Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 20, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February4,2002 5. Public Hearing None New Business a. Maplewood Toyota Conditional Use Permit Revision (2783 Maplewood Drive) b. St. Jeromes Conditional Use Permit Revision (380 Roselawn Avenue) c. Code Amendment - Pawn Shops and Currency Exchange Businesses d. Planning Commission's 2002 Annual Report e. Election of Officers 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. February 11 Council Meeting: ?? b. February 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson c. March 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness 9. Staff Presentations 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: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 II. III. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eric Ahlness Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Present Present Present Present Present Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for December 17, 2001. Commissioner Ledvina had a change to page 19 of the minutes. Please delete the first sentence of the first paragraph; it is a repeat sentence from the previous page, bottom paragraph. Chairperson Fischer had a change in the fifth paragraph also on page 19. The sentence should say document the measure instead of documented. Commissioner Trippler asked for clarification of the third paragraph on page 4. Commissioner Ahlness clarified it should say what is the legal justification for having garages come directly up to the property line? T ............ --r .................. -T ...... V= VI. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -2- Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler PUBLIC HEARING Abstention - Dierich None. NEW BUSINESS a= Carriage Homes of Maple Hills 907 Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) 2. 3. 4. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Code Variation - Street right-of-way width Code Variation - Street pavement width Preliminary Plat Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex Homes, is proposing to develop a 100-unit development (PUD) called the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. There are a total of 12 buildings, eight 10-unit buildings, one 8-unit building, and three 4-unit buildings'. It would be on a 20.5-acre site on the north side of Parkway Drive on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course. The proposed development includes 12 buildings encircled around a pond as well as a new city street built to accommodate these homes and a sidewalk for pedestrian use. The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, asphalt shingles and vinyl trim, shutters and fascia boards. There would also be a partial main level brick veneer wainscot on the front and sides. There are four wetlands on the site that will be preserved and the applicant must obtain permits from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District for this. Other prominent features of this site include the rolling topography and the mature trees. The topography will be substantially altered; there will be a lot of grading, cutting and fill that will take place to make room for the road and the home sites. There are 150 large trees on this site, about half of which will be removed. However, the applicant will be replacing these with 139 new trees and replanting about 21 trees as part of the landscaping plan. The applicant is asking for a planned unit development (PUD) because half of the site is located within the shoreland boundary of Round Lake and any number of units over four requires a planned unit development (PUD) to be approved. Also a variation from the street- width requirement, right-of-way going from 60 feet wide down to 50 feet wide, narrowing of the pavement width from 32 feet to 24 feet, and an approval of a preliminary plat. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 02-04-02 The Community Design Review Board will meet February 12, 2002. They will look at items such as the landscaping, building design, street lighting, fencing, visitor parking, tree replacement, and screening, which are primarily aesthetic issues. Staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development (PUD). This proposal would be compatible with the surrounding single-family homes and town homes, the office as well as the cemetery. The city has seen other developments in Maplewood where town homes are often built near or as part of a single-family development. Recently there has been the new century addition in south Maplewood that is building both types of housing units within their project. The proposed density is less than half of what the land use plan allows. The applicant is proposing 100 units, but they could build 213 units. There are concerns about property values raised, by some of the neighbors. The Ramsey County assesSor's office explained to the staff that there should not be any negative effect on property values as long as the site is well maintained. Also by regular reviews by the city due to the planned unit development (PUD) requirement as well as the homeowner documents that must be filed, the city can make sure that there is proper maintenance. One of the issues that was raised in the staff report was traffic. This development would add 400 to 500 vehicle trips a day to Parkway Drive according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers and also according to Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. Currently, Parkway Drive has 9,300 vehicle trips a day according to current counts per Dan Solar. Mr. Solar feels that the increase will not have a measurable effect on traffic operations for Parkway Drive. It is a minor arterial and designed to hold additional traffic. Regarding open space, some residents requested that this land be preserved as open space. The Open Space Committee did not identify this property for preservation in the early 1990s. They took a look at many sites in Maplewood but did not consider this one of those properties that the city should obtain to hold for open space. Staff also feels that the area is adequately served with open space and parks. The site abuts the Gateway Trail, and it is also close to nearby parks such as Round Lake, Phalen Lake, Keller Lake and the Keller Golf Course. Regarding wetlands, there are four wetlands on this site. Three of these wetlands are classified as class 5 by the watershed district, and that is the least significant class of wetland. This does not require a buffer around it. The fourth wetland that is the smaller wetland at the northwest corner of the site is classified as a class 4 wetland by the watershed district. This wetland must have an average of 25-foot wide no disturb buffer around it and there is room for that to be accommodated. Regarding the street right of way with reduction and the narrower street, staff favors this request. It is one that staff has accommodated in the past such as Oakridge, and Maplewood's Highwood's Estates Four just, to name a few. The Fire Marshal, Butch Gervais, supports this proposal as long as the requirements of the uniform fire code are met and he feels that they would be. Primarily the city does not want any parking along the street so there would not be any obstruction for emergency vehicles. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 As for the preliminary plat, this development is proposed to be subdivided into twelve lots for each of the twelve buildings, and also five outlots. The building layout would be designated as a common interest community. The developer in this instance would sell separate units wall to wall; there is no individual landownership however. Each building site therefore, becomes one lot. The recently approved Afton Ridge Townhouse development that is currently under construction was laid out in this fashion. The advantage to the developer is that there is only one sewer and one water hookup to each building. Staff sees no problem as long as the homeowner's documents specify the parties responsible for maintenance. The proposed lot has five outlots. Specifically out-lots B and C are areas around the wetlands. A is the open space area with the trail to the Gateway and outlot D is the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive between Parkway Drive and the ponding area near the center of the site. The developer is proposing that the homeowner's association own and maintain these four out lots and each out-lot have a drainage and utility easement over it. In addition the city should require the developer to record an eighteen-foot wide pedestrian easement over that part of outlot A that will have the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail. The last outlot to mention is outlot E and that is around the commercial building at 905 Parkway Drive. The developer is proposing to deed this outlot to the owners of the office building to better clarify the ownership of the parking lot and the green space areas around the parking lot. Mr. Ekstrand said there are some code changes on page 9. Under item c. it should say Rear- yard setback: 50 feet. Also under item d. it should say Side-yard setback (town houses): Minimum - 20 feet to a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. This is per the ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said staff is reCommending the approval of the resolution in the staff report on pages 8 through 12, items A through D. Commissioner Trippler said something that bothered him about this proposal is the issue of 200 cars coming in and going out of this proposed development on Parkway Drive. He travels this route every day and there is less than five seconds to pull out and speed up to merge into traffic. Even when it was a golf course it was a dangerous intersection. There is a statement in the staff report on page 34, number 5 that says there is going to be no impact on traffic. This project will not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on Parkway Drive or on other adjacent streets. Commissioner Trippler asked What that was based on? Chris Cavett, the assistant city engineer, said one thing that was not part of the review for the staff report was the comments from Dan Solar the traffic engineer. His comments were, as Mr. Ekstrand specified, that Mr. Solar did not see that there would be a measurable effect on the traffic operations on Parkway Drive. Mr. Cavett said he thinks Mr. Trippler has some reason for concern about the comfort of the people trying to leave the site. The most critical times will be leaving in the morning during rush hour with people trying to exit with people trying to take left turns out of the site. One thing the city looked at was where there are similar situations like this one around the city of Maplewood. As an example, he looked at half a dozen sites where there are similar situations. One is McMenemy Street North at Larpenteur Avenue. There are 1200 vehicles per day entering onto McMenemy Street North and Larpenteur Avenue with 9,000 vehicles per day traveling with no traffic signals and only a stop sign. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -5- On McKnight Road just south of Larpentuer Avenue there are three examples that include Nebraska Avenue, Arlington Avenue and Montana Avenue. These are definitely not great comfort situations but they do work and that stretch of McKnight Road has 13,000 vehicles a day. Looking at those areas, and the judgment of the county engineer, the city engineers felt this was acceptable. One thing that was not a recommendation in the plan review, and maybe should be considered is providing a left-turn and a right-turn exit to this development. This takes some pressure off the left turning vehicles having a right turning vehicle behind them. The critical movement is going to be the left turning movement in the morning heading towards Highway 61. Commissioner Trippler said looking at the map on page 21 of the staff report, one of the things that caught his attention that did not seem right was this diagram does not capture the problem at this intersection. What he is referring to is where it shows Frost Avenue coming in above Round Lake. You need to drop Frost Avenue down about two inches on the map to come at an angle into Parkway Drive, and then it drops in elevation from Highway 61 about three feet and does about a 30 degree turn and straightens out at the second house from where the proposed driveway is. Not only do you have a turn, but also you have a drop in elevation at the same time. This means if you are sitting out there, and you are trying to get out, the best you can hope for is to see something that is just coming through that 30-degree turn. That gives you about a second and a half to respond. It is mind boggling just to get through this intersection when there is a green light because of people traveling down Highway 61 who think that the red light for them means that they are supposed to slow down to 30 m.p.h, when they make a right- hand turn onto Parkway Drive. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if there is any possibility of exiting this development north of the cemetery? There is supposed to be a Kingston Street that was never built. Do we still have the right of way there? Mr. Cavett said no, that has been vacated, he did check the maps, but he does not know at what time, however, that street is being used by the cemetery. There is an easement in there, and a sanitary sewer line, but as far as the city is aware that has been vacated. One thing worth noting, at least as the grades are shown on the development, there is a considerable grade differenCe between the cemetery and this proposed development. It may be feasible, but there is a considerable grade difference. Commissioner Trippler asked if the exit could be moved further to the south, on the south side where that business currently resides. That would at least give people trying to get in and trying to get out another couple of seconds to see whether there are cars coming or not. Is that a possibility? Mr. Cavett said that it is not feasible. According to the space that they own, there really is not enough width there to provide a full width right-of-way. That means some additional property would have to be acquired by either the office building or the adjacent property on the corner. The other thing that would have to be questioned, which would be a question for the county traffic engineer, is whether or not a road entrance is getting too close to Larpenteur Avenue, which is something they want to avoid. This entrance, the way they have it proposed, is centered fairly between Highway 61 and Larpentuer Avenue. Commissioner Dierich said she is troubled by the traffic situation as well. She read in one of Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -6- the reports the traffic is one way going in and another report she read they had changed it to two ways. She is assuming the two ways is correct. Mr. Ekstrand said yes it is two ways. Commissioner Dierich said she is very concerned there is only one exit out of this proposed development for this many people. The other developments that the City of Maplewood has with that kind of density, that she has seen recently come across the planning commission, have had two exits out. She believes that these driveways are so narrow of an area, and with that density of people, that area will be problematic overtime. In her neighborhood if you back a truck up, you are either going to hit a mailbox, or drive up on somebody's grass trying to back up. She said it looks like the fire marshal is not requiring this proposed development to have a turn around at the end of any of these driveways between the buildings, which surprises her. Mr. Ekstrand said that is a good point. The fire marshal often does require a turn around and he is not sure why it was not mentioned in this instance, but he will certainly check further into it and get a better clarification on that point. Commissioner Ledvina had questions on the over all drainage for this property. Currently it is open space and there is going to be a large amount of impervious surface added. They will probably be increasing the total amount of runoff by 30% to 50%. Mr. Cavett said there is definitely going to be an increase in volume running to the pond itself. Basically the site is self-contained and a lot of the green area is all infiltration area. Obviously when you add impervious surface, driveways, roofs, roads, that will change. It is proposed that the volume of the pond will be revised as part of this proposed development. The applicant is following the guidelines put forth by the city and the watershed district on how to treat land- locked water-bodies and they far exceed those requirements. The properties are not in any danger of being damaged by floods or anything like that. What the city is concerned about is the over run and how to treat this as a maintenance issue? There is a possibility that they may experience a cycle of a lot of wet periods. The city might have to look at pumping to bring those water levels down and maintain that storage. So one of the engineering requirements is to provide a force main so the city can connect to it if they ever have to pump this. The runoff to the pond shall increase but the volume is also being increased. Commissioner Ledvina said that is one of his major concerns here, and currently as he understands how this is setup, there is a scenario where this wetland infiltrates the surface water with this development. You will increase the volume very significantly. He would also think there would be an increase in silt and other sediments going into this wetland and thereby making it more impervious to the water that is entering this area. The fact thatthis is awetland means that the city can't go in and maintain it, at least that is his understanding. He is wondering what the long-term implication of that is. Mr. Cavett said that is obviously one of the city's concerns when they look ara plan likethis. A few things that are proposed, and are required, are a number of the catch basin structures that Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -7- lead into the pond are designed to be sump-manholes. Essentially that means that they are able to pick up that heavy grit and rocks that get washed into the storm system. Fine materials do not get washed into the system and would continue to go into the pond. His understanding is that a class 5 pond is looked at as a storm water pond and it can be cleaned out if necessary as long as it is not altered, which means sediment can be removed if it's deemed necessary. Commissioner Ledvina said number 3 is the big wetland in the center of this development and if he is reading the grading plan correctly, it does appear that there is grading within the limits of the wetland as defined by the environmental consultant for the applicant. He did not see any mention of that in the staff report, and if he is reading the ordinance correctly, he does not believe that is allowed. When you talk about the limit of the wetland, it does not allow that. Is this a variance, if this is the case? Mr. Ekstrand said you are correct. There should be no grading within the bounds of a class 5 wetland. There is no buffer requirement around a class wetland 5 but from the delineation it should not be touched. Commissioner Ledvina asked if he is reading the grading plan wrong then? Mr. Cavett said you are reading the grading plan correctly. It is showing a mitigation of the wetland that is allowed by the watershed, and he is not sure how that fits with the ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said that is something the city can explore further. If the watershed district is in favor of doing this, the city can make sure it complies with the code. If it doesn't, then it would be a variance situation. Commissioner Ledvina said the commission has had that discussion many times and the watershed is evaluating various proposals, but the fact is, there are ordinances within the city that are being looked at, and the watershed does not uphold the city's ordinances. He thinks there have been conflicts in this regard before. He has. questions on the shoreland district. Is there a requirement for maximum percentage of impervious surface? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, it is in the staff report, but he did not mention it in his presentation. The maximum the applicant is allowed is 50% impervious surface, and the applicant is meeting that. Commissioner Ledvina asked what is the calculation? Do you know what percentage of impervious surface they have? Mr. Ekstrand said he did not write the report so he did not check that himself, but he did check with the author of the report and he said the applicant demonstrated it and that they are meeting it. They are very close to the 50% mark and it was added as a condition of verification in the recommendation. Commissioner Trippler said several years ago the commission had an applicant who came in that wanted to develop a parcel of land very close to this down from Highway 61. As he Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -8- remembers that discussion, the commission did not approve his application. It was in the shoreland designation that he could not have more than impervious surface, and he couldn't be so many feet away from the nearest boundary. Like Mr. Ledvina, he fails to see in the staff report any discussion about all of those special characteristics on this development that are on the east side of the line that practically goes through the middle of this project. It appears to him this has been overlooked. Mr. Ekstrand said it was addressed on page 3 of the staff report with the shoreland district regulations at the bottom of the page. It discusses the synopsis that the applicant is meeting that would need to be reviewed and considered as part of the shoreland ordinance. One is the 50% impervious surface. A lot of this deals with the view from the lake, and though this site is in the shoreland ordinance, it is not visible from the lakeshore. If it was, then there would be very strict requirements such as screening requirements, building height, etc. He knows Mr. Ken Roberts looked into these items. Perhaps the applicant can address these items when he gets the chance to speak. Commissioner Trippler said he appreciates the fact that it itemizes the things that should be considered, but then it says to look at pages 36 to 39. When he looks at those pages, he does not see those issues addressed. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they could direct the commission to the pertinent paragraphs and series of pages? Mr. Ekstrand said pages 36 to 39 are Mr. Cavett's review of the grading, erosion control, street issues, drainage storm sewers, and sanitary sewer matters which the staff feels are all matters that need to be addressed by the applicant before they can get a permit to start. His understanding is that those matters are fairly well satisfied, but these are issues that need to be more finely tuned before a building permit can be issued. In terms of the shoreland ordinance, he is not quite sure what more Mr. Trippler would like of staff in that regard. Commissioner Trippler said on page 3 of the report, the'first bulleted item says at least fifty 50% of the project area is to remain as open space. Where in the report, other than the sentence that states "the city engineer is satisfied with the plans" does the commission find that information? It says, see the engineer's comments on pages 36 to 39 of the report, so he would like someone to show him where it says that. Commissioner Rossbach said in the actual resolution on page 46 of the report, in the first paragraph a. (1) it says at least fifty (50) percent of project area (10.25 acres) remaining as open space. It indicates that the plan has to be drawn to indicate that that is the case. So, ultimately if the commission was to vote for this project, you would be saying that at least 50% of it has to be open space. So, they don't have to present the calculation that tells you what it is. Because you are saying that if it is approved, 50% of it will be open space. Commissioner Trippler asked about building heights. Commissioner Rossbach said that would not be in effect because that only takes effect if you can actually see the buildings from the lake. Commissioner Dierich said that there is something in the report that says 25 feet maximum. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -9- Commissioner Rossbach said yes, but it does not take effect unless you can see the buildings from the lake. Commissioner Trippler said that same issue came up with the property that the applicant wanted to build on Highway 61, and the commission said it doesn't make any difference. Commissioner Rossbach Said that's because itwas directly across the street and you could see it from the lake. Commissioner Pearson asked on the reduced width streets, are the curb and gutter surmountable? Mr. Cavett said that is not a condition that the engineers have made of the plan, it would not be a necessity. Commissioner DieriCh asked what is the actual dry land that is buildable in this development and how does that relate to how many units there are? Mr. Ekstrand said he does not have that figure handy. Commissioner Dierich said she would like that information. This is a lot of wetland in this development and it seems to her that the applicant is packing in a fair number of houses on very little buildable land. Chairperson Fischer said that is why at one point, they were considering whether recommending or requiring plan unit developments (PUD) on certain types of environmentally- sensitive sites. If you prohibit much development you run into the takings laws. Constitutionally you cannot deprive someone of all use of his or her lands. So, that is why in some instances you might have had someone saying you could put in a number of units but it was kinder to the environment to be putting them in as town homes or as apartments rather than single-family detached homes. And depending on the acreage and the peculiarities of the site, you get a different scenario for each particular site. Commissioner Dierich said she is still troubled by the number of the units and the request to make the roads narrower, not for aesthetic reasons it doesn't seem, but more for how many units can we get into this parcel of land? The other question she had is that in the report it was 74 mature trees being replaced. Is that with one to one or is that one 6-foot tree for every mature tree that is being replaced? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, for each tree the applicant replaces it would be a smaller tree of course, but it would be considerably more than one to one. It will be more like three to one trees planted. To answer your question on the acreage, if you take away the ponding areas, staff has no way of knowing, other than to guess, as to how many acres that those encompass but he guesses 4 acres approximately. With the one hundred units that are proposed, it would come to 6.25 units per acre verses 4.9. Commissioner Dierich asked if there are going to be some retaining walls on the southwest edge? There were some mentioned in the report and in the past, if the developer didn't put it Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -10- in, it was tough luck for the people moving in. And if it is not shown on the plans right now, where does it get inserted on the plans, and who enforces that? Mr. Ekstrand said he did not believe there were any retaining walls proposed right now. Mr. Cavett said yes, there are some retaining walls shown on the grading plan, and one of the engineering conditions is that it is a requirement of the developer unless a special arrangement is made with a particular builder. Often, there are a number of builders on the site and in this case there may be one builder, and it may make sense to have the builder do it. But for the engineers, the condition is so the developer can do it. Commissioner Ahlness asked Mr. Cavett about page 37 in the engineering report. You say that two-to-one slopes will not be permitted in this development and they have to go to three-to- one slopes. Looking at the development plan and the size of that wetland, will that significantly change that picture? Is that picture still accurate enough to present to this commission. What that will look like? Or would that take up roughly a third amount of space that would cause them to re-look at the size of the buildings and road structure etc. Did you look at that? Mr. Cavett said yes he did. It will be up to the developer and their engineer to make sure they can obtain the three to one slopes maximum. One option that is referred to is, to do some type of natural retaining wall like with maybe a row of boulders to step down. He has looked at that and those grades are possible, but if they need to, they will have to adjust the road, and if they have to adjust units to accomplish that, then they will have to do that. Commissioner Ahlness said in your professional opinion it may be possible to continue with the development as designed and still achieve the three-to-one slope, but it might cause some more intensive work like step downs with boulders to achieve that more aesthetically pleasing look instead of just a slope? Mr. Cavett said that is correct. Commissioner Ahlness said Mr. Ekstrand had mentioned earlier that this site was not considered for open spaces back in the early 1990s. Were any golf courses considered as open space at that time? Mr. Ekstrand said that is probably a good point. A golf course probably was not looked at as open space because it was open space and it was a golf course presently at that time. It is the way the city tends to address the question, which is, leave it as open space. The city always looked at what the open space committee considered. Staff was looking at it from the standpoint that there is quite a bit of open space and parkland in the general vicinity. Especially with the Gateway Trail abutting it on the north, that is quite a nice link. Commissioner Ahlness said a more accurate statement would be, staff does not feel there should be additional open space in the area, not that this parcel was not considered as a good option for open space, because no golf courses were considered for open space at that time. Mr. Ekstrand said he is guessing that is the fact. He thinks both statements are true, but Mr. Ahlness is probably right that golf courses probably were not considered for open space. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 02-04-02 Commissioner Ahlness asked what commercial uses that were open were considered for open space so that when the commission hears about that in the future they know whether it would be considered or not. If it was an open field next to a place that was used to park trucks, would that be considered for purchase for open space at that time or not? Mr. Ekstrand said he was not directly involved. He thinks they looked at larger tracts of land that really had no use specifically. If you look at some of the properties that the city has purchased up to this point, they really are undeveloped pieces of land. Golf courses are kind of a holding use. It is developed, but then again it is not that developed. It is sort of waiting for the next thing to happen. Commissioner Ahlness asked if it would be fair to say the original open space committee looked at undeveloped land and now as the city is looking at redevelopment of land it may be that conclusions reached by that committee are no longer the case? Commissioner Rossbach said he is not sure why the commission is referring to the open space committee. The committee has spent all the money in the open space fund. If the city wants to consider doing a referendum to get more money for more open space, then it would be a whole different thing. The situation is, the city does not have any money to spend to buy up land at this point. Why they keep mentioning the open space thing doesn't make sense. It is a done deal. Commissioner Ahlness said just to clarify, on attachment 13 on page 35 of the staff report it says the applicant wants to dispense of the tot lot, but in the program that was handed out to the commission, the applicant said they want it. What was the final decision on that? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant does not want to put the tot lot in. Peter Knable is a civil engineer with Terra Engineering at 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis 55422. He is representing the developer, and he addressed the commission. One issue that was brought up was the traffic. They concur with the staff report in regard to the county engineer's recommendation that there will not be any adverse impact to the flow of traffic on Parkway Drive. The issue of turning out of the proposed development, he would concurwith the engineering department's recommendation of taking a look at having an additional turn lane coming out of the development. They have some room at the front of the property that is excess green space that would allow them to accommodate that additional turn lane. So if that Were a recommendation of the planning commission, they would concur that it would be a good idea. In regard to storm water issues, they have been working on this project since July 2001 with staff and the watershed district, and they have gone through numerous situations of how to handle the storm water. There is a land lock site. The storm water does not leave the site so it's got to rise 30 to 40 feet to get out of there, so it won't ever leave the site on its own. So there are no issues of rates of runoff, storm water volumes for adjacent neighbors other than the proposed neighborhood created on site. There are about 20 acres that are going to be draining to this pond, and there are approximately 30-35 acres off site that are also draining to this pond. They have taken all of those drainage rates into account as part of the development of this proposed site. Based on the proposals and the studies they have done, they do not think it will be an issue. In the past, that pond has been relatively stable in regard to the water ............................ ~r ..... ~ .......... 1 T Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -12- elevation. It has a constant ground water elevation as of today. He thinks the city is correct trying to provide some long-term scenarios for addressing any changes to that, even though they don't anticipate that to happen. They are well above the city standards and watershed standards for heights above the 100-year flood elevations for that pond both for the road and for any of the proposed units. Wetland 3 is the center pond, and based on their study, that has been excavated in the past as part of the golf course work. So that is basically a man-made pond and it is true, based on the staff report, that according to the watershed district's rules, a watershed of that quality, which is the lowest quality based on the city's categories and the watershed's categories, that they allow those kind of man-made ponds to be used for storm water treatment. They are going to try to pre-treat the heavier solids prior to discharging. There was some discussion about the shoreland ordinance¢ and they would concur with the staff report, that they are meeting all of the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. The shoreland ordinance is 1,000 feet from the edge of Round Lake, and it does cut through the center of the proposed property, so that requires them to meet those requirements. The key requirements are the 50% open space requirement that they do meet, which is not by very much, but it is being met. And they have shown those calculations to staff. In regard to impervious areas, the approximate impervious area is about 30% to 35% impervious for their site, and that does not take into account other sites that are draining into theirs, such as Bennington Woods. But, the shoreland ordinances are being met. And since it is a land lock basin that is entirely on their property, they don't think it is an issue for short term or long term for either the proposed development's point of view or the surrounding homes point of view. To answer the question by Mr. Pearson about the surmountable curb, the plan shows a B6-18 six-inch high curb, not the surmountable for the main loop street around the property. They are proposing surmountable curbs for the driveways going into the individual buildings. So, that is what the plan shows, and that is what they plan on doing. That is also the recommendation from the staff as well. In regard to street widths, they are proposing a 24-foot-wide street, and there is no on-street parking. But that narrower street does not affect the number of units on the site. The number of units are dictated by the buildable area of the site and the physical size of each building. But, having a wider street back up to the city original standards, that 32 feet would not impact the number of units that they are proposing as part of this site. The way this project is proposed, it is a medium density development, as opposed to the high-density development that it is currently zoned. Based on the way the city ordinance is written, the zoning ordinance is written up to 213 units and that is based on the gross area, but that is the way the city ordinance is written. A higher density would be building apartments as opposed to the proposed plan that they have for the town homes. In regard to the site plan itself, what attracted the developers to the property was the trees on the property, the ponding areas, and also the availability of access to the Gateway Trail in the back of the property. They are providing that as a bituminous trail connection so that will be a public trail for the other neighbors to go through this development. The tree removal is just over 50% tree removal, and that is not uncommon for a town house development project, especially given the number of trees on the property. They are Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 02-04-02 proposing to save half of the trees on the property. The city ordinance is to replace the trees one to one. The applicants are exceeding the tree replacement. Although it is not a proportional measurement replacement, rather a tree-to-tree replacement, they are exceeding the ordinance. So, they are meeting the zoning ordinance, the shoreland ordinance, the tree ordinance, and the landscape ordinance. Commissioner Pearson asked about the lineup of the driveways. Is there any reason the driveway could not be adjusted closer to the outlot E with an exit lane on the north side? Mr. Knable said on page 28 of the staff report, in the illustration, the way the property is situated, it has very little frontage on public streets. In regard to access to the property, it is surrounded by private property. It could be shifted, but there is not much room. They only have the right-of-way they are directly fronting on. So they could shift it around 20-25 feet. That would accommodate that additional turn lane. To go all the way around the south side of that existing office building would not work because they don't have the right-of-way or the property to be able to do that. To be able to shift it within the corridor, they do own onto the street, they would be able to do that. Commissioner Mueller asked what is the cost of these units? Steve Nelson from Bridgeland Development Company, 20141 Icenic, Lakeville 55044 addressed the commission. The price range is $135,000 to $180,000 to $190,000 depending on the upgrades one would put into the units. Each unit will have a two-car garage, two- bedrooms, and one and a half baths, and if you want to add any upgrades, it will raise the price. Commissioner Mueller said he was reading the letter and 82% of the tenants have no children. He read from the report that the typical carriage buyers are under 40 years old, single, income of $40,000, first-time homebuyers, and have no children. Within the last year or two there have been more children born in a year as there was after World War II, 4 million. He asked Mr. Nelson why don't they sell to people with children? Mr. Nelson said anyone can buy who wishes to buy, and those are just the statistics of Centex buyers around the metro. They are not trying to limit their market, it is just that those are the demographics they are seeing. Commissioner Mueller said he read the dominant age group of buyers, and the demographics are 25 to 35 years old. He said that just seems like that would be the time you are having children. That strikes him as strange that there are very few with children. When they said they are going to throw out the tot lot, it seemed kind of strange because demographically that would be the time people start a family. Mr. Nelson said to clarify a question that was asked earlier regarding the trees, of the 74 trees that are being removed, there are 21 trees that are proposed to be transplanted. They hired two consultants, and one is a tree removal and a nursery person. They have identified from the survey that was done, 21 trees could be transplanted, which makes him very happy. They plan on using them in strategic locations wherever possible to buffer between the proposed development and the existing neighbors that are nearby. There will be almost three times more trees planted when all is said and done. The second consultant is a forester to give them a quick study of tree study so they could understand what was there. He commented that there Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -14- are numerous oak trees that are dying that have frost lines or cracks or are decayed internally. There are also numerous trees that have irons in them and were used for other reasons like wall retention before the golf course was there. It is very important to know what trees they can use. They included on the northeast corner an additional retaining wall to save some more trees that means they could keep roughly another dozen trees. Commissioner Mueller said he knows that people have a hard time finding affordable housing. A newspaper article he read said that it is hard to find housing for around $125,000 these days, so he commends the developer for having housing for $135,000 as the starting price when most developments these days are $180,000 to $225,000. Commissioner Dierich asked the developer if they are the same company that put in the Centex Homes around Carver Lake in south Maplewood? Mr. Nelson said no. This Centex develops subdivision sites, roads, and platting approvals, but not the structure itself. Commissioner Trippler asked the developer if they plan on enlarging the pond that exists on the center of the site? Mr. Knable said actually, it is going to stay about the same size. They are proposing minor filling of the existing pond, and that shows up on the grading plan that has been submitted for review by the engineer and the watershed district. Commissioner Trippler asked if that pond has an outlet? Mr. Knable said that is correct. The only outlet is percolation and evaporation. No direct pipe outlet. Commissioner Trippler asked if they plan on adding an outlet? Mr. Knable said no, but the city is requiring as part of the staff report, to provide some kind of infrastructure that would allow the city to add a lift station if that is determined to be required in the future. They are looking at the requirement for an underground forced main now that they could hook a temporary pump up to if they needed to, so they will be working with the staff about what that may look like. Based on their calculations, and given the size of the drainage area and the size of the pond, and how it has performed in the past, they do not think it will be required. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Knable, to the best of his knowledge, was last spring an unusually wet spring? Mr. Knable said yes it was. Commissioner Trippler said if it was, do you know where it ranked, was it a 100-year event, a 50-year event? Mr. Knable said he doesn't have that information. He just knows itwas an unusually wet spring. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -15- Commissioner Trippler said the reason he asks the question is, when he played golf on the course last spring, the pond had overflowed and it had expanded to the north end. Mr. Knable said the well land consultant that was hired to delineate the edge of all the existing wetlands on the property, surveyed the edge of the existing pond, and on the north end there is a lower area that is separate that has wetland vegetation, so that was delineated separately so that lower area would be an area that would be flooded if it came up even a foot or two. So that is the lowest part of the wetland area on the north. It is still part of wetland number 3 but it is not the open water type of wetland. Commissioner Trippler asked Peter if he knows how far above the elevation of the standard elevation of the pond is the four-unit structure at the north end? As near as he can tell, it looks like five feet. Mr. Knable said the normal pond elevation is approximately 841 and that is what it was surveyed at this fall. They went back and looked at some old topographic maps the city had from ten or fifteen years ago, and it showed the exact same elevation for the water. So, that tells him that is a pretty constant normal water elevation for the pond itself. There are no basements in these buildings. They are all slab on grade. He believes 856 is the lowest building, so that would be basically 15 feet above that normal elevation, well above any calculated 100-year flood elevation for that. Because it is a land locked basin, they are .required by the watershed district and the city ordinance to provide hydraulic modeling for 200-year events back to back. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this matter and give their name and address. Searle Roy at 723A Larpenteur Avenue East in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. Something that was not addressed and he has written notes to the planning commission regarding this. For the last nineteen years, they have had drainage that runs off the north side of the property and it runs down to the pond. In the grading for the new development, is that going to be cut off? If it is, that water will then drain into a catch basin that the city of Maplewood has to monitor. Normal rainfalls do not cause it, but when there is a downpour there is a large gathering of water there that could cause flooding in the one building. He does not know if this problem has been addressed or not, and this is his question. Mr. Cavett said yes, the city is aware of this. There is a storm sewer that drains off the Bennington Woods site and drains over land a short ways and gets picked up by a culvert that is currently on the golf course. The developer has accounted for that in their design and they are connecting the pipes together to connect to the Bennington Woods storm sewer. Diana Longrie-Kline at 1778 Desoto Street addressed the commission. She was thinking about the traffic issue. With regard to the driveway, either you have the two lanes going out, going left or right, which is not her preferred method, she would rather it be a right turn only and then funnel that traffic to the stop light, that way they could choose to either go to Highway 61 or go out to the freeway. She is not sure if that would work or not, but that was her idea. She feels affordable housing is very important and housing is very tight in the city of Maplewood. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -16- Bob Mulmgren at 721 East Larpenteur Avenue in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. As he looks off his patio that faces the golf course, he asked himself is there any place in Maplewood that has as beautiful piece of ground as you will find right here? Do you really want to destroy that beautiful place with the rolling hills, the beautiful trees and the pond just to put housing in there? Once you do that the beauty is gone, the open land is shot. He has second thoughts about seeing that being developed, and some of it might be a selfish standpoint. He thinks they ought to take this into consideration and make sure this is what the city really wants to do. It doesn't make sense to destroy a business that is up and going and with proper management that golf course could be a profitable organization. He knows that the city isn't interested in buying it, but maybe the county would. They are certainly having big success with the golf courses that they are operating, and on top of it, they are building another golf course out by the workhouse. So, golf is becoming more and more popular and is the city going to look back and say they made a mistake in changing that property frOm a golf course into housing? As far as traffic goes, he drives that stretch, and it is a tough area to drive. Anybody that would make a left turn from this proposed development is going to be in trouble. They come down Highway 61 onto Parkway Drive, they drive fast, and there will be some problems. Carol Hackelman at 735 Larpenteur Avenue in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. She said thank you to the council for their careful consideration of this project. She appreciates the issues that have been brought before the people. Regarding the 50% density, when you figure most of that open space is a pond, you are really looking at high denSity to accommodate the actual useable land. She is concerned about how close the buildings are and.the driveway turnarounds. She did drive up to Hugo to view identical buildings that Centex had built there so she could see what was coming in her neighborhood. They are large buildings, the driveways are very close together, and the buildings in Hugo are 8-unit buildings, and the proposal for this development are generally 10-unit buildings, so they are even larger. Her concern is over. the density of the development.and how close the buildings are together, and she would hope there would be some safeguards that would be looked into-before there would be approval of the development. Karen Grund at 735H Larpenteur Avenue in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. She thinks it is such a shame to take away the beautiful piece of property and flatten it out to build homes. She was also at the Hugo development to see the buildings. She found that they were not as attractive of homes as she would like to see. She is concerned about having to look at the outdoor meters and the outdoor air conditioning units. She is also concerned about the driveways between the homes, guest parking is limited, the traffic going around the pond, and with two car garages that means 200 cars going out and back into the development and exiting onto Frost Avenue. She is also concerned about the trees that are going to be kept that will only be on the northeast corner. All the lovely trees that are toward her side will be destroyed and her view will no longer be anything that she desires to look at. She would like to see as many trees saved as possible. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff how long of a cul-de-sac can the city have? And how far is it from Parkway Drive to the far end of the pond? Mr. Ekstrand said 1,000 feet. Commissioner Rossbach asked if staff is taking the position that because there is a loop around Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 02-04-02 the pond that that rule doesn't apply? He also noticed that there are driveways that are 345 feet long, 265 feet long, why don't they have to have a second exit? And what makes this different from a cul-de-sac? Mr. Ekstrand said he thinks it is essentially the same as a cul-de-sac. He asked Mr. Rossbach to clarify his question. Commissioner Rossbach said they can't build a cul-de-sac mainly for safety reasons for emergency vehicles longer than 1,000 feet. So, here is a single entrance that is over 1,000 feet long plus it has driveways going off of it that are 250 to 350 feet long. He is wondering why this is different than that scenario. Mr. Ekstrand said he doesn't see it differently. If it is 1,000 feet from Parkway Drive to the end of the loop and then there are still driveways going off it, depending on where you measure that, some may be less than 1,000 'feet to the end of the drive. It could be the same with a single-family lot at the end of a cul-de-sac with the driveway at the end and exceeding 1,000 feet. Commissioner Pearson asked if the realignment or repositioning of the lift station would beany problem with straightening out the entrance there? Mr. Cavett said no it would not. Commissioner Pearson asked what is the highest watermark on that pond in its current situation and where has there been 4-inch rains? Mr. caVett said they have had issues where the first fairway is flooded, that is the Iow flood plain area that runs at 848 and 849. The lowest building opening is at 856 so they are considerably higher than 849. The boundary of the ponds is staying the same. The sides and elevations are coming up. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have more information on if there was a left turn off of Parkway Drive to allow people to turn into the development. Could someone draw it out for him, and how would this help the traffic situation? Mr. Cavett said he was talking about the exit leaving the development. The addition of left turn lanes on Parkway Drive is a county road and that would be left up to the traffic engineer. Based on his comments, it would not seem to be necessary. Right now it is four lanes. If there was some type of an attractant to the east where those residential homes are, the next step on Parkway Drive would be to have a three-lane road and put in a center dual-turn lane, but at this point it would not be warranted. Commissioner Rossbach asked how would adding turn lanes to the driveway to the proposed development help anybody make a left turn? Mr. Cavett said it would be critical in the morning when people are leaving the proposed development for work. You are sitting there waiting to make a left turn and you have to yield to two directions of traffic. The person behind you has his right blinker on and he wants to take a Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 right, he only has to yield to the traffic coming from his left. This puts less pressure on the person taking the left turn and that makes them more comfortable and less likely to rush their turning and get out into the traffic. It makes the situation safer. That is why you see right turn lanes at intersections. Commissioner Rossbach asked if they would be adding a right turn lane to the road that goes into the proposed development and that is to ease pressure on the people who want to make a left turn going out of the development? Mr. Cavett said that would be adding a right turn lane going out of the development. Since there is no cross traffic it would be a left and a right essentially. Commissioner Trippler said then if there was a car in the left lane and one waiting in the right lane, how is the car in the right lane supposed to see the traffic coming down Parkway Drive? He said it seems like the view of traffic would be blocked by the car next to you and that could cause more of a hazard. Mr. Cavett said if you are in a small car and you pull up next to a truck, your view of the traffic would be blocked. But in most cases if they're comparable vehicles you will be able to see. Commissioner Trippler said unless you are in a fast car you only have four seconds to pull out and get into the lane of traffic at 35 mph. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to point out that this is the same type of traffic intersection that is all over the city. This is not a bad development, and if there are problems with the traffic we should try to figure out the best way to solve the traffic problems. The city has these same turn lanes at many intersections and they do work. Commissioner Trippler said this is a different situation, from the standpoint that there is an elevational shift and there is a corner. You don't have the capability of seeing several blocks in the traffic direction. He said you have about 200 feet that you can see clearly. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Trippler what would he have them do, install a stoplight? Commissioner Trippler said no, because what will happen then is that traffic will be tied up on Highway 61. The solution is maybe this is not a good place for an exit. Commissioner Rossbach said the developer has no other property that connects to a street. Commissioner Trippler said maybe they shouldn't develop this property to add 200 cars to try and come in and go out. Either that or have a tow truck available every day for the accidents that will happen. Commissioner Rossbach said in the proposal when the applicant was still talking about putting the tot lot in and having it hook up with the trails, the applicant thought they would get credit for that against their park accessibility fees. Is that the case? Mr. Ekstrand said no. Planning Commission -19- Minutes of 02-04-02 Chairperson Fischer said earlier in the evening there was discussion about the turnarounds or lack there of in the proposal. Does staff have comments or recommendations on that? Mr. Ekstrand said he would have to check with the fire marshal. From a safety standpoint that is typically something he wants to have, and he wasn't sure why that wasn't addressed. Commissioner Dierich said it doesn't even have to be a turnaround. Even a backup spot would be fine, and you go to the end of that cul-de-sac and there is no place to go if you have gone down the wrong road. Mr. Ekstrand said his understanding is that the fire marshal was okay with this layout, but it warrants a further look into that and we will check into it. Mr. Knable said just to clarify, the site plan does show turnarounds at the end of each driveway. They're not the typical fire truck turnarounds at the end, they are basically to allow traffic turnarounds to come out of the last unit. So there is a 10-foot extension coming out of that last driveway that would provide a turnaround. Commissioner Rossbach said just to clarify, are you indicating that roadway goes 10 feet past the driveway, so it is a turnaround area for somebody backing out of that driveway? Mr. Knable said yes, it is a turnaround for somebody backing out of that driveway. Commissioner Rossbach said if there is a car parked in that last driveway, then nobody can turnaround. Commissioner Dierich said if you are backing out, and you need to back around a corner, that would tell her that the roads are too narrow. If you cannot just back out into the road, and you have to have extra room, then the road is too narrow. Mr. Knable said he would have to disagree, that is a standard design detail for this type of driveway where there are multiple garages coming out. Typically, they would design an extra piece of blacktop on the end of the driveway to provide that turning movement for that last driveway. Commissioner Dierich said the Centex development around Carver Lake in south Maplewood is very difficult to get around. Although she is aware they did not develop that area, it is the same type development as far as space. She does not have a large vehicle. She drives a Volkswagen and it is difficult for her to maneuver around on the main roads and also on the feeder roads as well. She would encourage staff to take a good drive around that particular neighborhood and particularly Mr. Dan Solar should go along and see how they exit onto Lake Road. Mr. Knable said the developer would want to compare the geometrics of their site to what this developer is proposing and see if they are similar. Commissioner Dierich would encourage everyone to see that area and the accessibility because it is a very comparable development. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -20- Mr. Knable said regarding that center drive between buildings, typically they are between 18 and 24 feet and the applicant is proposing 20 feet. They will look at the standards and see what will work. Chairperson Fischer asked staff when this item would have to go to the city council? Mr. Ekstrand said February 25, 2002. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution starting on page 47 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills development on the north side of Parkway Drive on the site of the Maple Hills Golf Course. 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 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 public street, then that street 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. 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. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills town home PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the town houses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. Co Do Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -21- 6. 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. 7.The city council shall review this permit in one year. Adopt the resolution starting on page 49 of the staff report. This resolution approves a city code variation to have a 50-foot-wide street right-of-way instead of a 60-foot-wide right-of-way for Maple Hills Drive in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city should approve this code variation because: 1. The variation will lessen the amount of grading, ground disturbance and tree removal in the development. 2. The additional right-of-way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience. Adopt the resolution starting on page 50 of the staff report. This resolution approves a city code variation for a 24-foot-wide public street (Maple Hills Drive) in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. This variation is subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no parking on both sides of the street. 2. The developer shall pay the city for the cost of the no-parking signs. Approve the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills preliminarY plat. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for'overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Co Have Excel Energy install Group V rate streetlights in at least 10 locations o primarily at street and driveway intersections and street or driveway curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements. e. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. f. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. go For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following: (1) Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway from Maple Hills Drive to the Gateway Trail. This trail shall be in an 18-foot-wide trail way or pedestrian way or in an easement. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -22- (2) Construct a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the pond in the center of the site. (3) The developer shall build the trail, sidewalks and fencing with the driveways and streets before the city approves a final plat. (4) The city engineer must approve these plans. h. Petition and work with the city for the realignment of the sanitary sewer and the installation of the sewer lift station on the site. This sewer project also will require an assessment agreement between the developer and the city to compensate the city for the benefit the developer receives from the city sewer construction. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk, driveway and street plans. Specifically: a. The plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer, including the comments and requirements of the Assistant City Engineer as outlined in his memo of 1-29-02. b.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer wild remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) nearthe ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the trail (d) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors (e) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south Planning Commission -23- Minutes of 02-04-02 The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences. (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is done. c. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show the coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. d. Revise the design of the entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets Parkway Drive) so it is as far south on Parkway Drive as possible and so it has a left-turn and a right- turn exit lane. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. c. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul-de-sacs or perpendicular to the driveways and street right-of-ways. d. Show the trails in publicly owned property or easements. The developer shall record with Ramsey County a separate deed for the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail. 5. Secure and record with the final plat all required easements for the development. These shall include: a. Any off-site drainage and utility easements. b. Wetland easements over the wetlands and any land within 25 feet surrounding a Class IV wetland. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 25 feet of the Class IV wetland or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 25 feet of the wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of the easements is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer and runoff. They also are to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. c. Any easements the city may need for the realignment of the sanitary sewer or the construction of the new lift station on the site. d. The easement for the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the Gateway Trail. 6. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. These documents must assure that there will be T ............. T ............. --[-'- -- [ ....... Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -24- one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structures. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. For the property at 905 Parkway Drive: (1) All agreements between the developer and the property owner of 905 Parkway Drive for changing the parking lot of the office building and for any changes to the existing ingress and egress agreements. (2) The deed that transfers the ownership of Outlot E to the owner of the property at 905 Parkway Drive. d. All wetland, drainage, utility and trail easements. The applicant shall submit the language for these documents, easements, dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. These are to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 8. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. To recommend that the entry road to the Maple Hills Development be reviewed. It should be pushed as far to the south on Parkway Drive as possible and have an additional right turn lane added to it to help facilitate traffic movement in and out. 10. To have the fire marshal and the fire chief further review the individual driveways as to the need for a turnaround at the end of them to allow for traffic and emergency vehicles to enter and exit the premises. 11. Commissioner Ledvina added a friendly amendment that the city council consider the need for a variance for the wetland ordinance for filling within the wetland. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach Nays-Ahlness, Dierich, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -25- The motion is passed Chairperson Fischer asked when this item goes to the city council? Mr. Ekstrand said this item will go to the city council February 25, 2002, and will be reviewed by the Community Development Review Board at their February 12, 2002, meeting. Commissioner Trippler stated for the record why he voted nay. He voted nay strictly because of the traffic hazards on getting into this proposed development. Even if you move the driveway 25 feet further to the south at 35 mph that only gives you 4/10ths of a second. He thinks adding 200 additional cars into the traffic at this particular location is going to be a disaster. He would like to see the developer try to figure out a way to get more land and somehow get the exit over onto Larpenteur Avenue. He thinks that would be an enormous benefit for the people that are going to be living there. The people that end up buying there will be very frustrated trying to get in and out of their homes, and he thinks the commission is doing them a disservice approving this project. b. Planning Commission Vacancy Interviews The first candidate to be interviewed was Julie Lin Beitler of 1915 Price addressed the commission and answered some of the following questions. Avenue. She She has lived in the city for about two years. Julie works for Reliant Energy Minnegasco as a Senior GIS Specialist. She uses a computer system that is an interactive mapping tool for planning. She also uses a system called Smallworld that is a design, for a utility company and she draws maps for gas facilities and these maps have gas mains, roads, lots and eventually they will have housing footprints and gas services on them. It is an important job because locating gas mains is very important so that accidents don't occur. She has seen the Woodlane Hills Church be built and she was glad to see that it was a church built there and it is Close to where she lives. She is a little disappointed in the parking situation because they park along her neighborhood streets because half of the church parking lot is still dirt and mounds of mud. She has seen improvements in the golf course. She is also happy that the new restaurants were built where the old Bali Hi was located. It is a nice improvement. She primarily sees Maplewood as a city that has more redevelopment compared with adding more new development. She is not familiar with the Hillcrest development in Maplewood. She does understand that the planning commission is an advisory and makes recommendations to the city council. She doesn't have a problem with receiving the packets and getting out to see what is being discussed for the planning commission meeting. She understands that the typical term is for 3 years, and that Mr. Frost's term would have ended in December 2002. The term would then be renewable upon your choice to remain on the commission as well as the renewal offer offered by the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -26- You attend the city council meetings on a rotating basis. You should plan on attending the planning commission meetings twice a month sometimes less depending on what is available for an agenda. The second candidate was Richard Currie of 1937 West Kenwood Drive. He addressed the commission and had some of the following responses to questions asked. He stated the reason he wanted to be on the planning commission was because he wanted to that's why. He has no problem with Monday evening attendance. He has no problem with getting the packets on Thursday's and getting out to the sites in time for the Monday evening meeting. He was on the fire department for 12 years so he knows his way around Maplewood. One of the thing Maplewood did right is the Bennington Woods. Bennington Woods used to be part of the driving range of that golf course. Larpenteur Avenue used to be part of the cemetery that is why they moved the cemetery to the north and they eliminated Kingston Avenue. Maplewood has a lot of nice developments, he is in an older section where there are probably second and third generation people living there. He does see redevelopment coming into different areas. He works at Twin City Nursery in certain seasons. He is into landscaping and maintenance. He does maintenance at the nursery and sells trees. Other than just "wanting" to be on the planning commission he knows landscaping, building and maintaining stuff, and how stuff is built. He knows what to look for. In the proposed development of the Centex homes, he thinks the road is too narrow. He saw that happen at Cub too. People park in the fire lane and wait. He has a lot of building aspects and he knows how to do stuff. He might not know how to say stuff right but he knows how things work. He has put in for the spot on the community design review board too. He is on the historical society so he knows a little about the history of the city. He is not one for bragging up the pluses and minuses. He knew that downtown Maplewood is Gladstone. There is not many more spots that can be developed in Maplewood so he think's Maplewood is more redevelopment, also that the streets need upgrading. He has no questions for the commission, he sits and watches everyone on television. He knows the city council will be interviewing candidates on February 25, 2002, and that is fine since he said he is here all the time anyway. The third candidate is Larry Hendrickson of 1930 Price Avenue. He addressed the commission and had some of the following answers and responses. Larry works at 3M in Maplewood. In his position he works in the resource recovery area for a department that sells 3M surplus assets and by products and sometimes he has to travel for his position but wasn't sure if that would be a problem but hopefully he could work around that did not think that would be a problem making it to the commission meetings. He is a former police officer from River Falls, Wisconsin. He worked in the residential home construction industry for four years. He wants to give back to the community and has good oral communication skills and enjoys developing strategic goals in a team-based group. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -27- He may be interested in serving on the community design review board although he did not apply. He would be interested in possibly serving on the Police Civil Service Commission although he did not apply there either. He is not sure how often vacancies occur in the police commission though. He does not know Julie Lin Beitler another applicant to the planning commission who apparently is in his neighborhood. He has lived in the city for twelve years. He said on of the things he does not care for in Maplewood is the White Bear Avenue stretch of road between Highway 694 and Highway 36. That area has done quite well as far as retail facilities and that is good for Maplewood. The corridor south into St. Paul by Hillcrest is almost a ghost town. One of the best things about Maplewood is the Maplewood in Motion newsletter. It is the one of the best tools to get the word out and information to the residents about what is happening or changing in their city and he enjoys reading about the changes. Not many of the residents get involved with their civic duties so to speak. Another thing he does not care for is the golf dome. He drives by it everyday and thinks it is an eyesore. Those are just a few things he doesn't care for in Maplewood and something he really likes about Maplewood. He also' enjoys all the parks and trails that he takes his grandchildren to. He also likes the growing diversity in the city. He thinks Maplewood has a top-notch police department, and a top-notch public works department and he thinks they ought to be commended. He thinks having commissions for the city of Maplewood is very important and without these commissions the city would not be as successful as it has become. He thinks the city is more redevelopment than new development. There needs to be a modification plan to adjust and grow with what we currently have and use it to it's full potential and that is true for commercial and residential properties. We need to make sure Maplewood remains a safe cityto live in and continue redevelopment so there is transportation and a safe community for its residents. His construction experience was from the late 70's and into the 80's. He worked for a developer called Track home sites. They built about ten different home plans and a little bit about custom homes and a small amount for in commercial building. He has no experience or information regarding the Hillcrest redevelopment situation. He does commend the commission for what they do and thought the questions were phenomenal. He wondered what was expected of a person to be on the planning commission? He thought there should be some type of a write up for applicants before they apply to make sure they understand what a person would be expected to do and know. He knows there are two meetings a month and being on a rotating basis going to the city council meeting. He knows about the term of the appointment and the reappointment of the opening or not. NOTE; One of the things that staff does is to provide materials titled "Now that you are a commissioner". It is helpful and it gives you a broad-based overview of what the commission member is expected to do. The fourth candidate is Diana Longrie-Kline at 1778 DeSoto Street. She addressed the commission and had some of the following answers and responses. i I- il .......................... ~, Planning Commission -28- Minutes of 02-04-02 She has lived in Maplewood for 18 years. She is a real estate attorney for Target Corporation on the east coast primarily for New Jersey and Connecticut. She has a strong real estate background. She said she may not have all the information or all the knowledge but she does know how to spot issues and she does know where to find information. She would like to think she would know of appropriate questions to ask. She is certainly experienced in preparing in advance for what she is reviewing. She was not aware that the planning commission was not involved in planning really. But she is flexible and can work with the decisions that are made and items that are discussed. She is fine with Monday evening meetings and attending the city council meetings on a rotating basis. She feels that Maplewood should use redevelopment by letting companies know that these are the vacant buildings in the city and can they adopt their company to fit in one of these buildings so they don't sit vacant. It works out east, it may not work but it could work. Eventually companies will have to adapt when all the open space is used up. She feels that it is an important goal for the city to work towards. One thing she did not like in Maplewood was the apartment building that went in by her home in DeSoto. Most of her neighbors were upset as well. She does not know if she was out of the country then or what but she was never notified as a citizen that the building was going in and whether that is a good thing or a bad thing she does not know but the people in her community did not know what was going in their community and felt left out. It might be helpful to print that type of information in Maplewood in Motion. If the people don't live within a certain number of feet of the development than they are not notified and that is fine but having it in print in the Motion would be important too. The fifth applicant to be interviewed is Jackie Monahan-Junek of 2430 Larpenteur Avenue East. She has lived in Maplewood for 39 years. She works for the City of Oakdale and has worked at Imation and 3M. She believes that her team player attitude and her decision-making skills will help make her an asset to the commission. She is familiar with the Beaver Lake town home project because she is the President of the Beaver Lake Elementary PTO. She has watched it being discussed on the television. She is concerned about the closings of the schools in Maplewood so that would be the one thing about Maplewood that she does not like. She enjoys the growing that has taken place in Maplewood especially in the south end of Maplewood. She grew up by 3M and that was a place of employment at one time. She thinks the city has some issues to work with regarding the aging households and the age of some of the neighbors and homes. She enjoys the open space and she thinks it is important to share the open space with others and it is something the city could improve on. The Maplewood Nature Center is a great spot, the Priory is another great site and more people should be aware of those open spaces to enjoy. She is aware that the nature center is working on management plans and things like that. She would like to focus her energies more on the community. She is involved in the schools and feels ashamed that she did not become more active in the community a lot sooner. She worked for profit and would like to work for the people now. She feels like she would bring many good skills to this planning commission spot. She wants the commission to make fair and reasonable decisions when it comes to developments for homeowners and businesses in the city. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -29- She is not very aware of the Hillcrest redevelopment project but tries to stay in touch with her community, by reading the paper, watching the meetings on television and being involved. Other than that she cannot make an intelligent comment beyond that. She is aware of the meetings on Monday evenings. She is aware that the meeting for the city council is on February 25 and that the council will be meeting all the candidates. She has a lot to bring to the commission and would be proud of being a member of the planning commission. She goes to graduate class and Monday evenings work best for her so this would be the best fit for her schedule to be on the planning commission. She would also like to be on an economic commission if there waS one of those available. The following candidates were interviewed, and the votes were counted as followed. Diana Longrie-Kline Larry Hendrickson Jackie Monahan-Junek Julie Lin Beitler Richard Currie 14 points 12 points 11 points 9 points 2 points VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS December 17, 2001, the city council meeting was reported on by Matt Ledvina but nothing pertaining to the planning commission was discussed at the meeting. January 14, 2002, the city council meeting was reported on by Will Rossbach. The Cottages were approved. The staff through an administrative variance can grant an R1 lot that is only 9,500 square feet. The land was basically divided up more evenly. There was also the first reading of the ISTS Ordinance. January 28, 2002, the city council meeting did not have anything pertaining to the planning commission. There was the second reading of the ISTS ordinance. Metropolitan Council Riverview Corridor Committee Appointments. February 11,2002, city council meeting did not have anything pertaining to the planning commission. February 25, 2002, Mr. Pearson will be present at the city council meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Ekstrand said the February 18, 2002, planning commission meeting will be rescheduled for Wednesday, February 20, 2002, at 7:00 p.m per the voting of the commission. Mr. Mueller will not be present at that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-04-02 -30- Chairperson Fischer was wondering when the commission would get the annual report. Mr. Ekstrand said he would ask Mr. Roberts about that. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Maplewood Toyota - Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review 2873 Highway 61 February 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Steve McDaniels is proposing to build a 4,972-square-foot addition onto the south side of Maplewood Toyota. This additional space would be used to enlarge the service garage. The exterior of the proposed addition would be rock face concrete block like the existing building and painted to match. The applicant is also proposing to replace concrete curbing on the south and southeast sides of the lot, remove a curbed parking island south of the building and patch the asphalt at this island area. He would also install a new bituminous overlay on the south parking lot. Recent Approval On October 8, 2001, the city council approved Mr. McDaniels' plans to expand Maplewood Toyota. In addition to a new parking lot north of Beam Avenue, the council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for three small additions on the dealership building. One was a 375-square-foot lunchroom addition on the northwest corner of the building (the applicant no longer proposes to build this addition), a 1,144-square-foot service-write-up area on the north side of the building and a 3,040- square-foot showroom addition on the southeast corner of the building. These additions will be constructed at the same time as the applicant's current proposal for a seven-bay auto service addition to be constructed to the north of the new showroom. Refer to the approved October 8, 2001, expansion plans on pages 12 through 14. Requests Mr. McDaniels is requesting: A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The code requires a CUP revision to enlarge the service area and to enlarge a nonconforming use. The use is nonconforming because service garages must now be at least 350 feet from a residential lot line. The proposed addition would be 211 feet from the property line of the home to the west, the same as the existing building. 2. Approval of plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Revision The proposed addition would be compatible with the requirements of the CUP ordinance. It would not be any closer to the west lot line than the present building. The proposed addition would also be on a portion of the parking lot that is already paved and, therefore, impervious. The additional building area would not add significant additional runoff to the wetland or reduce the grass area. The shoreland issues are minor related to the proposed building expansion. There are water-quality concerns, however, with respect to the curbing and paving changes proposed in the parking lot. Curbing Changes, Paving Changes and Water-Quality Concerns Chuck Ahl, City Engineer, states that the current Maplewood Toyota site does not meet water runoff standards for quantity or quality control within the shoreland boundary of Kohlman Lake. The submitted site proposal makes no effort to begin moving toward meeting these standards. The proposed new curbing and removal of curb islands could easily be revised to add green area, infiltration areas, rainwater gardens, etc. While these improvements would not achieve site runoff standards, they would begin the process of making this site compliant. The applicant should be required to submit to the city engineer for review and approval, prior to the city issuing a building permit, a revised grading, drainage, curb removal, utility, and erosion control plans. Building Design The addition will be constructed of rock face concrete block painted to match the existing building. In addition, five small windows will be added to the south elevation that will help break up the appearance of a large wall. Staff finds the building design acceptable. Parking The applicant has a sufficient number of parking spaces to meet code and to accommodate their parking needs. After this addition, there would be a total of 386 parking spaces--211 on the main site and 175 in the new parking lot north of Beam Avenue. The code would require 105 spaces using the ratio of one space for each 200 square feet of office and showroom area and three spaces for each service bay. Even though there is adequate parking, staff cautions the applicant to make sure that there is a sufficient number of customer parking spaces available on the north side of the building on the main site--not across Beam Avenue in the new parking lot. The code's retail-parking requirement does not properly cover the type of "retail" shopping needs a car dealership has. The normal retail formula would require an excessive number of spaces for the showroom. Staff suggests leaving the number of spaces up to Mr. McDaniels, with the stipulation that "an adequate number of parking spaces are provided for customers north of the building on the main site." Enough parking means that there should be enough spaces to accommodate the highest instance of customer parking and there is no parking within drive aisles (an existing problem). Customer spaces should be marked as such by signs. The two handicap-parking spaces should also be moved adjacent to the building. 2 Landscaping/Screening/Lighting The west door of the proposed addition would face the pond and the back yard of the nearest home. There should not be any impact on this neighbor from cars exiting this doorway. There is also a fair amount of deciduous trees and shrubs between Maplewood Toyota and the westerly neighbor as well as a shed that provides some screening. The plantings offer little screening in the winter, but create a substantial buffer spring through autumn. Staff is not recommending any additional screening since there is little room to add any, there have not been any complaints about screening and it would not provide any appreciable benefit for the neighbor on the other side of the pond. 'Although the city has not received complaints about Maplewood Toyota's lights on the west side of their building, the applicant should be required to down-cast any new wall-mounted lights on the proposed west elevation. The two wall-mounted lights on the existing building should also be adjusted downward. Presently they shine partially to the west. Site Cleanup and Repairs There are two sheds in the northwest corner of the site with miscellaneous materials outside the sheds. The northerly shed also has a broken/splintered fascia board facing the street. The chain link fence on the west and south sides of the site has also been damaged from the plowing of the applicant's parking lot. As conditions of this approval, the applicant should remove the debris and stored materials near the sheds, repair the northerly shed and repair all damaged fence sections. SUMMARY The additional 4,968-square-foot expansion is requested by Maplewood Toyota due to demands in automobile service. The addition will be compatible to the existing building and the previously approved additions. The proposed improvements will also give the city an opportunity to require Maplewood Toyota to improve the site's water runoff standards within the shoreland boundary of Kohlman Lake. COMMITTEE ACTIONS February 12, 2002: The community design review board recommended approval of the plans. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17 approving a conditional use permit revision for a 4,972-square-foot service area addition on Maplewood Toyota at 2873 Highway 61. Approval is based on the findings required by code and 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. 3 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Beam Avenue shall not be used for loading or unloading of vehicles. Approve the plans date-stamped January 23, 2002, for a 4,972-square-foot service area addition on the south side of Maplewood Toyota. This approval is based on the findings required by the city code. The approval shall be subject to the applicant or owner meeting the following conditions: ao Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. bo Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. All curb removal, curb replacement and paving overlay shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan for staff approval showing enough customer parking spaces on the main Toyota Dealership site north of the building. This parking shall be signed for "customer parking." The applicant shall provide written justification for staff verifying that there will be sufficient customer parking provided. The revised site plan shall provide for all of the handicap parking spaces to be placed adjacent to the building. There shall be enough spaces to meet ADA (Americans with Disability Act) requirements. These spaces shall be striped according to ADA requirements. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan for the new exterior lighting proposed on the site. e. Complete the following before occupying the addition: 1) Any new roof-mounted mechanical equipment on the addition shall be painted to match the building. Any roof-top equipment visible from nearby homes must be screened according to ordinance. 2) Install fire protection and alarm systems as required by the fire marshal. 3) Repair all damaged sections of the chain link fence, repair/replace the broken fascia on the northerly shed and remove any debris and stored materials that are in the open. At the applicant's discretion, instead of repairing or replacing the damaged sections of chain link fence, the chain link fence located on the west side of the lot can be removed entirely. 4 4) Patch the parking lot not planned for bituminous overlay, restripe all customer-parking areas, overlay the south parking lot and install all proposed new curbing. 5) Redirect the two wall-mounted lights on the west side of the building to face directly downward as well as any new west-facing lights on the addition. 6) The replacement curb shall be continuous concrete curbing, subject to the design requirements of the city engineer. 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 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. 3) The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. g. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. h. The city encourages the applicant to remove one or more of the three sheds on the property. 5 SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.94 acres Existing land use: REFERENCE INFORMATION Maplewood Toyota SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Beam Avenue and Maplewood Toyota's new parking lot KSTP property with radio towers A vacant lot used as a holding pond and houses Highway 61 PAST ACTIONS January 18, 1979: The city council approved a plan amendment, special use permit and project plans for the original Maplewood Toyota building. January 9, 1995: The council approved a CUP and the plans for a 1,404-square-foot addition on the north side of Maplewood Toyota. January 22, 1996: The council reviewed the CUP for Maplewood Toyota. They decided to only review the permit again if a problem arises. October 8, 2001:. The council revised the CUP and approved plans for the three small additions and new parking lot. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements: Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 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. 6 2. 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. 3. 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 aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Section 36-17(e) allowS the city council to approve a CUP for the enlargement of a nonconforming use. Section 36-151(b)(9) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. Section 36-187(b) requires a CUP for any building construction in a M1 district that is closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards in the resolution on pages 16 and 17. Application Date We received the applications for this request on January 23, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving proposals. City council action is required by March 23, 2002. p:sec4/Toyota add2002.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Elevations 5. Previously Approved Site Plan from 10/8/01 6. Previously Approved Elevations from 10/8/01 7. Previously Approved Parking Lot Expansion from 10/8/01 8. Applicant's letter dated January 22, 2002 9. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 10. Plans date-stamped January 23, 2002 (separate attachment) ' 7 B2 VADNNS HEIGHTS AVE. AVF- LOCATION MAP AVE. Attachment 2 SU~T GULDEN'S (0 bo i,.1¸ CT. ' I.AMETTRY'S r-,~- 2923 / / ,/ ;,*,, , / TOYOTA BUILDING / / 291 t / 4,0o 2889 BEAM AVENUE PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 9 i I I I i Ill lI j, .1 i / I / I I i SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 4 MAPLEWOOD (~ ~ BUILDING ELEVATIONS 11 Attachment 5 i f mlf _ j Previously Approved Site Plans October 8, 2001 12 / / Attachment 6 ~ =~"-'--"-'~ I ~ TOYOTA I .~k~'woo. I ~' "='== -r QEAST ELE'VATIOH Previously Approved Elevations October 8, 2001 13 Attachment 7 Previously Approved Parking Lot Expansion October 8, 2001 14 Development, Inc. 3610 County Road 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 (9521473-5650 Fax (952)473~7058 Attachment 8 January 22, 2002 Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood MN 55109 Re: Maplewood Toyota Conditional Use Permit for the Service Area Expansion Dear Tom: On October 8, 2001 Maplewood Toyota received Maplewood City Council approval for their auto storage area north of Beam Avenue and expansion of the existing building south of Beam Avenue. Due to increased future service area demands and the desire to build the expansion space at one time 'to minimize disruption of their business Maplewood Toyota is requesting approval of a 4,968 SF seven bay auto service addition to their previously approved project. The site is zoned M- 1 Light Industrial and the surrounding residential area is separated to the west by wet lands south of Beam Avenue but auto service construction has to have a Conditional Use Permit. The addition is to the southwest and does not alter the approved building north and east eleVations that face Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The addition does not affect the hard surface coverage because it is replacing parking area. The approved building totals 20,135 SF including 4,813 SF of mezzanine storage. The approved 375 SF lounge addition to the northwest is abandoned and therefore the requested additional square footage totals 4,593 SF for a total building of 24,728 SF. The resultant Floor Area Ratio is. 14 based on a site of 176,646 SF. It was determined with staff that the proposed building does meet the City's comprehensive plan, it will not change the character of the surrounding area and the project should improve property values. The proposed addition is basically squaring off the southwest comer of the building with similar materials and building character. From a practical stand point the addition will have no impact on the surrounding area. The proposed project efficiently utilizes existing city services and does not create any additional public costs. We appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, STERNER DEVELO~P~I~I~T, INC. ~ederick RichteF~ ' - - ~ Vice President RECEIVED JAN 2 3 2001 15 Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, applied for a conditional use permit revision to add onto an automobile repair garage. WHEREAS, Section 36-151 (b)(9) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2873 Highway 61. The legal description is: Subject to widened STH 61/1, Lot 101 Gardena Addition to Ramsey County, MN. (PIN 04-29-22-41-0006) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On ,2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On ., 2002, 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 hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of 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. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 16 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Beam Avenue shall not be used for loading or unloading. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2002. 17 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Expansion of Preschool St. Jerome's Catholic School 380 Roselawn Avenue East February 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description St. Jerome's Catholic School is proposing to expand their preschool and daycare facility from 29 children to 60 children. A 3,800-square-foot addition is proposed on the northwest corner of the elementary school to accommodate the expanded facility as well as a new entry vestibule. The exterior of the addition will be constructed of face brick to match the existing elementary school. Recent Approvals February 26, 1990: The city council approved two conditional use permits for the expansion of a church and for a daycare facility. Requests To expand the preschool, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. Conditional use permit to expand an existing preschool and daycare facility; 2. Design approval for extedor improvements. DISCUSSION Preschool St. Jerome's preschool and daycare (Kid's Korner) have been in operation and licensed through the State of Minnesota since 1987. The daycare's hours of operation are from 7 to 5:30, Monday through Friday, and include children from 3 to 12 years old. The preschool is operated four days a week, with 3 and 4 year-olds attending two, 2 % hour sessions a week. The addition will allow Kid's Korner to expand from 29 to 60 children. Addition Design The one-story addition proposed will be constructed of 4-inch face brick. The addition includes a new entry door with overhead canopy, several new windows, and a 3-foot-high parapet wall constructed of a stucco-like material to screen the rooftop mechanical units. The addition is attractive and will be compatible with the existing brick building. Fire Safety The city's fire marshal, Butch Gervais, and building official, Dave Fisher, are working with St. Jerome's to ensure that their safety concerns are addressed (see attached St. Jerome's letter on page 13). St. Jerome's proposes to sprinkler the new addition and west wing of the school immediately, with the entire building having sprinklers installed within five years. In addition, St. Jerome's will install new smoke and fire detection alarms for the entire school immediately. Screening and Landscaping The city's screening ordinance requires a 20-foot landscaping and screening buffer when a nonresidential use abuts a residentially zoned property. The addition will follow the existing building setback of 30 feet to the adjacent westerly residential lot line and will therefore comply with the code. Three large trees and shrubs must be removed during construction of the addition: The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all large trees be replaced one for one, not to exceed ten trees per acre. St. Jerome's proposes to replace only one tree near the back of the church, with no additional landscaping planted. To comply with the city's tree preservation ordinance, staff recommends that three ornamental trees be planted on the west side of the addition, rather than just one to the rear of the church as proposed by St. Jerome's. Because the addition will be constructed right up to the sidewalk, there is no room for foundation plantings. However, staff recommends that additional shrubbery be planted on the east side of the sidewalk (see site plan on page 10 for staff's recommended plantings). Lighting Four wall-pack lights are proposed with the addition, three on the north elevation and one on the east elevation. All wall-pack lights will be mounted 12 feet in height and will be directed downward to prevent glare onto adjoining properties. In addition to the wall-pack lights, two 3-foot-high bollard lights will be added near the new entryway. Dumpster Enclosure The city's ordinance requires that all dumpsters be screened in a 100 percent opaque enclosure, but allows the community design review board to waive the required screening if the dumpsters are not visible from surrounding properties or the street. Two dumpsters are currently stored on the southwest corner of the lot, in between the school and a garage. Because the trash enclosures are completely screened from the adjacent properties and the street, St. Jerome's has asked the city to waive this requirement. Staff concurs and recommends that no dumpster enclosure be required for the school's two existing dumpsters. St. Jerome's Catholic School 2 February 13, 2002 Parking The church and the school share the parking lot. There are currently 53 stdped parking stalls and room for an additional 97 striped parking stalls on the lot. With the addition, 16 additional parking stalls will be striped in front of the school. Parking on the lot will be more than adequate to accommodate the school and proposed preschool/daycare addition. Neighborhood Comment All comments received from the surrounding residential properties were positive. In general, most residents felt that the expanded preschool/daycare would be an asset to the community. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 14 and 15. This resolution grants a conditional use permit for the expansion of a preschool at St. Jerome's Catholic School. This permit is based on the standards for approval required by Code and 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. bo The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. c. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the plans date stamped January 9, 2002, for a 3,800 square foot addition to St. Jerome's Catholic School. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by code. The applicant shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the City has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Complete the following before the City issues a building permit: (1) Provide a revised landscape plan to be approved by staff showing: three omamental trees of at least 1% caliper inch to be planted on the west side of the addition, across the drive aisle; and Iow-maintenance shrubbery or perennial plants to be planted along the new sidewalk, around the proposed bollard lights. (2) Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. St. Jerome's Catholic School 3 February 13, 2002 c. Complete the following before occupying the building: .e. (1) Screen all new roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (3) St. Jerome's School is exempt from the dumpster screening requirements as long as the dumpsters are stored on the southwest corner of the lot, in between the school and the garage and remains screened by surrounding mature trees. 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 City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. (3) The City receives an agreement that will allow the City to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. St. Jerome's Catholic School 4 February 13, 2002 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 40 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 8 replies, all were in favor of the proposal: 1. Christopher McDonnell, 379 Ripley Avenue E: I have no concerns about the proposed construction. Donald Zettel: 334 Roselawn Avenue E: It is okay with us. Audrey Duellman: 1843 Desoto Street North: Good project, we are in favor of it. John Thomas, 328 Roselawn Avenue E: The proposed construction sounds okay to us. We do not attend St. Jerome's, so do not know a lot about it, but see no problems. They probably do need the space. D.H. Schroepfer, 314 Bellwood Avenue East: We have no objections to this addition. James H. Keultjes, 334 Bellwod Avenue East: I have no objections to this plan. The extra daycare and preschool will be good for our area. Marlin and Janine Frans, 1866 McMenemy Street North: Building the preschool would be a great idea - go ahead with the plans. · Roger and Cynthia Chinander, 328 Bellwood Avenue East: We have no problem with proposed addition. St. Jerome's Catholic School February 13, 2002 .,.- T ..... -'--[ -'[ ..... T REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 10.65 Acres Church, Elementary School, and Preschool SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Single Family Homes and Open Space 12-Unit, Multi-Dwelling Complex Rosotto Senior Apartments Single Family Homes and Parish PLANNING Zoning: Land Use Plan: Farm Residence School CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36-436(3) requires, a CUP for any daycare facility or school within any zoning district. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 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 aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards as specified in the resolution on pages 14 and 15. St. Jerome's Catholic School 6 February 13, 2002 Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for St. Jerome's expansion on January 15, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City action is required on this proposal by March 16, 2002. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Location Map Zoning Map Site Plan Elevations M.C.L Architect's December 22, 2001, Letter St. Jerome's January 17, 2002, Letter Conditional Use Permit Resolution St. Jerome's Catholic School 7 February 13, 2002 Attachment 1 ,r U St. Jerome Catholic and SchOol I · Avenue East Location Map 8 Attachment 2 'I St. Jerome's Catholic.Church / ~ · Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) Zoning Map 9 Attachment 3 lq Site Plan S 10 Attachment 4 ,..:Z:ZZ:ZZ:Z::ZZ~.~ ' -- Elevations 11 Attachment 5 ARCHITECTS, INC. MEMORANDUM New Addition and School Renovation Church of St. Jerome 380 Roselawn Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55117 Project No. 40506.000 22 December 2001 Response to Item 2, City of Maplewood Conditional Use or PUD Application: "A written statement describing the intended use of the property and why the City should approve your request." St. Jerome's Catholic Church and School have been operating at their current location since before 1951-52 when the first wing of the present K-8 school building w/preschool program was constructed. The proposed preschool addition of approximately 3,800 square feet is consistent with the present use of the building and property. The character and location of the addition will not negatively change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Since the proposed addition is a relatively small expansion of the existing program and use, it should not depreciate property values or create any community disturbances mentioned in criteria number four. The childcare program will increase from a current attendance of 29, to an attendance of up to 60 children at any one time. The small addition should have a minimal effect on vehicular traffic and would be served adequately by public facilities and services without excessive additional costs. The size and location of the addition has minimal impact on the site's natural features and the environment in general. The addition is essential to the school's future vitality. As a feeder program to the K-8 Grade School, the preschool addition will serve both the parish and greater community, insuring the church's future presence in the City of Maplewood. McGUIRE COURTEAU LUCKE ARCHITECTS, INC. Eric J. Ketelsen EJK:pas 12 McGUIRE COURTEAU LUCKE ARCHITECTS, INC. 400 St. Paul Building, 6 West Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 TEL (651) 222-8451 FAX (651) 222-5414 Fire Marshal Maplewood Fire Department 1830 E. County Rdl B Maplewood, MN. 55109 Januaryl 7, 2002 Subject: St. Jerome School Addition Att: Butch Gervais Gentlemen, St. Jerome Parish is in the process of expanding their child care center (Kid's Korner) by adding on to the existing school building and providing some upgrades to the existing facility. An ambitious proposal for site and building improvements was made more than a year ago and a fund campaign was initiated and completed by mid summer. Unfortunately, we were not able to raise the funding necessary and the project has been substantially down sized. We have submitted plans to the city for an addition of about 3900 square feet and some internal building upgrades such as handicap access and toilet facilities. We will add sprinkler protection for the new areas and the entire west wing. We have included new smoke and fire detection and alarms for the entire school facility. We do not have adequate funding to complete the sprinklers in the center or east wing but adequate sizing and stub-off will be provided so that that area can be completed in the future. We should be able to complete this campaign and reduce our financial debt sufficiently to add the remaining sprinklers within five years. We hope you will support our efforts to improve the St. Jerome School facility at this time and within our financial constraints and timetable. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us immediately as we are trying to schedule most of the construction work this summer to avoid conflict with class scheduling. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Pastor W'flliam J. Tronsen project leader CC. Dave Fisher - Building Official Maplewood Community Development. 13 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, St. Jerome's Catholic School applied for a conditional use permit for the expansion of a preschool; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 380 Roselawn Avenue East, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: The East % of the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of the SW Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22; and also the N 233 ft of the E 160 ft of the W 327.31 ft of the SW % of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22; and also the S 75 ft of the N 433 ft of the W % of the NW ¼ of the NW Quarter of the SW %, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22; and also the W % of the NE ¼ of the NW % of the SW %, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, except that part deeded to Ramsey County as shown by a deed in Book 750 of Deeds on page 634, and except an easement for highway purposes; and also S 125 ft of the N 358 ft of the W 327 and 327.31 ft of the N Quarter of the NW Quarter of the SW Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, subject to the rights of the public in highways, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is as follows: 17-29-22-32-0004. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On ,2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. On ,2002, 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: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 14 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. o The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site'S natu. ral and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: All construction of St. Jerome's Preschool addition shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed preschool addition must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 15 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Code Amendment - Pawnbrokers and Currency Exchanges City of Maplewood February 11, 2002 INTRODUCTION Background On May 14, 2001, the city council passed a moratorium on pawnbrokers and currency exchanges. The city council directed staff to look at different controls available to regulate the number of these types of businesses in the city. On December 10, 2001, the city council passed an ordinance amending the licensing requirements for pawnbrokers and currency exchanges (see attached December 10, 2001, ordinance on page 3). The new licensing requirements allow for one pawnbroker license and one currency exchange license to be issued within the city at a time. Proposed Code Amendment Staff is proposing language to the zoning code that requires a conditional use permit for both pawnbrokers and currency exchanges within the Business Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning districts. DISCUSSION New Licensing Requirements The ordinance adopted December 10, 2001, amended the licensing requirements for pawnbrokers and created a new licensing requirement for currency exchanges. The amended and new requirements restrict the number of these facilities to only one at a time. The city attorney has researched this and found that cities can limit the number of such businesses as long as statutory limits are not exceeded. Minnesota Statutes have not set limits to date. Currently, the city has one pawnbroker located on Rice Street and no currency exchanges. Zoning Requirements The city's zoning code currently allows for the following: Currency exchanges: Allowed within the Business Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning districts as a permitted use. Pawnbrokers: Allowed within the Business Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning districts as a conditional use if located at least 350 feet from property the city is planning for residential use. The newly adopted currency exchange license ordinance specifies that currency exchanges require a conditional use permit. This is in direct conflict with the above-mentioned zoning code requirement that allow currency exchanges as permitted uses. In contrast, the existing pawnbroker license ordinance does not make mention of the conditional use permit requirement as specified in the above-mentioned zoning code. It is the city's intent to require a conditional use permit for both currency exchanges and pawnbrokers. Therefore, to clear up the conflict, staff is proposing that the zoning code and licensing requirements both reflect that currency exchanges and pawnbrokers require conditional use permits as well as city licensing. Spacing from Churches and Schools After adoption of the new licensing requirements in December, the city council directed staff to research the possibility of enacting a distance requirement for pawnbrokers and currency exchanges from residential, schools and churches due to the nuisances often associated with such businesses. As stated above, the city's zoning code currently requires that pawnbrokers be located at least 350 feet from property the city is planning for residential use (i.e., property which currently has residential structures located on it or property which is classified as residential in the city's land use map). Staff is proposing that currency exchanges meet this distance requirement as well. Regarding schools and churches, after an inventory of the city's schools and churches, it was found that there are a total of four that are not classified as residential (see attached map on page 5). Therefore, in addition to the location restriction of 350 feet from residential, staff is proposing to add language that would require pawnbrokers and currency exchanges to be located within 350 feet of a school or church as well. The city attorney has indicated that cities cannot completely zone out specific uses. To ensure that the above-mentioned distance requirements do not zone out pawnbrokers and currency exchanges, staff has conducted an inventory of available land (see attached map on page 6). If the distance requirements are adopted, there will be approximately 709 acres, or 7 percent, of the city's land available to these types of uses. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the ordinance amendments on pages 7 through 11. The first ordinance (pawnbroker and currency exchange licensing amendment) adds clarifying language to the pawnbroker licensing requirements specifying that a conditional use permit is required for pawnbrokers and also relocates the newly adopted currency exchange ordinance from under the pawnbroker article to its own article. The second ordinance (business commercial zoning district amendment) revises the Business Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning districts to allow pawnbrokers and currency exchanges with a conditional use permit only if the property is located at least 350 feet or more from a residential lot line, or located at least 350 feet or more from any school or church. P:ord~pawnbroker-currency Attachments: 1. December 10, 2001, Ordinance Amending Pawnbroker and Currency Exchange Licensing Requirements 2. Commercial Zoned Churches/Schools Map 3. Pawn Shop and Currency Exchange Land Availability Map 4. Ordinance Amending the Pawnbroker and Currency Exchange License Requirements 5. Ordinance Amending the Business Commercial District Pawnbrokers and Currency Exchanges 2 February 11, 2002 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, December 10, 2001 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 01-29 Attachment 1 7:10 go co Ordinance Change-Pawn Shops and Currency Exchange Business Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report and presented the specifics of the report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: None (a) g. ~ Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins moved., to adopt the ordinance to limit the number of pawn shops and currency exchange businesses to one each at a time and approved the license fee of $300.00: ORDINANCE NO. 820 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF CITY CODE PERTAINING TO PAWNBROKERS AND ADDING LANGUAGE TO REGULATE CURRENCY EXCHANGE BUSINESSES The Maplewood City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Sec. 22-16, is amended as follows (the additions have been underlined): No person shall exercise, carry on or engage in the trade or business of pawnbroker within the city without first having obtained a license, from the city, to do so in conformance with the provisions of this article. Each license shall be issued to the applicant only and shall not be transferable. Each license shall be issued only for the premises described in the application and shall not be transferable to a different location. No change in ownership, control or location of a license shall be permitted except by amendment the license. Such license amendment must be approved by City Council. No more than one (1) pawnbroker license shall be issued by the City at any time. The city shall give priority to qualified applicants for renewal of an existing license. Section 2. Sec. 22.1 is added as follows (the additions have been underlined): Definition. The term "currency exchange" is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 53A.01 subdivision 1. Currency exchange means any person, except a bank, trust company, saving,,; 3 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or industrial loan or thrift company, engaged in the business of cashing checks, drafts, money orders or travelers' checks for a fee. Currency exchange does not include a person who provides these services incidental to the person's primary business if the charge for cashing a check or draft does not exceed one dollar ($1.00) or one (1) percent of the value of the check or draft, whichever is greater. License required. No person shall exercise, carry_ on or engage in the trade of currency exchange in Maplewood without first having obtained a license from the city to do so in conformance with this Chapter and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 53A. Each license shall be issued to the applicant only and shall not be transferable. Each license shall be issued only for the premises described in the application and shall not be transferable to a different location. No change in ownership, control or location of a license shall be permitted except by amendment to the license. Such license amendment must be approved by the City Council. No more than one (1) currency exchange license shall be issued by the City at any time. The City shall give priority to qualified applicants for renewal of an existing license. License fee. The amount of the annual license fee for a currency exchange license under this article shall be imposed, established, set and fixed by the City Council, by resolution, from time to time. Applications for license. The applicant for a currency exchange license under this article shall apply to the city clerk for such license and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the chief of police. The chief of police, or an officer duly detailed by the chief for such purpose, shall investigate the applicant and report the results of such investigation to the City Council. The City Council must approve all currency exchange licenses. The City Council may disapprove an application for the following reasons: 1. Violation of any provision of the state currency exchange law contained in Chapter 53A. 2. The location of the proposed business does not comply with applicable zoning, building or fire codes. All currency exchange businesses must obtain a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Any one (1) or more of the reasons, conditions, or standards for adverse action under Section 36- 436 of City Code. Councilmember Allenspach seconded. Ayes-All Attachment 2 Commercial Zoned Churches/Schools Commercial Zoned C h u rcheslSch ools (Four Total) Attachment 3 Pawn Shop and Currency Exchange Land Available When Use Located At Least 350 Feet From Residential (Total Land Area Equals 709 Acres or 7 Percent of City Land) Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PAWNBROKER AND CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amends Section 22-20 (Pawnbroker Licensing Application) by clarifying the licensing requirements for pawnbrokers [deletions are stricken and additions are underlined]: Sec. 22-20. Applications for licenses. The applicant for a pawnbroker's license under this article shall apply to the city clerk for such license and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the chief of police. The chief of police, or an officer duly detailed by the chief for such purpose, shall investi.qate the applicant and report the results of such investiqation to the city council. The city council must approve all pawnbroker's license. The city council may disapprove an application for the following reasons: Violation of any provision of the state pawnbroker law contained in Minnesota Statutes. The location of the proposed business does not comply with applicable zoninR, buildinR or fire codes. All pawnbrokers must obtain a conditional use permit. Any one (1) or more of the reasons, conditions or standards for adverse action under Section 36-435 of'the city code. Section 2. This amendment moves Section 22.1 (Currency Exchange) to Article II.A.: ARTICLE II. PAWNBROKERS ..... psrcsnt ............ ARTICLE II.A. CURRENCY EXCHANGE (a) Definition: The term "currency exchange" is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 53A.01, subdivision 1. Currency exchanqe means any person, except a bank, trust company, savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or industrial loan or thrift company, engaged in the business of cashing checks, drafts, money orders or travelers' checks for a fee. Currency exchanqe does not include a person who provides these services incidental to the person's primary business if the charqe for cashinq a check or draft does not exceed one dollar ($1.00) or one (1) percent of the value of the check or draft, whichever is greater. 8 (b) License required. No person shall exercise, carry on or en~a~e in the trade or business of currency exchange in Maplewood without first having obtained a license from the city to du so in conformance with this Chapter and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 53A. (c) Each license shall be issued to the applicant only and shall not be transferable. (d) Each license shall be issued only for the premises described in the application and shall not be transferable to a different location. (e) No change in ownership, control or location of a license shall be permitted except by amendment to the license. Such license amendment must be approved by the City Council. (f) No more than one (1) currency exchange license shall be issued by the City at any time. The City shall give priority to qualified applicants for renewal of an existing license... (c~) License fee. The amount of the annual license fee for a currency exchange license under this article shall be imposed, established, set and fixed by the City Council, by resolution, from time to time. Applications for license. The applicant for a currency exchange license under this article shall apply to the city clerk for such license and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the chief of police. The chief of police, or an officer duly detailed by the chief for such purpose, shall investigate the applicant and report the results of such investi,qation to the City Council. The City Council must approve all currency exchange licenses. The City Council may disapprove an application for the following reasons: 1. Violation of any provision of the state currency exchange law contained in Chapter 55A... 2. The location of the proposed business does not comply with applicable zonine, building or fire codes. All currency exchange businesses must obtain a conditional use permit. 3. Any one (1) or more of the reasons, conditions or standards for adverse action under Section 36-435 of City Code. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2002. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Ayes - Nays - Attachment 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUSINESS COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment revises Section 36-151 to allow pawnbrokers and currency exchanges within the Business Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning districts with a conditional use permit if at least three hundred fifty (350) feet or more from any property the city is planning for residential use [deletions are stricken and additions are underlined]: Section 36-151(a). Permitted uses. The city shall only permit the following uses by right: (13) Reserved. Section 36-151(b). Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (13) ~) ...... h,,,. ~ c+ ~=~, ,h.~ ~,,..~...~ ~.:,, .......... ~'" ' dy th ' ................... . ~,, any prcpe e ";* ..... "--",;,,-. ~,-. .................... ~, ..... :hcp= end p Pawnbroker as defined in section 22. All pawnbrokers are subiect to the followin.q: 1. They must be located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential Iol iine, and three hundred fifty (350) feet of any school or church 2. ~it¥ licensin,q as re_~ulated in section 22 of the city code. Currency Exchan,qe as defined in section 22. All currency exchan.qes are subject to the followin.q: . 1. They must be located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential Io[ line, and three hundred i'Eiy (350) feet of any school or church. 2. City licensin.q as regulated in section 22 of the city code. 10 Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2002. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays - MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission's 2001 Annual Report February 5, 2002 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the new year. 2001 ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following: 3 changes to the land use plan 2 changes to the zoning map 3 preliminary plats 5 ordinance changes 25 conditional use permits and revisions 7 vacations 2 variances 7 miscellaneous requests The commission also worked on the comprehensive plan update and took a tour of development sites. 2001 LAND USE PLAN CHANGES The commission considered three changes to the land use plan in 2001. Changes PC Action Approved Afton Ridge (Lower Afton and McKnight Roads) From BC-M and LBC to R-3H (residential high-density) 5-8 Club (Beau's) (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) From R-1 (single dwellings) to BC-M (business commercial modified) Approved Carefree Villas (Gervais Avenue) From R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3H (residential high-density) Approved Council Action Approved Approved Approved 2001 ZONING MAP CHANGES The commission considered two changes to the zoning map in 2001. Change PC Action Approved Afton Rid.qe (Lower Afton and McKnight Roads) From CO and LBC to R-3 (multiple-family residential) 5-8 Club (Beau's) (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) From R-1 (single dwellings) to BC-M (business commercial modified) Council Action Approved Approved Approved 2001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS The commission considered the following conditional use permits and permit revisions in 2001. PC Action Council Action Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall Revision (925 Century Avenue North) Approved Approved Lot Division (1101 County Road C) Approved Approved Rice/Roselawn Auto Sales (1908 Rice Street) Approved Approved Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD (Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue) Denied Tabled Maplewood Imports Addition/Revision (2780 Maplewood Drive) Approved Approved University Auto Sales (1145 Highway 36) Approved Approved AT&T Monopole (1681 Cope Avenue) Approved Approved Little School of Montessori (1945 Prosperity Road) Approved Approved The Gardens PUD (Summer Lane, east of McMenemy Street) Approved Approved Afton Ridge (Lower Afton and McKnight Road) Maplewood Auto Center (2525 White Bear Avenue) Schlomka Landscaping (2511 Carver Avenue) Alamo Car Rental (2525 White Bear Avenue) 5-8 Club (Beau's) (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) Sobriety High School (2055 White Bear Avenue) Salvation Army Church Addition/Revision (2080 Woodlynn Avenue) Sinclair Station Remodeling (2158 Rice Street) Maplewood Toyota Expansion (2783 and 2889 Maplewood Ddve) Hill-Murray School Addition/Revision (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) Ramsey County Productive Day Golf Course (Century Avenue and Lower Afton Road) Saint Paul Water Services Plant Revision (1900 Rice Street) Carefree Villas PUD (Gervais Avenue) Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved ApProved Approved Approved MEMBERS WHO RESIGNED IN 2001 Jack Frost (12-10-01) MEMBERS WHO WERE APPOINTED IN 2001 None 2001 ATTENDANCE Name Appointed Term Expires 2001 Attendance Lorraine Fischer 1970 12-04 18 out of 18 Jack Frost 12-10-90 Resigned 14 out of 18 Gary Pearson 12-10-90 12-02 16 out of 18 William Rossbach 10-10-89 12-02 16 out of 18 Edc Ahlness 10-10-94 12-04 14 out of 18 Matt Ledvina 12-08-97 12-04 12 out of 18 Dale Trippler 6-8-98 12-03 16 out of 18 Paul Mueller 7-13-98 12-03 15 out of 18 Mary Diedch 12-11-00 12-03 15 out of 18 2002 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the planning commission for 2002: 1. Have an annual tour of development and other sites of interest. 2. Have in-service training for the planning commission. 3. Have information (including maps) about the comprehensive plan and have commissioners available at the annual open house. 4. Work with the consultants and city staff on any code or land use plan changes that result from the Hillcrest Area study. 5. Provide input to HRA on housing redevelopment and program issues. 6. Study the area west of Maplewood Mall (including the Hajicek property) for land use and transportation issues. P:~.Amiscell~PC 2001annrep.doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Elections February 5, 2002 INTRODUCTION The planning commission's rules of procedure say that the commission will elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson at the second meeting of each year. The current chairperson is Lorraine Fischer. The most recent vice-chairperson was Jack Frost. RECOMMENDATION · Elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve through January 2003. kr/p/misc/pcelectn.mem