Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2001BOOK -4. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday September 4, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes . - a. August 20, 2001 Unfinished Business a. Schlomka Landscaping Inc. (2511 Carver Avenue) 1. Conditional Use Permit (Over-Sized Accessory Structure) 2. Conditional Use Permit (Landscaping Business in F Zone) New Business a. Alley Vacation (next to 49 Kingston Avenue) 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. August 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness b. September 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer c. September 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour Follow-up 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report'on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 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. o jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eric Ahlness Mary Dieri~h Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Recording Secretary: Lisa Kroll II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval as amended. Commissioner Ahlness seconded. Ayes -- All The motion is passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the August 6, 2001, Planning Commission minutes as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes -- All Abstention - Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Planning Commission Minutes of 0~-20-01 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING 5. a. 5-8 Club Conditional Use Permit (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) Chairperson Fischer stated that items to be considered for this proposal are a land use plan amendment from (R-l) to (BC-(M)), a zoning map change from (R-l) to (BC-(M)), a conditional use permit for a restaurant, conditional use permit for expansion of non-conforming use, and a parking lot setback variance. Ms. Finwall stated that Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club, is proposing to purchase, remodel, and expand Beau's Food and Spirits at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue, located on the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue. The proposed project includes interior remodeling, expansion of the parking lot, a new covered deck for outdoor dining and exterior painting and improvements. Beau's Food and Spirits was originally opened as Chicone's Bar and Restaurant in the mid 1950's and has been used as a restaurant/bar for approximately the last 46 years. The city adopted their original zoning map in 1965 at which time most of the existing land uses were zoned with a zoning classification to reflect the use of the land and not to create nonconforming uses. The city did, however, zone Chicone's Bar and Restaurant residential even though it had been used as a bar and restaurant for approximately 10 years before 1965. As such, the zoning classification set by the city created a nonconforming use. In staff's opinion the city originally intended to have a commercial zoning for this site to match the restaurant/bar in use at the time. But for some reason the zoning on this property was classified as residential and has not been an issue until this proposal for an expansion. The proposed zoning, therefore, is from residential to the business commercial modified (B-C(M)) zoning district. The business commercial modified district is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and Iow or medium density residential uses. Within this zoning district, restaurants without drive-through facilities are allowed with a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process will allow the city oversight to ensure there are limited impacts on the surrounding residential properties. The proposed improvements on this site include a 620-square-foot deck located on the northwest side of the building adjacent to Stillwater Road. The deck will be surrounded by a 5-foot high privacy fence with one foot of lattice on top and covered with a decorative awning. The deck requires a conditional use permit as it is expanding off of the existing building's nonconforming setback of 15 feet to residential property as opposed to the required 50-foot setback adjacent to residential property. The new deck also comes within 22 feet of Stillwater Road where a 30-foot setback is required. Beau's Food and Spirits currently has 23 paved parking stalls and overflow gravel parking on the east side of the building. The applicants propose to add an additional 23 parking stalls in the gravel parking area towards the east side of the building. This parking lot will come within 5 feet of the east residential property and 10 feet to the north residential property line. The parking lot will require setback variances. The applicants stress that the parking variance is necessary in order to make the property commercially viable with adequate parking. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 -3- The number of parking stalls after the expansion is still 7 parking stalls less than the city's required for the expanded restaurant. Since the expansion of the parking lot will make the parking situation more conforming with code, no special authorization for this parking is required. Staff agrees with the applicants that the 46 parking stalls proposed would be adequate since the ratio of parking will increase and the proposed deck will only be used seasonally. The applicants show a 6-foot-high cedar privacy fence along the entire length of the east property line. The property owner to the east at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue, Daniel Tacheny, has recently begun the framing construction of a 5-foot-high-stucco fence. This fence is being constructed approximately 5 feet into Mr. Tacheny's property, extending from the rear of his detached garage to his rear property line..This fence was originally proposed by Mr. Tacheny to screen Beau's existing gravel parking area. Upon notice of the 5-8 Club's proposal, the property owner contacted the applicant and inquired about continuing this style of fence along the shared property line. The applicant's point out that Mr. Tacheny's fence is not constructed right on the property line but 5 feet within the adjacent property and will not offer the screening required. For these reasons, the applicants do not wish to extend off of Mr. Tacheny's fence, but rather construct a fence on the property line. Another building addition is a cooler that will need to be bumped out of the existing kitchen approximately 8 feet to the east. The applicants propose to screen this cooler by painting it white to match the building and adding latticework on the sides. The location of the dumpster enclosure was a concern of the neighbors located on both sides. During negotiations it was determined that the best location of the dumpster enclosure would be directly to the east of the new cooler location. Then the new cooler and dumpster enclosure would be fenced in. The existing curb cut on Minnehaha Avenue will remain the same. The grading and drainage plan is designed with a water retention pond to help purify water from the expanded parking area only. The proposed landscaping would include 15 maple trees, 52 shrubs and a perennial garden to the north of the deck. Most of the landscaping will have to be installed in the right of way. Staff has contacted the Minnesota Department of Transportation as well as the county and they are receptive to the idea of placing the landscaping in the R.O.W.S. They however, have some alternative comments regarding trees adjacent the driveway exits. Chairperson Fischer asked members for any questions of the staff report. Commissioner Trippler replied that he is bothered by the request of the 5-foot parking lot setback. Another concern is the location of the deck in relation to the neighbors' homes, and the noise level in the evening. Commissioner Dierich stated that she is thrilled that this is happening for this particular site. However, she is feeling uncomfortable with the setbacks and the deck plan. It puts it practically in the north neighbor's backyard and she wondered if the applicant thought of moving the deck plan to the roof of the structure since it is a flat roofed structure. It would accommodate the need for the amount of parking spaces that is needed and it would get if off the street level. She stood in the parking lot of Beau's that evening at 6:00 p.m. and stated it would be very noisy to eat on the deck at the street level. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 Ms. Finwall stated that the original proposal showed the deck located on the northeast corner of the lot and staff felt that the deck placed on the northwest side of the building was a better alternative. The roof proposal was not looked at or discussed. Commissioner Ledvina stated he had a question regarding the lighting plans. Ms. Finwall replied that the proposed four fence lighting fixtures will be installed directly on the fence posts and will not extend above the fence posts. Commissioner Pearson asked about the cooler being bumped out and if there was still adequate A.D.A. space for access to the ramp from that sidewalk? He stated he could not make the distance off the plans. Ms. Finwall replied that she did not have the answer to that question. She said thank you for pointing that out, we will look into that. Commissioner Mueller stated he is concerned about finishing the fencing rather than the cedar and chain link combined. Is it a cost issue or what is the reason for that? Ms. Finwall stated she was not sure. Maybe the applicant could respond to that question later. Commissioner Trippler asked if the deck poised a nuisance to the neighbors, is there any recourse they have with the noise ordinance and late hours being kept? Ms. Finwall replied that there is a noise ordinance in the city of Maplewood so with that ordinance they will have some recall. The conditional use permit is up for constant review as well. Commissioner Trippler asked if quite hours begin at 10:00 p.m.? Mr. Roberts stated in commercial areas there are no set quite hours. In residential areas quite hours begin at 7:00 p.m. Under the conditional use permit the city could choose to set hours of operation for the outdoor deck as a condition. For example they could state that the deck cannot be used after a certain time. Commissioner Dierich questioned the total occupancy in the building at any one time? Ms. Finwall said she did not have an answer to that, maybe the applicants could answer that for US, Commissioner Dierich replied that the stucco finish on the fence would be a very nice solution for noise levels in the neighborhood. Although it is more expensive, it will be more appealing and should control the decibel of noise more than a cedar and or chain linked fence. Having the fence packed with some insulation in between and covered with stucco, the noise level would be controlled more for those neighbors. She would recommend that the applicant continue the stucco fence and move it all the way up to the street side as well. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to come forward. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 08-20-01 Jill Skogheim, of Food Services, Inc. d/b/a 5-8 Club introduced herself. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Skogheim what type of an eating establishment is the 5-8 Club, is it like a Champp's, a Village Inn, or a family-type establishment? Ms. Skogheim replied, they are a neighborhood tavern grill specializing in a burger called the "Juicy Lucy" sandwiches, walleye dinner, shrimp basket, and ribs. It is generally a family place as well as a place the neighbors have come to gather. Commissioner Mueller asked if it is an establishment that a local subsidized ball team would come and celebrate at after a game at 11:00 p.m. and stay until 1:00 in the morning? Ms. Skogheim stated that they have not had that situation at all in their Minneapolis location. They do have an earlier cutoff on the deck. The hours for the deck are generally used until 10:00 p.m. during the week and until 11:00 p.m. during the weekend. The deck is used less than 3 seasons out of the year. Commissioner Mueller asked Ms. Skogheim about the look of a chain linked fence verses the cedar finish on a fence. Ms. Skogheim replied that a 6-foot high cedar fence is awfully high for all the landscaping they are going to do. The neighbors and the people passing by would not be able to see any of the perennial gardens. It was intended to beautify that area and not in anyway detour from it. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the purpose of the chain-linked fence was? Ms. Skogheim stated that the chain-linked fence is already there right now. We felt that the screening on the deck made for a narrow corridor to plant in as opposed to something that does appear more open. Commissioner Mueller asked the applicant how long the 5-8 Club had been in the Minneapolis location on Cedar Avenue? Ms. Skogheim stated it has been there since 1928 but has been under Food Services, Inc.'s operation since late 1995. Commissioner Pearson asked how long the deck had been in place at the Cedar Avenue location? Ms. Skogheim replied the deck area had been in place for 10 years. Commissioner Mueller asked if Ms. Skogheim had talked with the neighbor about the stucco fence going up? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 -6- Ms. Skogheim commented that the issue with the stucco fence is that it is not on the 5-8 Club's property and to continue the fence they would continue into the neighbor's hedge and other shrubs. The cedar fence would be more of a barrier in height, the neighbor's fence has been in progress for about 3 or 4 years now and is just a wood frame. What was proposed to the applicants by the neighbor was that the 5-8 Club stucco the neighbor's fence and attach the applicant's cedar fence onto the neighbor's fence. The cost of doing a stucco fence is quite large in comparison to doing a cedar fence, and to stucco the neighbor's fence, they are putting stucco on somebody else's property. If a new neighbor moves in, then we don't really have any control of something they own. Jay Tacheny of Edina Re .a.l.ty came forward to speak. He is representing his parents who live at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. His parents are the homeowners that have the stucco fence that has been in progress for the past 3 or 4 years. The owners of Beaus had been great neighbors and have been very responsible and we hope the 5-8 Club continues that same attitude with regard to the neighborhood. We are definitely concerned about keeping the fence that is currently there and maybe attaching to our fence or putting a jog in the fence. Maybe we could propose a land trade of the 5 feet so that they could put an extended parking space in for trucks on that back 30 feet. And then the applicant's could continue with a cedar fence. We would like to see that the color of the fence match the exterior of the restaurant. Mr. Tacheny is in real estate and many of his customers have stated chain-linked fences are not very appealing to the eye. Commissioner Mueller asked about having the neighbors get rid of the chain-linked fence and put in a split rail fence. That way you can look through the fence and enjoy the landscaping and it will match the cedar fence much nicer. Mr. Tacheny did state that his father had a heart attack and that is why the fence was not completed. They are now interested in finishing the fence that was started years ago. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Tacheny if he understood him correctly that his parents are willing to negotiate with the applicant to give up the 5 feet on the east edge if the applicant will then take over finishing the stucco? Mr. Tacheny replied no not the entire length of the property but on a portion of that they would be interested in talking with regard to giving up 2 or 3 feet perhaps if they could do a full stucco fence. I know they have to come in under budget so they probably can't agree to that. Commissioner Trippler is concerned about the 5-foot setback of the parking lot. Mr. Tacheny stated his family is concerned about the setback as well. Commissioner Trippler stated that if the Tacheny family gave up the 5 feet than they would have a 10-foot setback instead of a 5-foot setback. The homeowner, Mr. Daniel Tacheny, came forward and stated he has no problem with the proposed 5-foot parking lot setback with the 5-8 Club. Commissioner Trippler stated Mr. Tacheny may not have a problem with the setback but if he turned around and sold his property, the new owners may have a problem with the setback and then we have problems. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 -7- Mr. Tacheny stated that the 5-8 Club loses parking on that entire stretch and if they lose that, then they can't open for business. Then we are back to square one. Commissioner Mueller commented that both sides are welcome to discuss the 5 feet on the properties, make a decision, then draw up some new plans and return to another meeting with them at that time. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Tacheny's lot is currently a nonconforming width of 66 feet. Allowing an additional 5 feet of width would only increase that nonconformity. Commissioner Ledvina as'k'ed how snow removal is going to be handled on this site, as it doesn't appear that there is much room to pile snow on the site. Ms. Finwall assumed that the snow would be pushed into the area designed for water retention as well as into some of the right of way. They may have to haul away some of the snow to make more room. Commissioner Dierich commented that the overhang is starting to bow, there are wires hanging out and there is some rotten wood in the entry area. Will the exterior improvements be part of the conditional use permit as well? Ms. Finwall said the exterior would be repaired and fixed up, and the building will be a taupe color with burgundy trim. Commissioner Pearson asked if both air conditioning units will be screened or will they be out in the open? Ms. Finwall stated that was a good question and perhaps the planning commission could make that a condition. The Community Design Review Board will review the air conditioning issue also. Commissioner Mueller made a motion to recommend the land use permits for the 5-8 Club. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Commissioner Dierich wanted it noted she felt they should deny 3. b., to ask the applicant to reconsider the location of the deck because that affects so many other areas. I would vote nay because of the deck location. Commissioner Trippler felt very strongly about the proposed 5-foot parking lot set back but will probably vote yes for the setback because the neighbor has stated his approval with the setback. We are either going to have the setbacks and enforce them or not have setbacks. Commissioner Ledvina suggested that we add on page 7 number 3. an item d. regarding limiting the hours of the deck until 10:00 on Sunday through Thursday and until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Mueller and Commissioner Pearson accepted the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 -8- Chairperson Fischer asked for a vote on 3.b. bo A conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming structure (deck addition) (50-foot setback toward residential property required, 10- foot setback proposed; and a 30-foot front yard setback required, 22-foot setback proposed); Ayes --All Nay- Mary Dierich Motion carried. Chairperson Fischer asked for votes on 1,2,3, a. A comprehensive land use plan amendment from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial modified (B-C(M)); A rezoning from single dwelling residential to business commercial modified (B-C(M)); o a. A conditional use permit to allow a restaurant within the business commercial (modified) (B-C(M)) zoning district; Motion carried. Ayes -- All VI. NEW BUSINESS , a. Sobriety High School Conditional Use Permit (2055 White Bear Avenue) Mr. Roberts stated Sobriety High School is proposing to open their school for 44 students in the existing ASI office/warehouse building at 2055 White BearAvenue. The site is zoned (M-1). This request requires a conditional use permit to be approved by the city council as our city code requires a conditional use permit for any school in any zoning district. The staff felt the school would meet the findings for an approval of a conditional use permit. The school would be leasing about 6,200 square feet of the existing 82,000 square-foot building. With a staff of seven and 44 students, 120 parking spaces on site, 60 in the front of the building, there is adequate parking on site. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant representing Sobriety High School to come forward. The applicant addressed himself as Jim Czarniecki as CEO of Sobriety High School. Mr. Czarniecki stated they are delighted to be moving to Maplewood and he hopes that Maplewood finds their presence an asset rather than a liability. They have had very good relationships with the neighbors in Edina and Oakdale. If there are neighbors that are concerned, we have invited them to come to an informational meeting August 28, 2001, to learn more about Sobriety High and meet some of the students. The entire faculty and staffwill be there as well to answer questions. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 -9- Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Czarniecki how the students get to the program offered at Sobriety High School? Mr. Czarniecki replied that after a student completes a treatment program either for drug or alcohol abuse, the student recognizes after completing treatment that they need a safe and secure place to finish their academic studies. The 68% who complete the program, go on to higher education, the military, and the balance go to work in the workforce. Commissioner Mueller asked what is the success rate in terms of relapse for the students? Mr. Czarniecki stated that.in the last 6 years (which are the years he has very good statistics for) the retention has been about 78%, so relapse in that case would be less than 22%. They do lose some students because they move away and because they academically drop out of school. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Czarniecki what kind of a support system does the school have for the students? Mr. Czamiecki said they have a very small student to staff ratio and they have had less than 5% turnover in the staff. The student has the same teachers for 3 or 4 years depending on which grade they begin at Sobriety High. There is a remarkable bonding and relationship that develops between the student and staff. The families of the students are extremely important to the school. The PTA attendance is 60-80%. Community support is voluntary, the board of directors, and the board of trustees are people who work in the community, support the school and help raise funds for the school. Presently about 55% of the school income comes from private sector contributions. Commissioner Trippler commented that he thinks it is wonderful there are alternatives and other opportunities for trouble youth to get an education. When he looked at the concerns that were expressed from the neighborhood, he sensed the neighbors' concern. One of the comments made by a neighbor was "you are putting our families at risk". How does the school know if a student is on drugs or alcohol? Mr. Czarniecki stated that each campus has a program director and a program assistant who are not faculty members but are involved in counseling the students. Everyday one of the academic periods is devoted to peer counseling and is facilitated by either the program director or program assistant and occasionally by both. During that time there is a discussion about how each student is doing in their recovery program. They also require each of the students to have a sponsor either through alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous or some other outside program. That sponsor has to work with the student and the school as well. They do not require a urine analysis of the students. They provide an environment and condition of trust and they build that trust between the staff and the students. The faculty is not trained in chemical dependency, they do have on-the-job-experience that they have gained by working with the program directors so that they are alert to the signs of abuse. The program is one of self- reporting and if the student does not self-report the abuse within 48 hours their peers are required to report it. It has not failed Sobriety High in the 12 years that they have been in business. Commissioner Trippler asked if a student is identified as being on drugs or on alcohol, what happens then? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 -10- Mr. Czarniecki replied that the student must return to treatment. There are rare cases on a case- by-case basis. If the relapse is explained, it is immediately reported, there is a peer group review, and the staff, faculty and parents review the case. There may be a rare case where a student may be allowed to stay because the reporting was done immediately. Of course the second time the student is expelled from the school. In most cases the first incident of abuse the student is expelled. The students know if they are going to stay at Sobriety High School and receive their diploma, they must remain drug and alcohol free. Commissioner Ahlness stated he noticed in the letter that most of the students do not drive themselves and it is a closed campus, so how does a student get there and are they allowed to leave the building for lunch? Mr. Czarniecki replied that about 2/3 of the students do not drive to school. Some of the senior students do own cars and they may carpool with other students. The remaining students are either dropped off and picked up by the parents, depend on public transportation, or the public school system provides transportation. Under the open enrollment legislation in the State of Minnesota, if the student can make their way to the district 622 border, then the district will transport the student to Sobriety High School. Commissioner Mueller asked how far away the students are coming from? Mr. Czarniecki replied that they are serving eight counties through the two campuses. Commissioner Mueller stated that he and his wife have worked for the public school system for years and he wishes the public school system could enforce the same rules for students as they do at Sobriety High. In regards to one of the comments made by neighbors in the survey"you are putting our families at risk" he himself would rather have kids that have recognized the problem and are doing something about it than kids who haven't recognized the problem and aren't doing anything about it. In other words he would feel safer with Sobriety High School in his backyard then a public high school in his backyard. In his opinion the comment made by one of the neighbors reflects that they really haven't thought the whole thing through. Chairperson Fischer closed the public input portion of this item. Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend approval of Sobriety High School's conditional use permit. Commissioner Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes - All Chairperson Fischer asked staff when this goes to the city council? Mr. Roberts replied September 10, 2001, and he will send out an updated report. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-20-01 -11- VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. August 13, 2001, Mary Dierich represented the City Council meeting. She stated that they looked at the Schroeder Milkeconomic district. She was pleased they were adding 30 jobs at $15 an hour and possible thinking about going national. This was a proposal to do some tax increment financing, and it sounds like the city council was pleased with that and is going to figure out a way to do that. The council asked about having a consultant for the Bush Avenue construction project. The issue with that.was there were not enough staff for the city to be able to do the work as quickly and as well as they would like to. There is a push from the neighborhood to get this done. It was approved to have a $10,000 budget for a consultant to do survey work and do consulting and have this finished this year. Garbage Hauling in North St. Paul went with one garbage hauler contract after doing a study on it. It was discussed to see if Maplewood should do a study as well to see if we should follow the same route North St. Paul did or not. Also a part time officer was hired to patrol Joy Park. That person did such a good job they hired that person and now they have two people to split one full time position. They are now able to outwit the people causing the problems in Joy Park by varying their hours. August 27, 2001, the City Council meeting will be represented by Eric Ahlness, who will replace Mr. Rossbach. Alamo Car Rental conditional use permit, the Farm Zone Code Amendment first reading, and the first reading of the Rezoning Code Amendment will be discussed at the next planning commission meeting. c. September 10, 2001, the City Council meeting will be represented by Ms. Fischer. Sobriety High will be discussed at that meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Follow-up: Because two of the members were not present, they decided to table the tour follow-up until all members are present. b. Reschedule September 3, 2001, meeting to Tuesday, September 4, 2001. Commissioner Trippler stated he would not be available that week. Commissioner Mueller will be late to the meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Schlomka Landscaping, Inc. Paul Schlomka 2511 Carver Avenue August 28, 2001 iNTRODUCTION Background On June 18, 2001, the planning commission directed staff to research possible code amendments to the farm residence zone. The proposed changes were prompted by a request by Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue for a home occupation license to operate a landscape business from a residential property as well as two conditional use permits (CUP) associated with the business including a large accessory building and the storage of commercial vehicles on residential property. As you recall, a majority of the planning commissioners felt that Mr. Schlomka's proposed landscape business would have similar impacts to farming, which is a permitted use within the farm residence-zoning district. Mr. Schlomka's proposal was felt to be a reasonable use of the property considering the lot size of 4.34 acres, lot location adjacent 1-494, and the construction of a pole barn in which to store the commercial vehicles and equipment. The planning commissioners stated, however, that the business did not meet the spirit and intent of the city's home occupation ordinance, which was designed to allow small businesses to operate out of residential homes, and not intended for a business with commercial vehicles. For these reasons, an amendment to the farm residence zone was suggested as a way to allow property owners within the farm residence zone an economical use of their land by permitting businesses other than farming. On August 6, 2001, the planning commission recommended approval of the farm zone code amendment to allow a landscaping business, and other similar businesses, within the farm zone with a CUP. The city council approved the first reading of the proposed code amendment with no opposition at the August 27, 2001, city council meeting. The second reading of the code amendment will take place at the September 10, 2001, city council meeting. Request Mr. Schlomka is requesting the following: A CUP to operate a landscaping business within the farm residence (F) zoning district. Section 36-52 of the city code requires a CUP to operate a landscaping business as an accessory use to a residential property within the farm-residence zoning district. A CUP to build a pole barn larger and taller than the code allows. Mr. Schlomka's proposed pole barn would be 4,224 square feet in area and 18.5 feet in height. Section 36-77 of the city code allows a maximum of 1,250 square feet of combined garage area with a maximum height of 16 feet. Mr. Schlomka presently has an existing 714-square-foot detached garage on his property. The code, therefore, would allow an additional 536 square feet of garage area. The proposed pole barn would be 3,688 square feet larger and 2.5 feet taller than the code allows. (The code does not limit the number of garages allowed on a residential lot, only the total area.) DISCUSSION Farm Zone Amendment To recap the proposed amendment to the farm zone, it was recommended that a landscaping business, and other similar types of businesses, be allowed with a CUP on property of four or more acres. The business must meet the following conditions: 1. The business must be conducted solely within the house or an accessory structure. No exterior storage allowed, including all commercial vehicles, equipment, and supplies associated with the business. 3. An accessory structure associated with the business must maintain the following setbacks: When adiacent residential property: 50 feet from a residential lot line. This setback shall be increased up to 100 feet based on the more restrictive of the following requirements: Building Height: The building setbacks shall be increased two feet for each one-foot the building exceeds 25 feet in height. Exterior Wall Area: Where an exterior wall faces a residentially zoned property, the wall setback from the residential lot line shall be as follows: Wall Area Minimum Setback 0 - 1,999 square feet 2,000 - 2,999 square feet 3,000 or more 50 feet 75 feet 100 feet When adjacent commercial property: Five feet from a commercial lot line. When a business is adjacent residential property or an accessory structure used in the business or other areas of the lot as deemed necessary it must include a 20-foot screening buffer to include one or more of the following: landscape screen, berm, or at least a six-foot high screening fence. When a business is adjacent residential property, any exterior lighting associated with the business must not produce glare on adjacent residential properties or exceed 0.4 foot candles at the property line. 6. No more than one nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. 7. The hours of operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Metal-Exterior Pole Building Metal-exterior pole buildings (pole barns) are permitted within farm residence and industrial zoning districts only. Mr. Schlomka's property is zoned farm residence and therefore a pole barn is allowed. However, the size of the pole barn is limited to the requirements of the city's accessory Paul Schlomka 2 August 28, 2001 structure ordinance. As stated above, due to the existing 714-square-foot detached garage on the lot, Mr. Schlomka could only construct a 536-square-foot pole barn without a CUP. The location of his proposed pole barn will not be visible from the street or surrounding properties and is located in a wooded area located to the north of the house. In preparation for the pole barn, earlier this year Mr. Schlomka constructed a second driveway that will serve as the access to the pole barn. Two berms were created on each side of the driveway, adjacent to Carver Avenue, which the applicant landscaped with evergreen trees. Because of the added berming and landscaping, the size of the lot at 4.34 acres, and the proposed location of the pole barn in a wooded area, the pole barn will not be visible from the street or surrounding properties. For this reason, the structure itself should not pose a negative impact on surrounding properties. Landscape Business '-- Mr. Schlomka is the sole employee in the business with no customers coming to the property. The business is run from the house with the commercial vehicles and equipment proposed to be stored entirely in the pole barn. There are currently several commercial vehicles stored in the woods in the back yard with a dirt stockpile on the north end of the property. Mr. Schlomka states that this dirt was used in his grading and driveway project, but that he also uses it for his business. The farm zone amendment states that exterior storage of equipment or vehicles associated with the business is not allowed. Therefore, a condition of approval should state that the dirt stockpile must be removed from the property. Neighborhood Comment The neighbor most affected by the pole barn and business is the easterly adjacent property owner, Jay Libby, of 2591 Carver Avenue. Mr. Libby supports the business and pole barn requests and states that Mr. Schlomka has a proven record of property stewardship, property maintenance, with an obvious concern for appearance. He also states that the proposal is an excellent use of the property, particularly since it is a large lot that abuts 1-494. Two other neighbors located to the east of Mr. Schlomka expressed some concern over the proposal including: screening of the large building, glare from exterior lighting, pollution issues including oil from commercial vehicles and other vehicle emissions, noise, and landscape materials being dumped and/or stored on the property. To alleviate their concerns, they have suggested that Mr. Schlomka install mature evergreen trees and/or a 6-footohigh fence along the east side of the pole barn for screening, move the garage doors from the east side of the pole barn to the west side (toward the freeway), require that no lighting is allowed on the east side of the pole barn, and restrict business hours. Mr. Schlomka is aware of the neighbors' concerns and has stated that he is willing to make all necessary accommodations to ensure that the business or pole barn does not pose a negative impact on their properties. He has agreed to install mature evergreen trees along the east side of the pole bam, relocate the doors from the east side to the south side (neighbors had suggested relocation to the west side but Mr. Schlomka is concerned about vandalism and would like the doors to be visible from the house), and has agreed to a condition that the CUP for the landscape business not be transferable. These items should all be conditions of approval. In addition, with the conditional use process, further restrictions are placed on the business which will help protect the surrounding residential properties. Paul Schlomka 3 August 28, 2001 CONCLUSION With the initial home occupation request, staff felt that a landscape business within residentially- zoned land made for poor land use practice because of the possibility of added employees, extended hours, and possible expansion. Many of these concerns were based on past negative experiences with similar types of businesses adjacent residential property. The two problem properties specified in the original staff report were located at 2036 English Street and 2335 Stillwater Road. It should be noted, however, that both of these properties were approved for large accessory structures only and the businesses resulted after the accessory structures were constructed. Therefore, there were no initial controls limiting the businesses. With the strict controls of th~' (::UP process as specified in the farm-residence zone amendment, as well as the location and lot size on which the business is proposed, staff now feels comfortable that Mr. Schlomka's business will not have a negative impact on surrounding residential properties. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a landscape business within the farm-residence zoning district for Paul Schlomka at 2511 Carver Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: a. The business must be conducted solely within the house or an accessory structure. bo No exterior storage is allowed, including all commercial vehicles, equipment, and supplies associated with the business. The existing dirt stockpile must be removed. Co No more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. do The landscape business hours of operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Any exterior lighting associated with the business must not produce glare on adjacent residential properties or exceed 0.4 foot candles at the property line. The conditional use permit is specifically for Paul Schlomka and Schlomka Landscaping and is not transferable to a new property owner. g. The conditional use permit will be reviewed by the city council again in one year. Adopt the resolution on pages 18 and 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a pole barn in the farm-residence zoning district. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: a. The pole barn is limited in size to 4,224 square feet in area and 18.5 feet in height. The pole barn must maintain at least a 50-foot setback from the adjacent residential property. Paul Schlomka 4 August 28, 2001 Co The pole barn must be constructed with the garage doors facing south or west. The site plan will be changed to reflect that the second driveway does not extend beyond the east wall of the pole barn. The applicant is required to plant a staggered row of 12, 6-foot high evergreens along the east side of the new driveway and pole barn. Location and species to be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Paul Schlomka 5 August 28, 2001 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the property owners within 350 feet of this site to get their opinions of this proposal. Out of the six properties we surveyed, four responses were received. Of the four, three approved of the proposal and one opposed. Approvals Written statement from Eleanor and George Ledo, 2510 Carver Avenue East: .... Go ahead and build his pole barn (good luck)." Written statement from Jay t'~by, 2591 Carver Avenue East: "1 support Paul Schlomka's request for the construction of a 48' x 88' building for commercial vehicle storage, and his request for a home occupation permit. Our properties have a common boundary line, his Eastern and my Western. I see this proposal as excellent usage for this property that is up against Interstate 494. This usage will allow the open areas that we have all come to enjoy to continue, and will keep a contractor, that we all need from time to time, located without our community, and readily accessible to our needs. Mr. Schlomka has a proven record of property stewardship, maintaining his property very well, with an obvious concern for appearance. I see no reason to believe that his new project will be any different." Written statement from Patty Gearin, 2575 Carver Avenue East: "1 would only okay it if Mr. Schlomka would put pine trees covering the east side between my land and his. It would be the side of the building facing me. In that: for the trees to be of a larger size! Not just starter trees." Opposed Telephone call from Bob Woog, 2595 Carver Avenue: Mr. Woog is concerned about the possible pollution the Schlomka business will create including noise, oil and other emissions, and landscape materials being dumped on the property. He is not in favor of a large pole barn being constructed within a residential neighborhood, but if it does get built he suggests evergreen trees and a screening fence on the east side of the pole barn, and requiring the garage doors to be constructed on the west side of the building facing the freeway, as opposed to facing the residential properties. If the city council allows a business on the property, the hours of work that the business can run from the pole barn should be limited. The amount of light emitted from the pole barn or surrounding the pole barn should be limited. Paul Schlomka 6 August 28, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 4.34 Acres Single Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES West: -NoAh, South, East: Interstate 494 Single Family Homes PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) F (Farm Residence) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT Section 36-77(a) allows a maximum of 1,250 square feet of combined detached garage area on lots that are 42,000 square feet or greater. Section 36-77(b) allows a maximum height of accessory structures to be 16 feet. Section 36-42(5) requires a conditional use permit for a landscape business, or other similar business, within the farm-residence zoning district. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL See attached CUP requirements and standards for approval. APPLICATION DATE Mr. Schlomka submitted completed land use applications on May 18, 2001. In order to allow the city time to research and make a recommendation on possible changes to the farm residence- zoning district, on June 22, 2001, Mr. Schlomka waived his 60-day rights as specified by Minnesota Statututes, Section 15.99. P:Sec 24-28~2511 Carver Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Location Map Zoning/Property Line Map Site Plan Building Elevations Building Footprint Paul Schlomka Letter Dated May 16, 2001 Conditional Use Permit Standards for Approval Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Landscape Business Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Accessory Structure Paul Schlomka 7 August 28, 2001 Attachment 1 ~,MSEY HINGTON CO. CO. II LOCATION MAP ./ Attachment 2 Attachment 3 / / Acres ?9%6' ..I ProposeCl Storage Build;fl(~ /C~r~ 8un~ m/Pine Street SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 4 Trusses 4' centers per store code Iooding 29' color clod steel roof treoted poles 4' in ground with concrete under eoch 19'-8" overoge roof height 2x4 roof Perlins 12'x10' steel overheod door 12'x 14' steel overheod door 12'x14' steel overheod door All Colored steel 48' Scole: 3/32" = 1'-0" BUILDING ELEVATIONS 11 0 O~ O~ O~ ~X ~X ~X O~ O~ O~ O-- O-- O-- Attachment 5 BUILDING FOOTPRINT 12 Attachment 6 May 16, 2001 Reference: Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission City of Maplexvood 1830 County Road B East ~laplewood, MN 55109 Dear Sir or Madam: I am requesting that you alloxv us to construct the proposed Storage and Maintenance Building as shown on the attached site plan. The building will be 88'x48' in size, and will be constructed a good distance from Carver Avenue so as not to hinder the current appearance from the street. I would like this building for storage and maintenance of equipment for mx' small one man landscaping business I have to serve our local communim I have spoken to our neighbors about this and the}? have no concerns regarding the construction of this building. With that, I ask that you approve our request. Sincerely, Paul Schlomka 2511 Carver Avenue Maplexvood, MN 55119 13 Attachment 7 § 36-441 MAPLEWOOD CODE (d) The city council may approve, amend or deny an application for a conditional use permit by a n~ority vote. (e) All decisions by the city council shall be final, except that any person aggrieved by a decision may, within thirty (30) days of the decision, appeal to the county district court. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 36-442. Standards. (a) A conditional use permit may be approved, amended or de- nied based on the foiiow~ng stanclarcts tbr approval~ in addition t~ any standards for a specific conditional use found in this chapter: (1) Supp. No. 8 The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's compre- hensive plan and Code of Ordinances. (2) The use Would not change the existing or planned char- acter of the surrounding area. (3) The use would not depreciate property values. (4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dan- gerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nui- sance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water of air pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. (5) The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or un- safe access on existing or proposed streets. (6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. (7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. (8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorpo- rate the site's natural and scenic features into the devel- opment design. 2304 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 14 ZONING § 36-443 (9) The use would cause minimal adverse environmental ef- fects. (10) The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. (b) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the use would meet all of the standards required for approval of a condi- tional use Permit. The city may require the applicant provide, at his or her cost, any information, studies or expert testimony nec- essary to establish whether these standards would be met or to establish conditions for approval. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 36-443. Conditions. (a) The city council, in granting a conditional use permit, may impose such conditions and guarantees that it considers neces- sary, and as supported by the record of the proceedings, to protect adjacent properties and the public interest, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. (b) Conditions and guarantees may include but are not limited to the following: (1) Controlling the number, area, bulk, height, illumination and location of such uses. (2) Regulating access to the property, with particular refer- ence to vehicle and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic control and emergency vehicle access. (3) Regulating off-street parking and loading areas, including the number and width of parking spaces. (4) The location and design of utilities, including drainage. (5) Bermlng, fencing, screening and landscaping, including un- derground sprinkling. (6) Compatibility of appearance with surrounding land uses. (7) Preservation of the site's natural, historic and scenic fea- tures in the development design. Supp. No. 8 2305 ]5 ATTACHMENT 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Paul Schlomka applied for a conditional use permit to operate a landscaping business within a farm residence zoning district; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2511Carver Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Subject to HWY AVE and Easements, Part of Southeasterly of Northwesterly L of SD HVVY of W % of NW ¼ of NE 1/, of SEC 24, TN 28, RN 22. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is 24-28-22-12-0005; WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: I On September 4, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. o 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. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 7. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The business must be conducted solely within the house or an accessory structure. No exterior storage is allowed, including all commercial vehicles, equipment, and supplies associated with the business. The existing dirt stockpile must be removed. 3. No more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. 16 o The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on The landscape business hours of operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Any exterior lighting associated with the business must not produce glare on adjacent residential properties or exceed 0.4 foot candles at the property line. The conditional use permit is specifically for Paul Schlomka and Schlomka Landscaping and is not transferable to a new property owner. The conditional use permit will be reviewed by the city council again in one year. ,2001. 17 ATTACHMENT 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Paul Schlomka applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 4,224-square-foot pole barn within a farm-residence zoning district; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2511 Carver Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Subject to HWY AVE and Easements, Part of Southeasterly of Northwesterly L of SD HWY of W % of NW ¼ of NE ¼ of SEC 24, TN 28, RN 22. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is 24-28-22-12-0005. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On September 4, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 2. 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. 6. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 7. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: The pole barn is limited in size to 4,224 square feet in area and 18.5 feet in height. The pole barn must maintain at least a 50-foot setback from the adjacent residential property. The pole barn must be constructed with the garage doors facing south or west. 18 o The site plan will be changed to reflect that the second driveway does not extend beyond the east wall of the pole barn. The applicant is required to plant a staggered row of 12, 6-foot high evergreens to along the east side of the new driveway and pole barn. Location and species to be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ~,2001. 19 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Alley Vacation West of 63 Kingston Avenue East August 28, 2001 INTRODUCTION Kristin Borowske is asking th~'city council to vacate an unused alley. This vacation is for the alley that is between the properties at 49 and 63 Kingston Avenue. Please see the maps on pages three through five and the statement on page six. DISCUSSION Ms. Borowske is requesting this vacation because the city and the neighbors will not need or have a use for the alley. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use this right-of-way for an alley. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page seven. This resolution vacates the unused alley that is between the properties at 49 and 63 Kingston Avenue. The city should vacate this alley because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build an alley in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. SITE DESCRIPTION Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Saint Paul water utility property East: House at 63 Kingston Avenue South: Kingston Avenue West: House at 49 Kingston Avenue REFERENCE p:secl 8/63kings.vac Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Statement 5. Vacation Resolution 2 Attachment 1 LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 k & PUMPING STATION CITY OF ST. PAUL SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES PLANT )POSED ALLEY VACATION: ~NC~TON KINGSTON AVENUE PROPERTY LINE MAP ~ PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION 4 Attachment 3 SITE PLAN Attachment 4 Part I Kristin R Borowske and Richard C. Horvath are requesting vacation of the alley between lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and lots 5, 6, 7, 8 of Block 2, St. Aubin and Dion's Rice Street Addition to the City of St. Paul, Mi~mesota. We are the two property owners that abut this alley. Together, we feel there is no need nor ever xvill be a public need for this alley. Our lots will not chm~ge to house additional homeowners. The St. Paul Water Purification Plant is to the North of our properties and therefore it is believed additional residential lots xvill not be built there, either. We feel that an alley will never be built for access to other residential homes. In addition, an alley is not needed for our properties, as both our garages face Kingston Avenue. Part II Property owners that abut alley: Kristin R. Borowske 63 Kingston Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55117 Richard C. Horvath 49 Kingston Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55117 Part III Application fee enclosed; $65.00 from each homeowner. In addition, a $15.00 check from Kristin Borowske for recording City resolution. Part IV Map - attached Part V Signed petition of property owners - attached 6 Attachment 5 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Kristin Borowske applied for the vacation of the following-described alley: The alley in Block 2, between Lots 1-4 and Lots 5-8 that is north of the north right-of-way line of Kingston Avenue as platted as part of St. Aubin and Dion's Rice Street Addition in Section 18, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On September 4, .2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. On September 24, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: Lots 1-4, Block 2, St. Aubin and Dion's Rice Street Addition (63 Kingston Avenue) (PIN 18-29- 22-34-0015.) Lots 5-8, Block 2, St. Aubin and Dion's Rice Street Addition (49 Kingston Avenue) (PIN 18-29- 22-34-0016.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The city and the applicant have no plans to build an alley in this location. The adjacent properties have street access. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001.