased fire and police protection is identified within the AUAR. The fire and police departments have determined that the proposed development will likely require two police officers based upon 0.5 officers per 1000 people and fire has estimated a need for eight new firefighters/paramedics throughout the city, of which two may need to be dedicated to this development. Additional study of financial commitment of the development's related tax base toward police and fire protection will occur as part of the PUD and Tax Abatement hearings. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission provide any comments and issues to the City Council for consideration of the AUAR for the Legacy Village at Maplewood. RCA jw Attachments: Draft Development Concept Plan Wetland Map Area Roadway Improvement Concept AGENDA REPORT AGENDAITEM TO: FROM: Planning Commission ~ Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer~'~ SUBJECT: County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61 ) - City Project 02-07 County Road D Extension (West of TH 61 ) - City Project 02-08 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review DATE: February 26, 2003 Introduction The City Council has directed the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the County Road D realignment project between Hazelwood and TH 61 and the realignment of County Road D west of TH 61. The EAW has been completed and is available for review. The document is available for public review and comment. Presentation of the document to the planning commission will be made for the purpose of comments related to land use issues within the area. Background On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61 at the Venburg Tire intersection and then realign County Road D west of TH 61 through the vacant property to the existing alignment on the east side of the Highridge Court development. The length of this new roadway met the threshold for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The EAW has been prepared by the consultant for the project, URS, Inc. The process requires that document be routed to the various agencies and be provided for public comment. The draft EAW identifies potential for environmental impacts. Specific impacts are to wetlands, where 2.43 acres will be impacted but are proposed to be replaced by 4.86 acres of wetlands to be created by restoring a portion of the golf course and by expanding wetlands at the County Road D and Hazelwood intersection. A major grading operation will be required at the Burlington Northern Railroad crossing, which will impact area slopes. Appropriate construction controls should mitigate this impact. Blandings turtle and White Wild Indigo are threatened species within the area; however, the DNR has concluded that the project likely will have no impact. Sediment ponds are proposed to upgrade the area storm water flows, which are currently untreated. Standards for the 1.44 acres of storm ponds to be created include providing for 60% phosphorus and 90% total suspend solid removal for runoff flows · generated within the project area. A 30-day comment period is required as part of the review process for an EAW. That comment period is due to expire on March 5, 2003. The EAW is posted on the city's website and available for inspection at City Hall and at the local library. It is anticipated that final review of the EAW will occur on March 24, 2003 at the City Council. No approvals of projects, right of way mapping, or final alignmentconsideration can occur until the EAW process is completed. ! I Pla_truing Commission Agenda Report February 26, 2003 County Road D Realignment EAW Page Two Process Consideration of the alignment is part of a process to implement the findings of the Mall Traffic Study. The City of Maplewood has established a goal of opening the County Road D extension project for traffic by November 2004. The following process is provided for consideration: · Planning Commission Review of Alignment Study · Council Public Hearing on Alignment Study · Planning Commission Review of EAW · EAW Approved for New Roadway in coordination with AUAR · Feasibility Study and Right of Way Map Approved · Public Hearing on Improvements · Right of WayAcquisition/Plan Preparation · Assessment Hearing/Plan Approval · Construction Award (Hazelwood to TH 61) · Begin Construction (Hazelwood to TH 61) · Complete Construction (Hazelwood to TH 61) · Assessment Hearing/Plan Approval (west of TH 61) · Construction Award (west of TH 61) · Begin Construction (west of TH 61) · Complete Construction (west of TH 61) Recommendation December 3, 2002 December 9, 2002 March 3, 2003 March 24, 2003 April 14, 2003 May 12, 2003 May- Sept. 2003 September 22, 2003 October 27, 2003 November 2003 November 2004 Se ptember 2004 February 2005 Apdl 2005 September 2005 It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the EAW and provide comments and responses to the City Council for consideration on the County Road D Realignment ProJect (City Projects 02-07 and 02-08). RCA Jw Attachments: County Road D Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Home Occupation License Debra Siedenburg 2697 Pinkspire Lane February 25, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Debra Siedenburg is requesting a home occupation license to start and operate a hair salon in her new home at 2697 Pinkspire Lane. Please see applicant's home occupation questionnaire on pages 5 and 6 and the maps on pages 7 through 12. DISCUSSION Hair Salon Business The applicant's business would be cuffing, styling, perming and colodng hair of individuals. Ms. Siedenburg would be using a 13-foot by 13-foot living room on the first floor of her home as the hair salon. She also would be using a sink in the room for the hair salon. Ms. Siedenburg will be living in the home and would be the only employee in the home occupation. The applicant states that she would receive customer visits between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and she expects about 10-15 customers per week. Neighborhood Comments Of the 23 neighbors the city surveyed, we received two written replies. One was for the request and one was against. The one neighbor against the proposal said that he did not want to live in a business district. Ms. Siedenburg told me that she expects an average of two or three customers per day. If the city approves the hair salon business, the city's home occupation ordinance allows only residents of the home, plus one outside employee, to be employed within the business. In addition, the city council may place conditions on the business to ensure that surrounding residential properties are not negatively impacted. Other Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated, "Provide a five-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher." SUMMARY The city council has approved home occupation licenses for hair salons in the past. There are now two hair salon home occupations in operation in Maplewood - one on Minnehaha Avenue and another on Maryland Avenue. Although many home occupation requests generate concerns from neighbors, our office has found hair salons to be a good fit in neighborhoods and we have not received complaints about them. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: Single-Family Home (under construction) SURROUNDING LAND USES Single-family homes to the north, east and west Town houses across Pinkspire Lane PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Article II, Section 17-21(b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. I have attached these requirements on pages 13-16. Application Date We received the complete application for this home occupation license on January 29, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends March 28, 2003. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by March 24, 2003. Plsec13-281Siedenburg Attachments: 1. Home Occupation Questionnaire 2. Location Map 3. Property Line Map 4. Site Plan 5, House Elevation 6. Floor Plan 7. Room Plan Detail 8. Home Occupation Ordinance I I o o Attachment 1 HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE (Attach a separate page if additional space is needed) Describe your home occupation: ' ,/'-~'- ;' ," ,.-~-/-,-~ , How many nonresident employees would work on-site? 0 How many nonresident employees would work off-site? (~ How often would off-site employees visit your home?.. N~._~4.~ -H~u-¢ ~.~-~ What percentage of each level of your home's floor area, including the basement, woul . y~se in cond_ucting the home occupation? .~ ~o~1 ~ ~-.s;'~.~ m,t,~ r~o~.~ [~ia "/. 13 \ Where on th ' _ '"1-' ..~ ,~, - .-,-v~_. e premises would the home occupation De conclucted? J Describe any changes in the outside appearance of the building or property, other than one wall-mounted sign of not more than two square feet? _ --T/,t~.rL. ~ 4 1 _/2~___- m ~,t~. What percentage of gross sales would come from the sale of a product(s) produced off- site? 13 How many customer or employee vehicles would be parked on the premises at any one time? i Describe the type, payload capacity and number of each type of vehicle to be used in the home occupation and where they would be parked. ,r~,o/3 ~_~ 10. What would be the average number of customers expected to visit the premises each week? .lo - I ~ The average number of employee/subcontractor visits to the premises each week? 0 What time of day and which days of the week would you expect these visits to occur? M ~,~ ¢t~ +1~ ~ ~_ ,~; ~ iL) ~ -~ ~ o,~ j · Describe any delivery vehicles that will make deliveries or ship products from the property. Include the type, amount, hours and frequency of deliveries. 11. Describe the type of equipment, including ventilation systems, that would be used. Describe how you would keep the use of this equipment unn?ticeable to your neighbors. "'_. ,....- ~. -it, - r.' '~'°'i~~ ~,.-5/',//~Z----~~ : -- C'/--~ -' ' - :/ .... '" - 12. Describe the amount and type of any chemicals, gasoline, hazardous substances or similar material that would be used. Also, describe where these materials will be stored. 13. Describe how you would dispose of any hazardous materials. Applicant s Signature tJ Date Revised: 12/01 P\com_dvpt\word~omeocc-app -6 t6 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE IN, 20S 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2, VALLEY VIEW CT. 3. LAKEWOOD CT. 50S 18 19- DR. DR. '~ TIMBER TIMBER TR. 2 CT. (~.7.7~') 2. HIGHWOOD z 1. ORES'FY1~w FOREST DR. ~ 2. DEER RIDGE LN. AVE. 0,~ HE1GHT~; CT, BOXWOOD Attachment 2 480S o 16 o 72.0S 17 NEW CENTURY PL NEW CENTURY TER NEW CENTURY LN 960S 18 Lake 1200S 19 1440S LOCATION MAP Attachmeni 3 ::'~ ~'m ~ I -. ~ ~ ~ t I - v~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ · ~. = -~ ,'~ -- ~ Al '?~L ~ ,~ '~~ 7 I J~[ ~~~-L';[ :~ ' ~ ~, ~, - ~ 4- ~,~ o~or~ -- ~ ' 4 , '.. '. ~ '* ~' "-.../'-~ L ..... ~----~' ~ ~ , HIGHWOOD AVENUE ! I 994.8 S89°18'10"W 65. OO 9 O ~" 39.00 PROPOSED HOUS~ VI~,C/~JT' 8' POURED BSMT. / gg2.4 OARAOE I 99.3.2 22.33 I 51 BENCHMARK TOP OF 'm o '+3,3' EL - 993.2~ ~-~ ,,v 65. O0 ~ ~< S89q8'10"W / TO 993.3 ~ .~2.6 Attachment 4 994 ? LIJ 10 ~AC~'r' gg2.4 992.3 BENCHMARK OF PIPE EL . 992.42 PINKSPIRE LANE SITE PLAN9. Attachment 5 HOUSE ELEVATION 10 Attachment 6 H~lrails s~-~ full l~n~h of the stair~, I~ippablc b) PROPOSED HAIR SALON ,I door 1-3/8" thick or a FLOOR PLAN 11 · Attachment 7 ROOM PLAN DETAIL 12 Attachment 8 LICENSES 9 17-21 license will be automatically suspended or revoked five (5) days aider date of hearing. (Ord. No. 324, § 8, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-5. Same--Period of suspension. When a license is suspended under section. I7-4 of this article, the period of suspension shall be not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one (1) year, such period being determined by the city council. (Ord. No. 324, § 9, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-6. Same-Mandatory revocation for certain Code violations. When any person, partnership, firm or corporation holding a license issued under this Code has been convicted for the second time by a court of competent jurisdiction for violation of any of the provisions of this Code relating to the subject matter of such license, the city council shall revoke the license of the person, partnership, firm or corporation so convicted. Such person, part- nership, firm or corporation may not make application for a new license for a period of one (1) year. (Ord. No. 324, § 10, 6-22-72) Secs. 17-7m17.20. Reserved. ARTICLE H. HOM]~ OCCUPATIONS* Sec. 17-21. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license approved by the city council if any of the following circumstances would occur more than thirty (30) days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. *Editor'i note--Section 8 of Ord. No. 627, adopted June 27, 1988, amended Art. Il in its entirely to read as set out herein. Formerly, Art. II comprised 99 17-21--17-25, pertaining to licenses for home occupations and deriving from Ord. No. 521, 9 1, adopted Aug. 23, 1982. Cross reference-Fee for home occupation permit, 9 36-26. · Supp. No. 11 1045 10' § 17-21 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. (3) Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or mate- rials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. (5) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the 10remises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. .. (6) I£the home occupation produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. (b) Home occupations requiring a license shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No' more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed, to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the prem- ises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on-site, one (1) off-site employee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the cc~duct of a home occupation, other than one (1) sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code. Supp. No. 11 1046 LICENSES § 17-22 (Ord. (6) Ne more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detect- able to the normal senses offthe lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premisea, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or heali~h hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, ms&ine shops, welding, ~mmunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knives or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Ma- ch~e shops are defined as places where raw metal is fal~icated, using machines that operate on more than one hundred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) An~ noncompliance with these requirements shall consti- tute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The city. may waive any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential lot line. (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home. occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88; Ord. No. 729, § 1, 11-14-94) Sec. 17-2~. Original license approval procedure. An application fOr home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development shall prepare a recommendation to the planning commission. The planning commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city Supp. No. 11 1047 12- 15 § 17-22 MAPLEWOOD CODE council for a public hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the owuers of all properties located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the home occupation at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall also be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the da~e of hearin$. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-23. Renewal. Each license holder shall apply to the city clerk each January for renewal. Prior to issuance of a license renewal, the city shall determh_e that all licensing conditions and city ordinances are being met. The city clerk shall revoke the license where compli- ance with the licensing conditions or city ordinances cannot be obtaine~ or where the home occupation has been discontinued. Revocat/on may occur at any time that compliance with license conditi,ms or city ordinance cannot be obtained. (Ord. Na 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-24. Appeal. The o~ner or his assign of a home occupation whose license has been revoked by the city clerk may appeal the decision to the city council. To request an appeal, a wr/tten letter or request must be submitted to the city clerk within th/try (30) days of the license revocation. The city council may revoke, - approve or add addi- tional cmditions to the license. The city council shall hold a public hearing, using the notification procedures in section 17-22, before deciding on the appeal. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-25. Transfer of license. No license granted for a home occupation shall be transferable from pemon to person or place to place. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Supp. No. 11 1048 [The next page, is 1057] MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Countryside Motors - Conditional Use Permit and Variance 1180 Highway 36 East February 24, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Schmelz is proposing to remodel and expand the existing Saab sales/showroom building located within his Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The addition will be 8,610-square-feet in area and will have an automobile repair and service facility. In addition, Mr. Schmelz proposes to expand his automobile sales/storage lot into a vacant lot next to the Ember's Restaurant. (Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 14 through 16 and the maps on pages 17 through 28 attached.) Requests Mr. Schmelz is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A ten-foot setback variance from a right-of-way for the new sales/storage lot. The expanded sales/storage lot is proposed to be five feet from the frontage road right-of- way. City code requires all parking areas to be located at least 15 feet from any right-of- way. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the expansion of a nonconforming automobile repair facility and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). 3. Design review. BACKGROUND Minor Subdivision On December 23, 2002, the city staff approved a minor subdivision to allow the back and east portions of the Ember's lot to be subdivided from the northwest portion (location of Ember's Restaurant and parking lot). John Schmelz purchased the new lot from the Ember's owners in order to expand his sales/storage lot. A land survey reflected that the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way, located on the south side of the property, was not part of the new lot. City and county records, however, reflect that it was vacated by the city years ago. Mr. Schmelz's attorney is currently filing a quite title action to clear the title and ensure the right-of-way is legally part of the lot. The site plan for included with this proposal includes the vacated right-of-way. Therefore, a condition of approval should be that the resulting order from the court reflects that Mr. Schmelz is the fee owner of the vacated right-of-way. PAST ACTIONS January 9, 1995: The city council granted a CUP for the expansion of Countryside Motor's automobile dealership facility. February 12, 1996: The city council reviewed this CUP and scheduled review again in one year. November 23, 1998: The city council reviewed this CUP and decided to review it again if a problem developed or if the applicant proposed any changes. October 23, 2000: The city council revised the CUP to allow the expansion of the facility including a front setback variance for an addition to the Volkswagen showroom. October 22, 2001: The city council reviewed the CUP and schedUled review again in one year. After this meeting, Mr. Schmelz questioned the wording of a condition, that stated, "The property owner shall install and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board (CDRB) must review the screening plan." Mr. $chmelz had understood that it had been determined that additional screening was not needed. November 13, 2001: The city council determined that additional screening was, in fact, not needed to the south due to buffering by existing trees and grade differences. They amended Condition 4 of the CUP to clarify that additional screening was not needed to the south. October 14, 2002: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The property is zoned Light Manufacturing (M-l). Within this zoning district automobile sales is a permitted use and automobile repair requires a CUP. The code further states that both of these types of uses must be located at least 350 feet from residential property. Countryside Motors was constructed before these requirements and is closer than 350 feet from residential property along the south property line. Since 1995, the city council has approved several CUPs for the expansions to both the automobile sales and automobile repair nonconforming uses. The existing automobile sales/storage lot is located 20 feet and the existing automobile repair facility is located approximately 70 feet from the adjoining residential property line. The new proposal includes expanding the sales/storage lot into the new lot located to the south and east of Ember's Restaurant. The new sales/storage lot will maintain a 30-foot setback from the residential property to the south, a 10-foot setback from the residential property to the east, and a 5-foot setback from the commercial property to the east. As stated above, the existing sales/storage lot comes within 20 feet of residential property. This also is the city's minimum required screening and buffer distance for a commercial property Countryside Motors 2 February 24, 2003 adjacent residential property. The city council may approve the new sales/storage lot with a 10- foot setback to the eastern residential property as part of the CUP. However, staff feels that it is important to maintain the 20-foot buffer from the residential property and recommends that the applicant revise the site plan to increase the sales/storage lot setback along the residential property to the east from 10 feet to 20 feet. In addition to the expansion of the nonconforming sales/storage lot, Mr. Schmelz is proposing to construct an automobile repair facility closer than the required 350 feet to residential property. The new repair facility, if approved, would be approximately 170 feet from residential property. As such, it would not be closer to the residential property than the existing repair facility which is approximately 70 feet away. Both the sales/storage lot and the repair/service facility require CUPs, as they would both be an expansion of a nonconforming use. Variance The expanded sales/storage lot is proposed with a 5-foot setback to the frontage road right-of- way. City code requires a 15-foot setback. Mr. Schmelz states in his CUP statement on pages 14 through 16, that because his existing parking lot is located 5 feet to the frontage road, the expansion of his new sales/storage lot with a 5-foot setback to the frontage road as well should be considered as part of the expansion of the nonconforming use. The proposed sales/storage lot would be separated from the existing dealership by the Ember's Restaurant. It would not be a continuation of the dealership's existing parking lot setback and therefore, as proposed, requires a setback variance. Staff finds no hardship for this variance proposal and recommends denial. Increasing the setback of the sales/storage lot to the required 15 feet will also be consistent with the adjacent property's parking lot (Ember's), and will allow · for more landscaping to improve the curb appeal of the sales/storage lot from the frontage road. St. Paul Regional Water Services There is a water main that runs through the back portion of Mr. Schmelz's new lot' and his existing lot. Staff notified the St. Paul Regional Water Services of Mr. Schmelz's proposal to expand his dealership. Bill Tschida and Mike Anderson of the St. Paul Regional Water Services have expressed several concems about the proposal including: The proposed retaining wall and subsequent grading for the new sales/storage lot is located too close to the water main. ' ' Verification of easements for all water mains located on Mr. Schmelz's property is necessary. 3. Access to all water mains located on Mr. Schmelz's property must be maintained. Verification of the water services to Ember's Restaurant and the grading over those water services needs to be reviewed. Staff recommends that the above-mentioned concerns be addressed with conditions of approval of Mr. Schmelz's CUP. These conditions are outlined in the recommendations on page 7. Countryside Motors 3 February 24, 2003 Site Improvements Saab Building Addition The applicant is proposing an 8,61 O-square-foot addition for the south side of the Saab showroom/sales building. The addition will have a new automobile repair/service facility for the Saab dealership. The dealership is currently servicing these automobiles in an existing building located behind the Volkswagen and Saab buildings. If the city approves the addition, the dealership will use the existing repair facility as overflow repair and service for types of vehicles. The construction of the addition will remove 39 parking stalls. The parking stalls will be replaced by the addition of the new sales/storage lot next to Ember's, which will accommodate up to 200 automobiles. The front and side exteriors of the existing Saab showroom/sales building will be remodeled to include pre-finished aluminum copings with a sea shell colored EIFS (stucco-like material), an extedor blue composite metal panel, a new pre-finished aluminum wing canopy, a new entry vestibule, and aluminum storefront windows. The addition will be constructed of pre-cast concrete panels with integral color to match the new EtFS. Expanded Automobile Sales/Stora.qe Lot Sales/Storage LoC The new sales/storage lot will be used for the sale and storage of automobiles. It will be constructed of bituminous and concrete curb and gutter. The sales/storage lot will not be striped, but will hold about 200 automobiles. City code does not require that an automobile sales/storage lot have striped parking stalls unless there are parking stalls for employees or customers. There are no employee or customer parking stalls proposed, but in order to ensure adequate ddve aisles, a striping plan must be submitted that shows drive aisles of at least 24 feet in width. Retaining Walls: The vacant lot where the applicant is proposing the new sales/storage lot slopes upward from the frontage road to the south side of the property. For this reason, the applicant is proposing to install a retaining wall along the southeast corner of the new lot (see site and grading plan and retaining wall elevation on pages 20, 21 and 24). This retaining wall will start at ground grade and extend upward to 8 feet, 8 inches at its highest point on the southeast corner of the lot. Therefore, much of the automobile sales/storage lot will be lower than the surrounding residential properties, and will be hidden from view. Fence: The applicants are proposing to extend their existing 6-foot-high chain-link fence, with three strands of barbed wire along the top, around the entire new sales/storage lot. A matching gate is proposed in front of the new driveway to the frontage road. Staff finds the prospect of a new parking lot surrounding Ember's oversized parking lot an unattractive proposal in itself. The addition of a 6-foot-high chain-link fence with barbed wire surrounding the new sales/storage lot is unacceptable. In order to make the new sales/storage lot more attractive, staff recommends that the new fence and gate along the frontage road be constructed of wrought iron with decorative brick or stone columns and that the remaining fence portions be constructed of a black vinyl-coated chain-link fence up to 8 feet high. Countryside Motors 4 February 24, 2003 Tree Preservation: The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all "large" trees removed from a site be replaced one-for-one, up to 10 trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwood, and poplar. The applicant proposes removing two "large" trees with the grading of the new automobile sales/storage lot. Therefore, the applicant must plant at least two replacement trees on the site. Landscaping: The landscape plan calls for six Colorado blue spruce and 22 Isanti dogwoods to be planted on the south side of the property, above the retaining wall. Again, in an attempt to create a more attractive sales/storage lot, staff recommends additional landscaping to include: trees and shrubs to~ be planted in front of the sales/storage lot, along the frontage road; a row of columnar trees (narrow trees such as arborvitae or lindens) between Ember's parking lot and the new sales/storage lot; extending the row of Colorado blue spruce and Isanti dogwood along the top of the entire retaining wall (both south and east, adjacent both residential properties). In addition, Chris Cavett, assistant city engineer, is recommending in his engineering plan review on page 29 that a landscape plan be submitted for the pond. The pond should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes and native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the pond. All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the pond, must have an underground irrigation system. Site Lighting: The city's lighting ordinance requires that all new freestanding lights be a maximum of 25 feet in height. In addition, the maximum light illumination from any outdoor light cannot exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. The applicant's proposal includes relocating four existing 30-foot-high freestanding lights, installing one new 20-foot-high freestanding light, and installing four new wall pack lights (see attached outdoor lighting plan on page 28). The lighting ordinance allows for the relocation of the taller freestanding lights as part of design review, based on appropriateness for a specific proposal. Staff feels that the relocation of the 30-foot-high freestanding lights into the expanded and existing sales/storage lot is appropriate, as long as a revised photometdcs plan is submitted by the applicant that shows the light illumination at all property lines does not exceed .4 foot candles as required by code. Other Comments John Banick, Deputy Police Chief, states that he has no public safety concerns regarding the proposal at this time. Dave Fisher, Building Official, states that handicap accessible parking stalls and bathrooms are required and that the Saab building must be fully sprinklered. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, states that the following fire protection items will be required: fire protection system must be installed, including existing building; monitor fire protection system; fire department lock box; minimum of 20-foot access road for emergency vehicles; horn/strobes in service garage area and any normally occupied space in the showroom/office area. RECOMMENDATIONS Deny John SchmelZ's request for a 10-foot front setback variance from the right-of-way for the expansion of the sales/storage lot at his Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The city is denying this request because: Countryside Motors 5 February 24, 2003 a. There is no hardship associated with the variance request. The proposed 5-foot sales/storage lot setback will not be consistent with the adjoining property's parking lot (Ember's). The proposed 5-foot sales/storage lot setback will leave no room for landscaping between the lot and the frontage road. Landscaping is needed to improve the curb appeal of the sales/storage lot. Adopt the resolution on pages 30 and 31. This resolution approves a revision to the conditional use permit for John Schmelz's Countryside Motors automobile dealership located at 1180 Highway 36 East. The revision is for the expansion of the nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined; deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. bo The construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. d. Loading or unloading of motor vehicles on the public right-of-way is pro,hibited. e. Automobiles can only be parked on designated paved surfaces. f. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Countryside Motors 6 February 24, 2003 Approve the plans date-stamped January 24, 2003, for the proposed Saab building addition and sales/storage lot expansion to Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are not part of this approval and will require separate sign permits. Co Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: (1) Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the city engineer. Address all of the concerns (mentioned below) to the satisfaction of the St. Paul Regional Water Services: (a) Verify location of all water mains within the property. (b) Verify that the necessary easements exist for all water mains. (c) Relocate the proposed retaining wall and subsequent grading for the new sales/storage lot so that it is no closer than 15 feet from the centefline of the existing water main in the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way. (d) (e) Ensure the St. Paul Regional Water Services has access to all water mains on the property. Verify the location of the water services to Ember's Restaurant and any grading over the water services. (3) Verification that John Schmelz is the fee owner of the 30-foot wide portion of the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way that runs along the south portion of the expanded sales/storage lot property. (4) A striping plan for the new automobile sales/storage lot. The plan must include drive aisles that are at least 24 feet in width. (5) Elevations of the proposed fence and gate. The elevation should include a wrought iron fence with decorative bdck or stone columns and an electronically controlled wrought iron entry gate on the front of the sales/storage lot; and a black vinyl coated chain-link fence on the sides and rear of the sales/storage lot. The fence may be up to a height of 8 feet. Countryside Motors 7 February 24, 2003 do (6) A revised landscape plan to include: (a) Trees and shrubs to be planted in front of the sales/storage lot, along the frontage road. (b) A row of columnar trees (narrow trees such as arborvitae or lindens) between Ember's parking lot and the new sales/storage lot. (c) Extending the row of Colorado blue spruce and Isanti dogwood along the top of the entire retaining wall (both south and east, adjacent both residential properties). (d) The pond should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes. Native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the perimeter of the pond. (e) All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the pond, must have an underground irrigation system. (7) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the height and style of all outdoor lights (including relocated lights), and that the light illumination from all outdoor lights does not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. (8) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Complete the following before occupying the sales/storage lot: (1) Install all bituminous surface and curb and gutter. (2) Stripe all ddve aisles. (3) Install the approved fence. (4) Install all required landscaping by June 1 if the sales/storage lot is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion of the sales/storage lot if it is finished in the spring or summer. (5) Install all required exterior lights. Complete the following before occupying the Saab building: (1) Install all required exterior improvements. (2) Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent residential property. Countryside Motors 8 February 24, 2003 go (3) Ensure all trash dumpsters are enclosed in a trash enclosure, subject to staff approval, if there would be outside trash storage. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: (1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Countryside Motors 9 February 24, 2003 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 22 properties within 350 feet of Countryside Motors. Of the four responses received, three were in favor of the proposal, and one had minor concerns: In Favor · Mary Prochaska, Vice President/Real Estate, Menard, Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin (Menard's Store at 2280 Maplewood Ddve): "Countryside is a great neighbor. They run an upscale business and they are great for the neighborhood. They should be given every consideration of their proposal. It appears to be well designed and will be an asset to our community." Richard and Wilma Miller, Handy Hitch and Welding Company, 2303 Atlantic Street, Maplewood: "We have no objections to Countryside's plans. We look forward to them maintaining the empty lot." Hossein Aghami~ai and Mary Costas, 45 Clay Cliffe Drive, Excelsior, Minnesota (owners of University Auto at 1145 Viking Drive, Maplewood): "It is okay by me." Concerns Brad Birnberg, Highway 36 Embers, 1664 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota (Ember's Restaurant at 1200 Viking Ddve): "Our only concern is water drainage and that the drainage may undermine the integrity of our parking lot.' Countryside Motors 10 February 24, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existin.q Dealership Site. Site Size: Existing Land Use: 4.45 acres Countryside Motors Automobile Dealership Proposed Sales/Stora,qe Lot .Site Site Size: 1.5 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Frontage Road and Highway 36 Houses and Apartments on Duluth Street, Lark Avenue and Atlantic Street Menard's Ember's Restaurant PAST ACTIONS January 9, 1995: The city council granted a CUP for the expansion of Countryside Motor's automobile dealer facility. February 12, 1996: The city council reviewed this CUP and scheduled review again in one year. November 23, 1998: The city council reviewed this CUP and decided to review it again if a problem developed or if the applicant proposed any changes. October 23, 2000: The city council revised the CUP to allow the expansion of the facility including a front setback variance for an addition to the Volkswagen showroom. October 22, 2001: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. After this meeting, Mr. Schmelz questioned the wording of a condition, that stated, 'The property owner shall install and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board (CDRB) must review the screening plan." Mr. Schmelz had understood that it had been determined that additional screening was not needed. November 13, 2001: The city council determined that additional screening was, in fact, not needed to the south due to buffering by existing trees and grade differences. They amended Condition 4 of the CUP to clarify that additional screening was not needed to the south. October 14, 2002: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. Countryside Motors 11 February 24, 2003 PLANNING Land Use Plan: M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval 1. Section 36-17(h) states that a property owner may expand a nonconforming structure or parking lot if the structure or parking lot meets the following conditions: a. The zoning regulations permit the use. b. The expansion would meet the minimum setbacks required by this chapter or the setbacks of the existing structure, whichever is less. The expansion shall not exceed the maximum height required by this chapter or the existing height, whichever is taller. To deviate from. these requirements, the city may approve a CUP, subject to the standards in the city code. c. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water level in a shoreland distdct would be at least the average setback of adjacent residential structures or 50 feet~ whichever is greater. d. All portions of said structure would be on the applicant's property. e. Runoff from the overhang of the addition would not adversely affect an adjacent property. 2. Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the resolution on pages 30 and 31. Criteria for Variance Approval State law reqUires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Stdct enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Countryside Motors 12 February 24, 2003 Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this request on January 24, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by March 25, 2003. p:sec9\countryside Attachments: 1. Conditional Use Permit Statement 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Site Plan 6. Grading Plan 7. Tree Removal Plan 8. Landscape Plan 9. Retaining Wall 10. Existing Elevations 11. Proposed Elevations 12. Floor Plan 13. Outdoor Lighting Plan 14. Assistant City Engineer Comments 15. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Countryside Motors 13 February 24, 2003 Attachment 1 Supplement to Conditional Use Application for Countryside Volkswagen, Inc. 1180 East Highway 36 Maplewood, MN 55109 Telephone: (651) 484-8441 Contact: John Schmelz The following information has been prepared by RSP Architects 1220 Marshall Street N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 677-7100 Contact: James Warren SUMMARY The applicant specifically requests the following Conditional uses from the City of Maplewood: A. Relief from City ordinances requiring a 350 foot setback from residential uses to motor vehicle sales/service uses. The applicant requests that the 75 foot building setback established in the 1994 Conditional Use Permit be maintained for this property. B. Relief from City ordinances requiring a 15 foot setback from front property line to parking; applicant requests elimination of setback requirement, as established in the previous Conditional Use Permit granted in 1994 CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: M1 CURRENT USE: The property is currently used for motor vehicle sales and service; the applicant does not propose any change inuse. Repair of body damage to cars has been moved off site to a local body repair service faCility. REASONS FOR APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND SCOPE OF REQUEST A. The applicant founded the Countryside automotive dealership in 1966, prior to City ordinances establishing the required 350 foot motor vehicle sales/service setback from residential uses. In 1994, as part of a conditional use permit, the applicant requested and was granted a 75 foot building setback from residential uses. The currently proposed Saab service addition is approximately 78 feet from the southern property line, adjacent to the Menards storage lot. The addition is approximately 205 feet from the nearest residential use. Good business practices and current manufacturer requirements for distinct brand identification have led to the need for remodeling and expansion of the existing Saab facility. These improvements are necessary for the applicant to remain competitive in their marketplace. B. Existing site conditions near the northwest corner of the applicant's property include a 10 foot wide landscaped boulevard (on City Property), reduced from 15 feet due to widening of the service road. The applicant historically and currently displays vehicles up to their property line in that location. The 1994 conditional use permit allowed this configuration. The applicant is proposing no changes to this area of the property. 14 RESPONSES TO CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL USE CONFORMITY: The existing use will not be changed. All improvements will be designed, maintained, constructed and operated in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances (subject to the requests contained herein.) CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The improvements will enhance the existing character of the surrounding area by remodeling the existing Saab Sales building to be compatible with the recent addition and aesthetic upgrade of the Volkswagen sales and service building. Existing site lighting shall remain unchanged. PROPERTY VALUES: Re: The Saab Service addition -- The applicant suggests that the adjacent properties will realize a positive effect from the upgrading of the applicant's property. Re: New Car Storage Area - Under previous ownership this area was not maintained and lacked proper screening from adjacent residential uses. The applicant will install an innovative porous pavement technique to allow water infiltration, provide screening of the property and properly maintain the area. 4. HAZARD AND NUISANCE FACTORS: NOISE: The applicant suggests that the expanded facility will generate equal or less noise than the existing facility. The service addition walls are 10" thick concrete panels, which serve as an excellent means of sound control. GLARE: The expanded Saab building will be constructed of somewhat rough non-glare materials. The new car storage area is significantly lower in elevation than adjacent residential neighborhoods, and is screened with the use of a retaining wall and plantings, all contributing to a reduction in potential glare. SMOKE, DUST, ODOR, FUMES AND AIR POLLUTION: All repair work shall be done within the confines of the service addition. Current environmental regulations and vehicle services technologies create environments that benefit both employees of the facility as well as the environment in which it is located. Using easily replaceable vehicle components for repairs and an environmentally approved exhaust collection device are two examples of this practice. WATER POLLUTION: There will be no use of uncontained contaminants. In fact, the applicant has previously removed all underground tanks from the site. DRAINAGE RUNOFF: Re: The Saab Service addition -There is no planned increase in the existing amount of hard surface area. Re: New Car Storage Area - All runoff from the impervious portions of the storage lot will be directed into the holding pond for absorption. The applicant is also providing this same level of treatment to the runoff from 3/4's of the Embers parking lot. That sub-watershed that flows onto the SchmeIz property is pretreated through native grasses and is then directed into the pond for absorption. VIBRATION: Other than normal truck traffic for delivery of product, there is no vibration causing activity. UNSIGHTLINESS: All trash is, and will continue to be, contained within enclosures. Hazardous waste is, and will continue to be, properly contained and stored for disposal according to local, state and federal regulations. ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE: There is no site activity, either existing or planned, which will cause electrical interference. 15 ;1 I *~ !1 ', VEHICULAR TRAFFIC: The primary purpose of the expansion is to better serve an existing customer base and to respond to manufacturer's insistence on individualized identity of sales and services. The anticipated increase in vehicular traffic is minimal. PUBLIC SERVICES: The applicant is not aware of any increase in demand for public services which will be caused by the proposed expansion. COST FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES: As stated in #6, the applicant is not aware of any increased demand for public services which will be caused by the proposed expansion, thus, no cost is anticipated. SITE FEATURES: New construction will be designed to coordinate with the existing primary structures and with existing grading, paving and natural features. Signage, lighting and building aesthetics will be upgraded and coordinated into a cohesive whole which will result in an overall improved image; landscaping around the new car storage area will be included as part of the site design. POSSIBLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT: The applicant is, and continues to be, proactive in his desire to create an environmentally sound and safe facility for customers, employees and neighbors. Specific information on environmental concerns and actions is stated above. 16 Attachment 2 Schmelz ~ ~ Countryside -... ~ Parking Lot Expansion Schmelz Countryside Saab Highway 36 1180 HVVY 36 lq Location Map 17 .... ~.._.~....__~_~ Attachment 3 Countryside Motors 1180 Highway 36 Countryside Motors Expanded Sales Lot Legend 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 Low Mulitple Dwellings High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo Planned Urban Development Residential Estate (30,00 sq ft) Residential Estate (40,00) sq ft) Farm Zoning Map 18 Countryside Motors 1180 Highway 36 Attachment 4 Countryside Motors Expanded Sales Lot Lark Avenue Legend N / W E ~ S Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commercial COmmercial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Smell Lot Single Dwelling Reai Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential Low Multiple Dwelling Resident Medium Multiple' Dwelling Resid High Multiple Dwelling Residen 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate Park Open Space School City Govemment Ubmry Cemetery Land Use Map 19 Attachment 5 1'4 Site Plan 20¸ Attachment 6 (IPRONTAGE ROAD) N Grading Plan 21 Attachment 7 1,,1 HNG EASEUE~T mCR DOC / ,/ ~1~ ,~t~:[ 1200 VIKING DRIVE E. /~' tlf~ ~ , ~ ~l ~.2' H~O~, ~ CEN~'ER ~ .... SPACES ~ NEW EDGE OF BITUMINCU 'WHIiE 43 P [;~--L-/ SAN,MI Tree Removal Plan S 22 Attachment 8 '/~ ! 36 ,? '~--~ - -- -I VIKING I)RIVE E. --" ..... ~ (FRONTAGE ROAD) sa? s~ ~ ":::::: :: :. f: c. ::: :::::: ::: COPE AV~. N Landscape Plan 23 Attachment 9 TOP OF WALL ELEV: 894.0 PROPOSED COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (6) B&B, 2.5 INCH CALIPER ISANTI DOGWOOD 24" HEIGHT (22) 2.5 GALLON POT ~L-- -: -----.~ ~- .........  ~ ~-- ~__ ~ __~ .... ~>----- LOT SURFACE- WALL START 894 893 892 891 890 889 888 887 886 885 884 882 881 NORTH ELEVATION (LOOKING SOUTH AT WALL) * 220 FEET 88O X F- 0 <[Or':" WALL 6' HIGH (VARIES) 10' O 10' O EX-SS Retaining Wa;; 24 Attachment 10 Existing Elevations 25 Attachment. 11 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Proposed Elevation -mi ~ ralm- ~ 4 ~14 LI LJ L~J II- I I III ~ ~ ri1 ; ~_. r~ ~HIIIIII N ® '~ ~ ~ Floor Plan Attachment 12 S 27 Attachment 13 ( ELECTRICAL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 1 "-40'-0" N Outdoor Lighting Pla , 28 Attachment 14 En~neering Plan Review,. PROJECT: Schmelz Parking Lot Expansion PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett Maplewood Engineering Depaxtment, February 24, 2003 Mr. John Sehmelz is proposing to expand one of the Countryside Motors buildings at 1180 Highway 36. It is also proposed that the parking lot be expanded to compensate for the loss of parking due to the building expansion. The parking lot expansion is proposed for the area just east and south of the Embers lot at 1200 Viking Drive. The proposed pond at the south end of the lot will treat drainage from the parking lot. From there it will outflow into the existing storm sewer on the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way. The following comments should be addressed: 1. Submit treatment calculations. Determine the percentage of phosphorus and TSS removal for the NURP pond. City ordinance requires that the BMP's meet the phosphorus removal requirement of 60% and the TSS removal requirement of 80%. 2. What is the parking plan? Will there be parking on the south side of the pond or will that be a driving lane? Drive lane must be 24'-wide, (see related comment #6). 3. Revise the plans to accommodate vehicle protection from the pOnd. As shown, the plan is not acceptable. Suggestion: At a minimum, provide bollards with cable or chain. In addition,_ use landscaping to provide a visual barrier, (i.e.: shrubs and/or trees). (This includes along the north side, (Embers), of the pond). 4. Concrete curbing is required along all sides of the pond. 5. Obtain RWMWD approvals and permits. Obtain NPDES construction permit. 6. Is the proposed storm sewer connected to the existing system? Plan is difficult to read in that area. Is there any reason not to tie into the existing storm sewer? Suggestion: · Connect to existing storm sewer, use an open radial MH grate if a redundant overflow inlet is desired. · Move driveway entrance over and widen to obtain a 24-foot drive aisle. 7. Provide curb inlets/CB structures where concentrated flows will be located or armor slopes with rip rap and permanent soil stabilization blanket where necessary. Areas of concern that shall be addressed: · Flow coming offthe end of the curb at the northeast side of the pond. · Flow coming off the Embers parking lot near the end of the retaining wall. Other locations where flow may be concentrated. 8. Submit a landscape design plan for the pond. The pond shall be vegetated with native grasses w/Forbes. In addition, shrubbery and trees shall also be utilized around the upland perimeter of the pond. 9. Where will the cleanout be relocated? 29 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz applied for a conditional use permit revision to expand his nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). The revision includes an addition to the Saab building and an expansion of the automobile sales/storage lot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Countryside Motors Automobile Dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: Existing Dealership Legal Description: The west 105.00 feet of the east 135.00 feet of the north 30.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition and vacated street accruing. The east 240.00 feet of Block 15, Clifton Addition, except the south 30.00 feet lying west of the east 135.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The east 240.00 feet of that part of Block 16, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of that part of Block 17, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of Block 14, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The west 225.00 feet of east 255.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Duluth Street accruing, except the south 174.00 feet and except the north 30.00 feet thereof. Proposed Sales Lot Legal Description: That part of east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 17, lying south of the southerly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway 36 and the east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 14, lying north of the south 128 feet; and the east 290 feet of the west 400 feet of the north 98 feet of the south 128 feet of Block 14, all in Clifton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota, subject to roads. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: On March 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. 30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit revision because: 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. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. 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. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 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. The construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 4. Loading or unloading of motor vehicles on the public right-of-way is prohibited. 5. Automobiles can only be parked on designated paved surfaces. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 31 . ,2003. ] :1 I