Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 4, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 20, 2002 5. Public Hearing None New Business a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital Conditional Use Permit (1320 County Road D) b. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Plan (at Adolphus Street) c. 2002 Goal Seffing Session with City Council 7. Unfinished Business a. Planning Commission's 2002 Annual Report 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. February 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson b. March 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness c. March 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Tdppler 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. o 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 ev:eryone 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 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eric Ahlness Present Mary Dierich Present Lorraine Fischer Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Absent Gary Pearson Present Present Present Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler III. IV. Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for February 4, 2002. Commissioner Dierich had a correction on the first page of the minutes. She too had approved the agenda and her name was left out of the ayes all vote. Commissioner Trippler had a correction for the minutes on page 11 in the fifth paragraph. The second sentence in that paragraph should say to diSpense with the tot lot instead of dispense of. Commissioner Pearson had a correction on page 17 in the seventh paragraph. He would like it to read Commissioner Pearson asked what was the hiqhest watermark in the current year and what had the highest watermark been after the last 4-inch rain? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -2- Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 17 in the tenth paragraph in the fourth sentence. He thought it should read some type of attraction instead of some type of al attractant. He also had a correction on page 19 the second paragraph from the bottom the word geometrics seemed odd to him. That was the word used on the transcription tape and nobody was quite sure what the speaker meant by it so we left it as it was. The last correction he had was on page 27 in the second paragraph in the second sentence it should read he said one of the, instead of he said on of the. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve of the minutes with changes. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Maplewood Toyota Conditional Use Permit Revision (2873) Maplewood Drive Ms~ Finwall stated Maplewood Toyota 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. Maplewood Toyota would also install a new bituminous overlay on the south parking lot. Ms. Finwall stated on October 8, 2001, the city council approved Steve McDaniels plans to expand Maplewood Toyota. In addition to a new parking lot north of Beam Avenue, the council approved a conditional use permit 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 west of the new showroom. Ms. Finwall stated that it was discovered that a holding pond was required back in 1979 during the initial development of the Maplewood Toyota dealership. This could mean that the site is detaining and treating storm water from the site currently. Although final grading and drainage plans should be submitted for city engineer approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. Finwall stated there will be 386 parking spaces on the site. 211 of these spaces will be o. the main site and 175 will be located on the new parking lot to the north of Beam Avenue. Even though there is adequate parking on the site, staff does recommend that an adequate number of customer parking spaces be marked. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -3- Currently there are two sheds located on the northwest corner of the site, one is in disrepair and there is debris stored outside of the sheds. There is also a chain link fence that is located on the south and west of the lot that has been damaged from snow removal from the parking lot. During the CDRB meeting the board members requested that they remove one or more of the sheds from the property. Maplewood Toyota has stated that they are willing to remove one of the sheds. They also propose to remove the chain link fence entirely rather than repair the fence. Staff does recommend approval of Maplewood Toyota's conditional use permit (CUP) with four conditions. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff, in regards to the pond that was required back in 1979 for the initial development of the dealership, staff made it sound like this was something that was just discovered? Ms. Finwall said because there was inadequate engineering submitted with the proposal, city staff just became aware of that pond today during a meeting with the applicant's engineers. Commissioner Rossbach said he believed the pond has some type of skimmers on it that need maintenance. He asked if staff is indicating if the pond is there and functioning that it meets the current requirements regarding the drainage of the site? Ms. Finwall said she cannot answer the last question until a new grading and drainage plan is submitted to the city engineers. Regarding the first statement, it is actually an oil filter that was required in 1979, and from the records, it does not appear that there has been any type of maintenance schedule that has been followed through by the city. So the city would want to make sure that those filters are functioning with the resubmitted plans. Chairperson Fischer asked staff when a submittal came in that was not quite complete by the standards, why didn't staff look at the original permit to see that staff had complete records before it got this far in the process? Ms. Finwall said the 2001 proposal included the expanded parking lot on the north side of Beam Avenue. The north lot was looked at in detail for grading and drainage issues and a detention pond was required. At that time no curbing was going to be removed and replaced on the south site, Chairperson Fischer stated that during the 2001 proposal a total grading and drainage site review was not complete. Ms. Finwall said correct. Chairperson Fischer said perhaps in the future a total grading and drainage site review would not be out of order when some additional revision is being brought in? Ms. Finwall said thank you. Mr. Steve McDaniels of 5977 Lorraine Court, Shoreview, MN 55126, the owner of Maplewood Toyota addressed the commission members. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 Mr. McDaniels stated the holding pond that was to be put in back in 1979 was one of the firs, holding ponds within the area, prior to the current water runoff requirements. The pond is there but is grown over and people think it is just part of the lake. It has been there and he has no issue with working with staff on revising the grading and drainage plan. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. McDaniels if he felt the customer parking lot on the north side is going to be adequate? He came to have some service done on his vehicle and the delivery trucks were in the area and there was no place to park. Mr. McDaniels said the new addition will have no effect on the parking on the north lot. Since the new parking lot was complete all of his employee's cars are in that parking lot and it has made a big difference. With the new addition, the parts will be delivered after hours. Commissioner Rossbach said in regards to the letter in the packet from Steiner Development, it is states that the building will not change the character of the surrounding area and the project should improve property values. He himself does not believe this addition or building improvement will improve the property values. Mr. Fred Richter of 3610 County Road 101, Wayzata, MN 55391, developer for Maplewood Toyota addressed the commission. He said Mr. Rossbach is probably correct. Commissioner Rossbach said he wonders why the city is going with such a soft sell with the wording used such as the city would encourage Maplewood Toyota to---. Why wouldn't the cit,, take the approach that this is a fairly large expansion to the building and is a conditional use permit and the site needs to meet current standards. Verses the statement that they have some type of an option of doing something else. Ms. Finwall said the new addition is being constructed over existing impervious surface so there is no added impervious to the site. Therefore, she believes the city is limited in what they can require them to do in regards to those types of NURP requirements. What the city is proposing is the applicant improves what is there. Commissioner Rossbach said he does not intend to apply this to the current situation. But he would disagree with staff's thought on that. This is a conditional use permit for a large expansion of an area and he thinks the city has a right to say the applicant has to meet the standards. It doesn't make any difference whether the surface is already impervious or not, it is a change of use. Yes it is the same amount of water, but it is a significant increase to the applicant's building. He would think either the commission or staff should review that. The city's stand should be that when they are looking at something as significant as this, the city has a right to have the applicants meet all current ordinances. Ms. Finwall said she doesn't have a direct answer if the city can require such a thing, but because of the existing water retention pond, that was constructed in 1982, with the improvements proposed here, the water runoff will meet today's standards. Chairperson Fischer said that possibly had the staff been aware of the ponding requirements when this report was written it might have been worded somewhat differently? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -5- Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Rossbach said the pond would not meet today's standards. The standards have changed almost yearly since he has been on the commission. He cannot believe the pond would meet today's standards being constructed in 1982 regardless of how many different engineers were involved in the process. The NURP standards were just changed a year ago. It is a small pond and he is sure it is nowhere near what the city would require in size now. His point is not to harp on it but to reflect before getting into the next situation as to what the city's position is. It seems to him that the city council and the commission have demonstrated that runoff is important and the commission should be looking for every opportunity to upgrade things. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Rossbach if he thought this would be a good topic to discuss in an in-service training session? Commissioner Rossbach said that would be a fine topic to discuss. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to make a note of that for an in-service topic for 2002. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't see any type of traffic volume information. If they are expanding work bays at the dealership, isn't there a considerable amount of noise and traffic. Are there any comments from the neighborhood? Has there been any study done on volume and impact on traffic? At the last meeting, and now at this meeting, the commission has questions about things. Last time it was about the fire marshal and the lack of turn-arounds etc. The commission had questions left over and the commission went ahead and approved a development that she felt had significant holes. She felt the engineering report is crucial and was not included in the packet. She feels the commission cannot do a good job of voting on an item if you don't have all the information that is needed to answer questions that are being raised. Chairperson Fischer said the fact that the size of the packets the commission receives have greater or lesser degrees of staff reports and additional input in them. Sometimes people feel there is too much for them to read through and it doesn't get read before the meeting. Sometimes there is too little information, perhaps this is something else to add on the in-service agenda. Commissioner Dierich said sometimes obvious questions are not asked that should have been asked and that troubles her. She is concerned that commission members are voting for things when not all of the facts are presented to the commission. She knows that the vote can be made with conditions and that staff will go back and get the answers. She wants to know the answers before she recommends to the city council a yes or no vote and that the information presented to the commission had all the questions answered and that they made an informed decision on the item. Chairperson Fischer stated that this may go to the heart of staff reports and the timeliness that commission members get the packets. They have a clock that says in so many days you have to get it to the council. So you can't just table the item another two weeks to get the answers when there are deadlines to meet. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -6- Ms. Finwall said regarding missing information it is correct that staff is bound by the 60-day rule so in some instances it is difficult to table. If you do require some additional information the 60. day rule does state that the city can ask for an extension if there is missing info. One of the purposes of the planning commission is to get into the details of a project and point out things that need to be addressed. What does happen, and should happen, is the commission points out the issues, the staff addresses them with the person or expert in that area and it should all be wrapped up by the city council meeting where all the experts are in place during those meetings and they can answer those questions. Keep in mind that once the commission brings up an item, the item is addressed afterward as well. Regarding the traffic, traffic from the dealership is directed towards Highway 61 with limited traffic into the residential neighborhood to the west. Commissioner Dierich wonders if staff has done anything as far as checking with the neighborhood regarding levels of noise or traffic levels. Is that a concern that the commission should be addressed at this point? Ms. Finwall said there has been no complaints from the neighbors. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Rossbach if it was his intention to have some wording added to have the pond and the existing filtration examined? Commissioner Rossbach said it was not his intent when he started out talking about it. If the commission feels that there is wording to be put in he would not stand in the way of it being put in. The point he was making earlier to staff was more for future things and what position the commission would take. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve 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. 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. c. The city council shall review this permit in one year. d. Beam Avenue shall not be used for loading or unloading of vehicles. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion is passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -7- Ms. Finwall said this will be heard by the city council on March 11,2002. Commissioner Trippler asked for a point-of-order question. Is a proposal considered if it doesn't have all the items that are necessary in it? For example the Maplewood Toyota proposal is lacking the engineering report, because it doesn't have that, is it still considered logged in and time specific? Ms. Finwall stated that state law allows city/staff to review an application for ten days and respond to an applicant for any missing material and then any missing material should be submitted prior to that sixty-day clock beginning. In this case staff felt that the drainage issue could be worked out with the applicants during the process. A condition of approval is that a revised grading and drainage plan be submitted for city engineer approval. b. St. Jerome's Conditional Use Permit Revision (380 Roselawn Avenue) Ms. Finwall stated 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. On February 26, 1990, the city council approved two conditional use permits for the expansion of a church and for a daycare facility. To expand the preschool, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: Conditional use permit to expand an existing preschool and daycare facility; Design approval for exterior improvements 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 ½ hour sessions a week. The addition will allow Kid's Korner to expand from 29 to 60 children. 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. There are currently 53 striped parking stalls and room for an additional 97 striped parking stalls on the Ioi. With the addition, 16 additional parking stalls will be striped in front of the school. The city's parking ordinance does not address school parking specifically, but there should be adequate parking stalls for employees and guests. They have 26 employees and all the students are bussed in or dropped off, therefore, parking for the school and expanded daycare is adequate on this site. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -8- With the addition, three large trees and shrubs must be removed during the construction of the project. To comply with the city's tree preservation ordinance staff recommends that thre~. ornamental trees be planted along the west side of the addition. As well as additional landscaping along the sidewalk. St. Jerome's was proposing to replace only one tree near the back of the church with no additional landscaping planted. The assistant city engineer does state that there are no engineering and drainage issues with this proposal. Drainage in the area was looked at extensively with the neighboring housing development. A neighborhood survey was sent to surrounding properties and all comments received were positive for the daycare and preschool addition. Staff recommends approval of St. Jerome's conditional use permit with three standard conditions. Commissioner Ledvina said on the zoning map in the packet the property is zoned farm residential and he thought that was strange given its location. He looked at the land use map in the comprehensive plan of November 1999. It shows that the site is intended to be zoned commercial office. He is wondering why there is this discrepancy and should the commission make an effort to zone it according to the land use plan? We know it is not farm residential but it has that designation apparently. Ms. Finwall said correct, it is zoned farm residential. Within all zoning districts in the City of Maplewood, a preschool, daycare, church and school are allowed with a conditional use permif Regarding the comprehensive plan, perhaps Chairperson Fischer could answer that question. Chairperson Fischer said it used to be common practice to receive copies of the areas land use plan and zoning map as part of the packet. It has generally been the counsel's wish notto rezone to higher usages until there were proposals before them. If there were situations where the comprehensive plan was indicating a lower use than what was on the zoning map they would move forward. In some areas the farm zonings were seen as holding zones. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the city is comfortable with the current farm zoning? Chairperson Fischer said it seems to be thus far. Commissioner Ledvina stated that its current proposed land use is commercial office aid his November 1999 version of the comprehensive plan states that. Ms. Finwall said she will have to verify that. There is commercial office to the northwest of the property and commercial office is a zoning that is compatible to the adjacent residential uses. Chairperson Fischer said she was surprised at the land use for St. Jerome's. A possibility could be as the maps were changing from black and white to color versions, planning commissioners were asked to try and proofread it to see if the interpretation of the colors and the legends agreed with the old black and white version. She doesn't know if maybe a clerical or computer error occurred and staff may want to check that. Commissioner Rossbach said regarding the dumpsters, if there are more students being added will there be more trash and are there enough dumpsters to accommodate the additional trash? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -9- Ms. Finwall showed members a photo of the dumpsters that are currently on site and the location in the parking lot. She is not sure of the answer to the need for an additional dumpster or not, perhaps the applicant can answer that. The following were representatives for St. Jerome's Catholic School: Mr. Eric Ketelsen of 1439 Blair Avenue, St. Paul, MN. He is the architect of McGuire Courteau Lucke Architects, Inc. Father Ken Ludescher of 1894 McMenemy Street, Maplewood, MN. Mr. Gerald Vimr of 2011 Edgemont Street, Maplewood, MN. Mr. Ken Klutzke of 458 Woodruff Avenue, Roseville, MN. He is a member of the parish and has students at the school. Commissioner Rossbach asked the applicants if there was going to be enough room for a dumpster if needed? Mr. Ketelsen said if one is needed, there is room. Commissioner Pearson mentioned to the applicants that St. Jerome's must be very good neighbors based on the comments that came back from the neighborhood survey. That doesn't always happen, so it is nice to see. Commissioner Ledvina moved to adopt the resolution on pages 14 and 15 of the staff report. 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: ao All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion is passed. Ms. Finwall stated this item will go to the community design review board February 26, 2002. It will go to the City Council on March 11,2002. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -10- c. Code Amendment - Pawn Shops and Currency Exchange Businesses Ms. Finwall stated that on May 14, 2001, the city council passed a one-year 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. The new licensing requirements allow for one pawnbroker license and one currency exchange license to be issued within the city at a time. 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. However, they recently approved one currency exchange to be located next to T-birds on White Bear Avenue near the mall. The city's zoning code currently allows for the following: 1. Currency exchanges: Allowed within the Business Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning districts as a permitted use. 2. 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 a permitted use. 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 reflect that currency exchanges and pawnbrokers require conditional use permits as well as city licensing. 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. 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 at least 350 feet of a school or church as well. Commissioner Rossbach asked when the moratorium was put into effect was it Maplewood' experience with the one pawn shop the city has that it actually takes up a lot of police time going to the pawn shop? How is it determined that there is apparently no such thing as a good pawnshop? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -11- Ms. Finwall said she understands there were concerns regarding the possibility that a pawnshop could locate in Maplewood in the Hillcrest area which is a smart growth opportunity site for more pedestrian friendly developments. The city council was very concerned that a pawnshop could locate in that area. Additional concerns include the police time involved as it takes a considerable amount of time. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the tagging staff referred to is something the pawnshop does? Do they give a report to the police or do the police go over and look at the items at the pawnshop? Ms. Finwall said she was not sure. Commissioner Rossbach said he doesn't really care whether Maplewood has any pawnshops or not and he has never been to a pawnshop or to a currency exchange either. It seems to him .that this ordinance makes it so that for the most part Maplewood can't have a pawnshop or currency exchange in the city. He would be concerned that there would be enough information so he can understand why the city would not want any of these businesses in Maplewood. There is no police report stating that the police department themselves have a problem with these pawn shops or currency exchanges. This would tell members if the police were getting many calls, that it takes up a lot of their time, and it would provide more history as to why it is that the council is so against having these types of businesses in the City of Maplewood. Ms. Finwall said regarding the zoning out of pawnshops that would be illegal, city/staff has conducted a survey of the available lands. If this amendment would be put in place it would require pawnshops and currency exchanges with a conditional use permit if located 350 feet from residential property. The map in the staff report shows that approximately 709 acres would be available for these pawn shops or 7% of the city's land. The city council has already addressed the licensing requirements and is not up for discussion tonight. Tonight the commission is trying to make the zoning code reflect what the new licensing requirement that was approved states. Chairperson Fischer said interestingly enough there is some licensing language in the proposed zoning amendment in the staff report. Ms. Finwall said the original licensing language included that a currency exchange business required a conditional use permit that was in conflict with what the zoning code stated which is 'that it is a permitted use. Because that language was in the licensing there was discussion of taking that out and putting the language in the conditional use permit area and not overlapping the two. However, it was felt that language regarding the conditional use permit should be put in the licensing area and language regarding the licensing should be put in the c conditional use permit area so there is no conflict. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if there is a definition of what a pawnshop is? How do they describe it? You may be driving along and see a sign that might say, "we buy and sell used tools", does that make that a pawnshop? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -12- Ms. Finwall said the existing ordinance does have a definition of pawnshop. Commissioner Pearson asked staff is it a part of any of this other description. Ms. Finwall asked, do you mean part of the licensing requirement? Commissioner Pearson said yes. Also a couple of other times the commission has asked staff when they get the packets if there is police or fire interest, that staff expresses it in the background report. He does not see anything like that in the report. Ms. Finwall said she believes those issues were addressed with the initial licensing requirements so perhaps staff was negligent in addressing them with this minor zoning amendment. Commissioner Pearson asked if the currencyexchange is a concern for money laundering? Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Rossbach said staff said there is 709 acres to put pawnshops on. All of that is a technicality because the vast majority of this land is already developed. Whether that is right or wrong, the city is setting up an ordinance that makes it almost impossible for these businesses to be in the City of Maplewood. Ms. Finwall said the current ordinance for pawnshops would allow them to be located a, specified on the map. Staff is proposing to change that ordinance; currently they can only locate 350 feet from residential property. What the staff is proposing to change is changing is currency exchanges, and the city council has already approved the licensing requirements that limit one of each business in the city of Maplewood. That has already been decided by the city council and is not up for discussion tonight. Commissioner Rossbach said he believes it is misleading. Commissioner Ahlness said his concern is that this type of business is restricted as much as possible to core commercial areas rather than in little strip businesses clustered in residential areas. Putting a pawnbroker and currency exchange together in a strip mall somewhat threatens the character of the surrounding residential areas. Is 350 feet far enough away or could staff look at a more aggressive amount like 500 feet away or even ~ of a mile that would certainly place it only in core commercial areas. That would be an example of what staff said the currency exchange business is going to be located like next to T-birds, and that would be far enough away from residential. He thinks that would preserve property values of the neighborhoods. He thinks it is well documented that currency exchanges, pawnbrokers, tattoo shops, strip clubs, etc. do have a detrimental effect on neighborhood property values. The city should try to restrict those businesses to core commercial areas. Ms. Finwall said the 350 feet restricts those businesses mainly to commercial areas and she would be concerned with an additional distance as it maybe zoning those uses oL completely. Chairperson Fischer said sometimes it is a fine line. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -13- Ms. Finwall said yes. Staff did look at the City of St. Paul, they have an ordinance that requires that these businesses are 150 feet away from residential properties which basically puts a business right across the street from a residence, so the city did not want to make it any less restrictive than 350 feet. They did not look at a greater distance than 350 feet for a restriction but it is something the city can review if the commission wishes. Commissioner Trippler said he felt very uncomfortable from the beginning. It seems to him that pawnbrokers and currency exchange businesses are things that relatively Iow-income individuals use and have a need for. Apparently the City of Maplewood has decided that they don't like these businesses. If they were really a problem with the police he would have expected to see some supporting evidence in the report. He thinks any business that is run well can be a benefit to the community. He doesn't think it is the nature of the business, as it is how the business is run. He doesn't understand what the planning commission is being asked to do with this. It is like they are being asked to give some credence to an ordinance that was proposed by the city council that he doesn't understand. He just feels real uncomfortable about supporting this kind of thing. The city would not be limiting the number of churches they have in the community. Commissioner Pearson said he doesn't see anything in the ordinance that requires the businesses to be operated as a separate business in a separate building with separate entrances. Is it the intent of the ordinance that they could operate a money exchange out of the back of a beauty shop or Laundromat? Ms. Finwall said that is not addressed, however, with the amendment with the zoning code each business would require a conditional use permit and therefore be reviewed by the planning commission and city council. However, there are two existing businesses that means with the new licensing requirements no other businesses could come into the city. Both of those businesses are in a strip mall on Rice Street and White Bear Avenue as separate businesses. Commissioner Pearson said he does not have a problem with the ordinance or that it be too exclusive or the numbers of the businesses or anything else. His mobile home park has had personal experiences where there has been break-ins, and over a period of 4-6 days these materials start showing up in pawnshops. So he knows what the concerns are and it is valid. His concern is that they make this tight enough so that the companies have to operate in a reputable manner. Commissioner Rossbach said there can only be one of each of them operating in the City of Maplewood at any given time, so it should be pretty easy for somebody to keep track of them. Commissioner Pearson said he doesn't have a problem with passing this ordinance but not everything is in this ordinance so the staff must have other things they are relying on for controls. Ms. Finwall said in the pawnbroker-licensing ordinance is quite extensive and has been in place for quite awhile. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -14- Commissioner Pearson said that is why he was asking. him. He doesn't have those in front o~: Commissioner Rossbach said what we are really talking about here is that they want to make the language for the two different ordinances the same. The other part is should they have to be 350 feet from a church, residential property line, or a school. Commissioner Dierich said she agrees with Mr. Ahlness regarding where these businesses should be located. The 350 feet from residential is not far enough in her opinion. She used to live on the same block as the Pain Reliever and behind the motorcycle business on East Seventh Street in St. Paul, and both of these were 350 feet from residential. If the city is going to change the ordinance for zoning, then the city should make it commercial core and limit the areas. She doesn't care about the number of those businesses as long as they are limited in where they are placed, rather than how many feet away from residential. Commissioner Rossbach said the commission could make a recommendation saying the commission agrees with what is being done, however, the commission thinks it should be more restrictive and the city is allowing to much area and that it could be too close to residents yet at 350 feet. Commissioner Ledvina said he is comfortable with the staff report and feels that staff did research the 350 feet from residential. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the ordinance amendments in the staff repod 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. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the ordinance and wondered if he was out of order if he abstained from the vote? Ms. Finwall said yes you can make a motion to place the item for a vote and then vote for, against, or abstain from the vote. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson Nays - Ahlness, Dierich Abstention -Rossbach, Trippler The motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -15- Chairperson Fischer asked members, given the fact that there was some information that would have been helpful to have in the staff report, would some of the members have been more comfortable if somebody was at the meeting from the police department who was able to answer questions for background? Commissioner Ahlness said he believes that would have been helpful to make an informed decision. He would like staff to research this item more and see if the 350 feet distance could be increased. If they did increase it to 500 feet for instance, under legal advice from the city attorney, would that be a legal option? Would that eliminate some areas on the map that are largely residential and put it more in the commercial areas in the city and at least present' that alternative to the city council? He would be satisfied with that. Chairperson Fischer said if her count is correct there are 3 Ayes, 2 Nays and 2 Abstentions, so it does carry. By Mr. Ahlness articulating what your reasons were for voting, perhaps the city council will get the message and carry it forward from there. Staff, is that a possibility? Ms. Finwall said all concerns heard at the meeting will be indicated on the staff report for city council and she will review additional distance requirements and ensure the city is not zoning out these businesses completely. Clearly the commission was divided on this issue and your concerns will be addressed to the city council. Ms. Finwall said this item will go to the city council March 11,2002. d. Planning Commission's 2001 Annual Report Ms. Finwall stated that the planning commission must prepare an annual report to the city council. In this report the planning commission should report on the activities from the past year and the major projects for the New Year. Mr. Roberts has completed a draft of the 2001 Annual Report for the commission's review. Commissioner Rossbach said he spoke with Mr. Roberts and he asked if it's not too much trouble, it would be nice to review the trends. This year there were 25 conditional use permits and the trend was there were more conditional use permits than any other activity compared to the 21 from the previous year. He is also amazed when he reviews the report to see how the planning commission voted in comparison with how the city council voted. He believes there is an error in the report for the Carefree Villas PUD on page 3 of the annual report. It should say PC Action Denied and it says Approved. Chairperson FisCher said according to the December 17, 2001, minutes it was 2 Ayes and 6 Nays and she would not have considered that an approval. Ms. Finwall said the minutes are correct and the report is inaccurate. Commissioner Rossbach said that is correct. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 Chairperson Fischer said she tried to call Mr. Roberts on Friday but he was gone for th~ day. She said the annual report basically says approved or denied. Sometimes th~ planning commission or the city council makes conditions and that can make a difference in what is happening regarding how the votes were cast. That tells a reader a little bit more about what the planning commission was doing during the course of the year instead of just some numbers and votes in a row. The commission did list some things upfront of the various actions. The planning commission outlined where the land use plan changes were, or what the conditional use permits were, but they did not go into too much detail exactly what they were. You have a title of the change, an address, and the action, but not necessarily the nature of what the commission was looking at. Also under the 2001 activities the commission did 5 ordinance changes but no reference was made to the nature of the ordinance changes. Those are a few things that help the reader to understand. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the planning commission report was developed for anyone other than the members of the planning commission? Chairperson Fischer said there used to be reports that were quite thick and it went to the city council and it would be available for the public as a means of public record. She said she believes each of the commissions submits a report. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Ledvina if the community design review board does an annual report? And if so, is it more informative and thicker than the planning commission's? Commissioner Ledvina said yes they do. It is about the same format, but there is a little. more description about the activities. He would also like to mention on the back page of the annual report, by his count he attended 13 out of the 18 meetings, not 12. Chairperson Fischer said as far as activities that the commission wants to list for the upcoming 2002 year, an in-service would be one, more information in the packets to help commission members better understand the item such as police and fire reports, land use maps etc., and the timely fashion members get the information. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't think things should even come before the planning commission until members have all the reports they need. If it is a bit too much reading for some members, then they can just skip those sections. But the information should be provided if members want to read it so they can be prepared for the meeting. She doesn't think the staff does the members a service by not having that information available to the commission. She also noticed that there were only 2 variances. She would like to know how many variances the commission grants in motions where the commission accepted something and the variance was included. She would have liked to see that separated out. As an example she would have voted for the Maple Hills development but she would not have voted for some of those variances, and because of that, she voted no for the whole development. She thinks some of the presentations, the issues of the order, and the way the commission decides they are going to prepare for a particular meeting, that she would like to see that looked at as a group a little more closely. Planning. Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -17- Commissioner Ledvina said on the subject of input from staff on various items that the commission sees before them, in some instances memos are generated internally between departments, and he knows in the past that he requested that those memos be included in the report. Sometimes they are included in the report for consideration. For example, the Maple Hills PUD. There was a lot of information from the engineer, there was a three-page memo from him and it was very informative. That is the kind of thing that he thinks can be readily included in the commission's reports on a standard basis. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if the normal method of operation is that information is sent to each department and they have the option to reply or not? Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Rossbach said maybe staff could attach something to the information with each department's name on it, and as it gets sent from department to department they could sign off stating that they read the information and they state if they felt the issue did or did not pertain to them. That way the commission.would not question if it had or had not been sent to a certain department or individual for any input or issues. Commissioner Dierich said she felt that would be a reasonable idea. Then commission members know it has been addressed and if a department says no problems or issues, then the commission has to trust their judgment and they know it has been addressed. It is fine to say at the meeting that staff will get the answers to the questions or that the questions will be raised at the city council meeting. However, 'sometimes members are not at the city council meetings to hear for themselves what the final answer was to the issue or question. Chairperson Fischer said another thing that could be put down for an activity, is to review the comprehensive plan in a work session and look and see if what is there on paper is really there in person. At what point does one look at the use of land or zoning as a house keeping issue as Mr. Ledvina had asked at one time? If nothing else, it would be an educational tool for the commission to learn more about what is out there. Commissioner Pearson said it seemed to him that was done about four years ago. Commissioner Ledvina said it was done in 1999. Chairperson Fischer said at that time the commission was proof reading for accuracy. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks that is a good idea. Two years ago he requested that the commission include the review of the Carver Ridge neighborhood. That is the area that is south and east of 494 in the southern part of Maplewood. He requested that the commission review the land use issues in that area and it got on the report and the commission never did anything on it. Now he noticed it is not listed as part of the activities for 2002. This is an opportunity to do some planning in an area that needs some planning. He would like that back on the 2002 activity list, he thinks there are many big reasons why that should be something to be reviewed in 2002. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -18- Commissioner Pearson said if he remembers right there was a lot of discussion that thC developer wanted to do some mother-in-law apartments on some of the homes. H~. happened to be sitting at a committee meeting at the legislature on Monday night where the economics committee kicked out for a 4-4 vote, a measure that would have taken away municipalities right to deny that type of construction. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks that was a discussion as it related to New Century. Commissioner Ledvina said New Century is actually north of the Carver area he is referring t to. Right now that area is zoned farm residential, the same zoning at St. Jerome's Catholic school. The land use plan indicates it is single dwelling residential. Haller's Woods is a 38- acre parcel that was rezoned to residential estate. Further back there was an effort to adopt an RI-R ordinance with a three-acre minimum lot size for that entire area. With the current zoning for that area there is the capability of developing these lots to 10,000 square feet. They will however, be limited by the availability to place septic systems on them. Over at Haller's Woods even with two and three acre lots in that area they have had difficulty constructing septic systems properly on those sites. He feels strongly that the commission needs to take a look at what can be done with the zoning in this area. Not necessarily an RI-R type zoning, but at minimum the commission should review the rezoning of this area as residential estate that is a 30,000 square foot minimum. This area is un-sewered, it is environmentally sensitive, and it deserves some planning. Commissioner Trippler said when he looked at the suggested activities for 2002 the one that caught his attention was the in-service training. He has been on the commission sinc~ 1998 and he does not remember having any in-service training at all except 15 minutes in an office before a city council meeting. He did sign up and take a class at the University of Minnesota at the St. Paul campus that he enjoyed. Rather than having the generic in-service training, there should be a specific subject done quarterly. It tends to get put off and before you know it, there was never a in-service training. He would like some specific training schedule put in place. Chairperson Fischer said when she came in, there had been a complete turnover in the planning commission. At that time they were fortunate that effort and resources were placed to try to get members trained. They started out by having various staff members go to the meetings and tell the commission what their job responsibilities were and their function with the city. They were available to outline what their task was and how to fit it in with the planning commission and were also available to answer questions. Learning that much got the planning commission to learn what questions to ask the staff and what was needed. She agrees that in- services are not only important, but also necessary. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to see a topic on planned use development (PUD). At one time there was a push to use more throughout the city. In his memory, what they were doing at that point was, to set up a mechanism that would help them to deal with some of the areas in the city that were not going to be easy to develop. They either had steep slopes or they had wetlands or they had issues to them. They were not flat areas that you could just go in and put streets in and houses. This was a mechanism that was going to allow them to ~ things like reduce the size of the roads, be able to place houses a little differently, and do some things so that the land could be developed, but knowing it would face some hardships. He thinks that the city has gone to a trend where PUD's are being used to circumvent the Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -19- ordinances for the zones that the city has. He doesn't have strong objections having to do with what the commission did with the cottages because the city would like to have as much senior housing as the city can get at the moment. That was a situation where with the addition to the cottages were three residential lots that got included in the PUD and the only reason they were in there was to down size them as he could see. He would like to review how the city uses PUD's in the city and what their intent is. Chairperson Fischer asked staff about the last page of the annual report on page 4. Number 5 says provide input to HRA on housing redevelopment and program issues. It goes in with what the city has seen in the last years with the ordinances with the parking in the front yard. One way to prevent needing redevelopment might be proper maintenance or protection of what you have there to prevent deterioration. She knows with budget troubles there is always push and shove. What is happening on the enforcement, what were the number of calls regarding the no overnight parking on the street, no parking in yards, what were the number of complaints and calls, what has the experience been? An example is screening a dumpster over at St. Jerome's school. You can see exposed dumpsters all over in parking lots of apartments that are right next to single family housing that are not screened. Is the.city capricious in what the city is requiring now or how the city is enforcing? That might be a subject for a workshop. Because of budget constraints, the city is doing all they can and that is a lower priority. Ms. Finwall said regarding the parking issue, she does not have information regarding the number of complaints received. She does know that it is being enforced but mainly on a complaint basis. As far as the dumpster enclosures and things of that nature, keep in mind that many of those that are out there are pre-existing nOn-conforming so the city can't go to an apartment complex and say you have to screen your dumpster. Unless they are requesting some sort of special approval for example a conditional use permit or a variance, at that point the city can say that they will allow this with a condition that the apartment screen the dumpster. Chairperson Fischer said many of the apartment complexes in Maplewood are aging and she does not think that the city has had staff to go out there and check to see that all the conditions that were put on them are still in place. It is possible that there were.some things that were originally required that have fallen down. Things would look better if they were there and if they were new coming in the city would require it. Is the city serious enough about this enforcement to make sure that what was originally required, stays there? Ms. Finwall responded that all conditional use permits approved currently require a review within one year, ensuring that all conditions are in place, and then from that point on it is on a complaint basis or random staff reviews. She would agree that a more proactive approach to code enforcement would be appropriate, however, she does not have the answer regarding the budget and if the city can do that. Chairperson Fischer said in the comprehensive plan there have been some neighborhoods earmarked as ones that might be watched more closely because of aging or pre-existing conditions. If the staff can't do it all over the city, has the city looked at giving priority to the neighborhoods that were ear marked to be watched in the future? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -20- Commissioner Trippler said the planning commission is asked to look at some of these proposals and there is a number of conditions that have to be met. His question is, doe~ somebody actually go out and make sure that those conditions are complied with once the work is supposedly completed? Ms. Finwall said with all conditional use permits within one year staff does go out to ensure compliance with the original conditions. After that it is an ongoing issue. It is mainly on a complaint basis because the city does not have the staff to go out policing those items constantly. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if there is an inspection that is done at the conclusion of the development process? Ms. Finwall said normally with conditional use permits there is some type of building permit involved. Prior to issuance a certificate of occupancy for the business, planning staff will go out and ensure that all the conditions required by the city council are in place. If not, in many instances a letter of credit or escrow will be required to ensure that those conditions are completed. That is one way of inspecting the site. The other way again is the one-year review after the conditional use permit approval with possible future formal inspections as directed by council Commissioner Rossbach said he would agree with staff in that there is a inspection done at the end. Many of the inspections are either through engineering or through the building · inspection department. He knows in talking to Ken Roberts that he has gone out to do thos~ inspections. Chairperson Fischer indicated in the report some of the actions that were voted on, split votes either at the planning commission meeting or at the city council meeting that may have been close votes, and that would not show up under these approved. Is it possible that staff could go back and check for close votes like 3-2 or 2-2 and 3 abstentions or another call that shows a split vote to indicate that with an asterisk or something to make the commission aware of those votes. If there were considerable differences in the conditions that were approved at each level, that might be worth noting. And possibly more verbal description of only one monopole this year, or the trends as Mr. Rossbach mentioned. Commissioner Ahlness noticed that his appointed time is incorrect. He was not appointed in 1994 and he believes it should be December 1,2000 and that he was in attendance 16 out of the 18 meetings not 14 out of 18. Commissioner Trippler moved to table this item until further information is provided for the planning commission to review. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion is tabled. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 -21- e. Election of Officers Ms. Finwall said the planning commission's rules of procedure are 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. The planning commission members should vote to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve through 2003. Commissioner Rossbach asked Chairperson Fischer if she would be interested in another year as the Chairperson? Chairperson Fischer said she would try. Commissioner Rossbach would recommend electing Ms. Fischer as chairperson until the term is up in 2003. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion is passed. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Fischer Chairperson Fischer asked who would' like to be vice-chairperson? Commissioner Trippler nominates Mr. Rossbach. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Rossbach if he is nominated is he willing to serve until 2003? Commissioner Rossbach said yes. Commissioner Trippler would recommend electing Mr. Rossbach as vice-chairperson until the term in 2003. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion is passed. Ayes- Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-02 VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS -22- IX. a. February 11, 2002, city council meeting had nothing that pertained to the commission so no representation was needed. b. February 25, 2002, Mr. Pearson will represent the city council meeting. c. March 11, 2002, the city council meeting will be represented by Mr. Ahlness. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. planning TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Hillcrest Animal Hospital Southwest Comer of Highway 61 and County Road D (1320 County Road D) February 27, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jennifer Bouthilet, representing the Hillcrest Animal Hospital, is proposing to bUild a 7,000 square- foot animal hospital at the southwest corner of Highway 61 and County Road D. Refer to the maps on pages 6-10. This proposal includes constructing a new animal hospital to replace the current animal hospital and a former house on the site. Specifically, the owners recently demolished a house on the property, will construct the new hospital (if approved), and then will demolish the existing hospital after completing the new hospital. The proposed building would be constructed of decorative rock-faced block and stucco and would have asphalt shingles. Refer to the building elevations on pages 11 and 12 and the project plans. Requests The applicant is requesting approval of the following: A conditional use permit (CUP) to build the new building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. The nearest residential district is immediately to the west of the site. The proposed building would be 229 feet from the west property line of the site. 2. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The intent of the code, which requires a CUP for buildings closer than 350 feet to a residential district, is to give the city an opportunity to review proposals and to require additional buffering to protect homeowners. The existing animal hospital is a legal nonconforming use since it has been operating from this site since the 1940's. In addition, the new animal hospital would be an improvement over the existing facility as it would be 124 feet further from the residential district to the west. The proposed building also would be 300 feet from the nearest house to the west. The proposed future addition would be 256 feet from this house, The city may want to consider methods like hours of operation, screening and light-glare control to protect the nearby residents from disturbances. Engineering Department Comments Chds Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, did a review of the proposed drainage/storm water and grading and erosion control plans. His comments are on pages 15 and 16. He has many concerns with the proposed plans and will be requiring many changes to the plans before the city will issue a grading permit or a building permit for the project. An issue that needs to be resolved with this request is that of water to serve the property. The city council ordered a feasibility study to determine where and how to serve this property and the area with water. The city and the owner will need to agree to a plan for providing water to site before the city issues a building permit for the new animal hospital. Lot Combination The proposed site now has two separate lots. The former house was on one parcel and the existing animal hospital is on the other parcel. The city should require the owner to combine the two parcels into one property as a condition of approval of this project. Design Review Comments Building Design The proposed building would be attractive and would have decorative rock-faced block, stucco and asphalt shingles. The proposed colors are brown, cream and beige. As proposed, the building would fit the character of this highway-frontage business location. The proposed site plan shows a future addition on the west side of the hospital building. The location of the addition should not cause any problems. In fact, the proposed future addition would be farther east than the existing animal hospital. The design of the addition, however, should be reviewed by the city before the city approves a building permit for the addition. Landscaping The proposed landscaping west of the parking lot and ddveway is a good start, but the owner should develop this plan further. (See the plans on pages 8 and 9). The city code requires that the developer screen the parking lot from the home to the west by a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen. The owner may accomplish this screening by berming, fencing, plantings or a combination of these. As proposed, the plan does not meet the code requirement for screening. As such, the applicant should expand the landscape plan to meet this code requirement. If the applicant wants to use trees to meet the screening requirement, the trees should include six-foot-tall Austrian Pines, Black Hills Spruce or a combination of these or other similar species of trees. The applicant has not proposed any plantings on the north or east sides of the building. In addition, the proposed plans show a dog run on the north side of the building. The applicant should further develop the landscape plan for these parts of the site by adding no-maintenance plantings on the north and east sides of the building. These plantings also should include provisions for screening the dog run from views to the north and west with opaque fencing or trees. There is a house on the Sparkle Auto property to the south. The city code, however, does not require screening on this side of the site since the city has planned and zoned this property light manufacturing. Site Lights The applicant should provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture design. The lighting code requires a plan when near homes. The fixtures installed should be a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Fire Marshal's Comments 1. The applicant should place a fire hydrant at the driveway and County Road D. 2. A sprinkler system is required. Other Comments The RamseyANashington Metro Watershed Distdct had no comment about this proposal. The Maplewood Police department did not note any public safety concerns with this proposal. They also noted that it is desirable that the applicant would remove the steep driveway on the east side of the site to County Road D. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 17 and 18. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to build a new animal hospital that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district at 1320 County Road D. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance 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. This approval also includes the proposed future addition shown on the west side of the new hospital. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The owner shall combine the two properties into one parcel for tax and identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. 5. The city and the owner shall agree to a plan for providing water to site before the city issues a building permit for the new hospital. 6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. 7. The applicant meeting all the conditions and plan changes required by the city engineer. B. Approve the plans date-stamped February 12, 2002 for the proposed Hillcrest Animal Hospital at 1320 County Road D. The owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. The plans shall meet all the requirements of the city engineer. The utility plans shall provide a fire hydrant where the new ddveway of the hospital meets County Road D. b. A site lighting plan showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to propedy shield glare from the residents. A revised landscape plan for CDRB approval. This plan shall include additional landscaping on the north and east sides of the building and the code-required screening on the west side of the parking lot and driveway. 4. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space. c. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. d. Stripe all customer parking spaces at a width of 9 1/2 feet and the employee spaces at 9 feet. 5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 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 I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for sign permits with staff. This design approval does not include the future addition on the west side of the hospital. This addition must be approved by the city before the city issues a building permit for the addition. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 17 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received two replies that were both for the proposal. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 78,590 square feet (1.8 acres). Existing land use: Hillcrest Animal Hospital and a single dwelling SURROUNDING LAND USES North: New offices across County Road D South: Sparkle Auto West: Single dwellings along County Road D East: Highway 61 PLANNING Land Use Plan and Zoning designations: M-1 Code Requirements Section ~36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 17 and 18. Application Date We received this application on February 12, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by April 11, 2002. p:sec4\hillcrest animal.cup.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan Details 5. Proposed Grading Plan 6. Building Elevations 7. Building Elevations 8. Conditional Use Permit Narrative dated February 12, 2002 9. Chris Cavett comments dated February 27, 2002 10. CUP Resolution 11. Project Plans date-stamped February 12, 2002 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 _ ",,~,~ oo~f . ~o~~ ~~ - ' '-~ q PALM ) COUNTY ~L I.,- .//// 1~ sUMMIT CF. ~ IIII 2. COUNTRY~EW CIR. BLVD. ~ ' ~'1,/ ,). DULUTH CT, / DEMONT SHERREN AVE. I_eke LOCATION MAP VADNAIS HEIGHTS *-- COUNTY ROAD Dr * -- m_~ SPARKLE .I .0 ~) [] · · I GULDENS Attachment 2 Iii 3110 "3090 1420 A .A VOLVO- C (~) LEXUS t ............. ? 1 ' : i J T ......... ---T- .......... --T- ...... f Attachment 3 GSITE pLAN SITE PLAN Attachment 4 c~ ¢ (11) QENTt:~.ANC,.E LANpSC-,.ApE pLAN I LANDSC-.APE NOTE5 I PLANT MATERIAL 5C, HEDLILE LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS 9 Attachment 5 BIT /' / /" / / /' .; t / /' ./ /:I/,!:/ I I I I I f / ~ // ii/ Attachment 6 ~.~¥ N071~, TO ~LEVATION~ O5OIJTH ELEV',ATION QNO~Tt4 ELE¥,ATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS 11 Attachment 7 QgUEST ELEV',~,TION K.E"r' NOTtEE~ 1'0 ELEVATION,~ Attachment 8 HILLCREST ANIMAL HOSPITAL NARRATIVE FOR PROPOSED FACILITY 1320 East County Road D MaplewOod, MN 55109 February 12, 2002 COMPANY BACKGROUND Hillcrest Animal Hospital is one of the oldest small animal veterinary facilities in Maplewood and the surrounding area. It concentrates on offering top quality care and service at competitive prices. Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet purchased the hospital in 1992 from Dr. Conway J. Rosell. Over the past ten years, Dr. Bouthilet has grown the business 5% annually. That growth along with additional staff has put a toll on the existing facility. The 60-year-old facility was designed for only one veterinarian. Now up to three veterinarians work there each day. The work areas are crammed into small spaces and there are roof, plumbing and electrical problems. TJ:fis_hampers Hillcrest's ability to deliver all the services it would like to offer to its clients. Based on a demographic survey comPleted in 2000 and on listening to clients' needs, Dr. Bouthilet is proposing a veterinary hospital that will be a "one stop shop" for their clients. Included will be hospital facilities, boarding, grooming, training, sports medicine and rehabilitation services. In order to accomplish this goal, the hospital needs to be rebuilt. PROJECT SITE / PHASES The hospital's current site is an excellent location for the facility. The size of the parcel also allows the new hospital to be built while the existing hospital remains operating. Overall, the project will be completed in several phases. The first phase, purchase of the land and buildings, was recently completed. The second phase, removal of the existing house and design of the new facility, is currently underway. The third phase, construction of the hospital and boarding facility, will be completed by summer 2002. The fourth phase includes moving into the new facility, demolishing the existing structure and completing the site amenities; scheduled to be completed fall 2002. The fifth phase, scheduled for 2003 - 2004, will be an addition to the facility to accommodate a training and rehabilitation center. UTILITIES The site design and storm water drainage system is designed to balance the pre- and post development hardsurface / runoff, therefore a retention pond is not required. There are three existing sanitary sewer stubs to the site. The new building'will connect to one of the existing services, as shown on the drawings. Water is provided to the existing building from a well. In November, 2001, Dr. Bouthilet petitioned the City to extend municipal water service to the site. The City Council has directed staff to complete a feasibility study for the water service extension. Resolution of the water service extension will be done concurrently with this application. 13 HILLCREST ANIMAL HOSPITAL NARRATIVE FOR PROPOSED FACILITY February 12, 2002 Page 2 of 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA The proposed facility requires a conditional use permit because the site has residentially zoned property adjacent to the west. This application for conditional use permit is for all phases of construction shown on the drawings, including the future 3,300 sq. ft. addition for a training center. The following are responses to the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit. 1. The proposed facility maintains the currem use on the site and the design conforms to the City's zoning ordinance requirements. 2. The proposed facility will enhance the character of the surrounding area. 3. The combination of a new facility and removal of the existing 60-year old building would not depreciate property values. The primary use of the new facility remains as a veterinary clinic, with pet boarding facilities. The future addition would include a training center. None of the proposed uses would cause a nuisance, or disturbance, to any person or property. o The vehicular traffic generated because of the new facility would only be a minimal increase. Access to / from County Road D would be improved, because the existing steep driveway access near the intersection of D and Highway 61 would be abandoned and the remaining driveway will be rebuilt with a flatter slope. 6. The new facility would be served by adequate public facilities. Refer to discussion of utilities on previous page. The use does require extension of public water service to the site, per City requirements. This cost would not be considered excessive relative to this use, because the City would be extending this service anyway, in the future. The site design was carefully planned to maintain most of the large, healthy trees on the site; the new trees being planted are on the west side of the property to buffer the adjacent residential property. The significant change in elevation on the site is maintained with this proposal. 9. The use would cause minimal, if any, adverse environmental effects. Attachment 9 Hillcrest Animal Clinic- Engineering Plan Review Chris Cavett, February 27, 2002 Drainage/Storm Water Treatment / Rainwater Gardens: The storm water management plan as proposed is unacceptable. Earlier discussions with the owner and architect regarding drainage were not incorporated into the grading and drainage plans. It was staff's understanding that drainage and treatment of the storm water would be done in the north west part of the site through the use of bioretention basins, (rainwater gardens) that would overflow to the County Road D ditch. Install catch basins on the new driveway to direct as much flow from the parking lot as possible into the bioretention basin. As designed, the entire Parking lot will flow directly into County Road D. This is unacceptable. Design and construct a large bioretention basin, (rainwater garden) in the vicinity of the existing bituminous surface at the in front of each building. Rainwater gardens can be situated around the site to capture, store and infiltrate water directed from the parking lot, drive areas and roof down spouts. Grade swales and provide spillways to direct this flow into the rainwater gardens. 4. The "Retention Pond" on the east side of the site shall be designed as a bioretention basin. Rock Infiltration Sumps must be installed below the rainwater gardens to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Rock infiltration sump should be a minimum of 4' Dia. X 3' tall. 1 ~A" dean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sump should be placed approximately 12-inches below finished bottom of the rainwater garden. Provide details and a description on the plan of how the rainwater garden area will be prepared. The garden area should be sub-cut to provide 12-inches of bedding material. The bedding material should consist of a mixture of 50% salvaged on-site topsoil and clean 50% organic compost. The subsoils in the rainwater garden should be scarified to a depth of 12-inches before the bedding material is placed. The rainwater garden should be protected with sir fence after grading to prevent siring into the area, as well as compaction of the soil by construction equipment. The rainwater garden area should be topped before or after planting with "shredded" wood mulch. "Woodchips" are NOT'acceptable mulching material. A landscape plan for the bioretention basins/rainwater gardens shall be required as part of final plan approval. More information on bioretention basins can be found on the metrocouncil web site and view their BMP Manual: http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual.htm or contact Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, 651-770-4554. 15 Gradinu and Erosion Control: 1. Erosion control matting is required on all slopes 3:1 or steeper. These locations should be called out on the plans. 2. Heavy duty, monofilament silt fence shall be required at the base of the eastern slopes and in the County Road D ditch, near the entrance. Revise silt fence detail. Specify the seeding mixtures to be used on the eastern slopes. Does the applicant intend to use a Iow-maintenance native grass mix on these slopes? Or do they intend to mow these slopes? 4. A rock entrance pad is required. Include a detail of this pad. Existing trees to be saved on the Landscape plan do NOT correspond with the proposed grades on the grading plan. Trees to be removed shall be indicated on the grading and site plans. 6. A structural engineer shall certify final plans of the retaining wall. A building permit issued by the city is required for all walls 4-feet or higher. 7. Escrow for erosion control and the retaining wall shall be required before the grading permit will be issued. 8. Please submit to the engineering department the following information before requesting of a grading permit. a. Revised Grading, Drainage, Erosion control and Landscaping plans. b. Cubic Yards of material to be moved on site and imported. c. Square footage of area to be disturbed and graded. d. Square footage of retaining wall to be constructed. 9. Site disturbance of 1-acre or more requires a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Utility Plan: 1. Utility plan details for water service are still pending the outcome of the feasibility study. 16 Attachment l0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jennifer Bouthilet, of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building in the M-1 (light manufacturing zoning district) closer than 350 feet to property zoned for residential. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property on the southwest comer of Highway 61 and County Road D. The legal descriptions are: 1322 County Road D Legal Description SUBJECT TO HWY & ROAD: PART NLY OF A LINE BEG ON WL OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 3 183.55 FT S OF NW CORNER TO POINT ON CL OF HWY 61 323.36 FT SWLY FROM INT OF HWY 61 & NL OF SAID NW 1/4 & THERE TERMINATING AND EASTERLY OF LINE BEGINING ON SAID DESC LINE 183 FT SELY FROM WL OF SAID NW 1/4 TO POINT ON NL OF SAID NW 1/4 257.50 FT EAST OF SAID NW 1/4 CORNER & THERE TERMINATING IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 29, I:;~,NGE 22 (PIN 03-29-22-22-0008) 1320 County Road D Legal Description SUBJECT TO ROAD: THE NORTH 223 FEETT OF E 5 FEET AT N TO 15 FEET AT S OF N 741 FT OF SECTION 4, ALSO PART NLY OF A LINE BEG ON W L OF NW' 1/4 OF SECTION 3 183.55 FT S NW CORNER TO POINT ON CENTERLINE OF HWY 61 323.36 FT SWLY FROM INT OF HWY 61 & NL OF SAID NW 1/4 & THERE TERMINATING AND WLY OF LINE BEG ON SAID DESC LINE 183 FT SELY FROM WL OF SAID NW 1/4 TO POINT ON NL OF SAID NW 1/4 257.50 FT E OF SAID NW 1/4'CO R & THERE TERMINATING IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 (PIN 03-29-22-22-0009) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 4, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit for the proposed animal hospital. The city council held a public heating on ,2002. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the heating 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 17 to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval also includes the proposed future addition shown on the west side of the new hospital. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. .4. The owner shall combine the two properties into one parcel for tax and identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. 5. The city and the owner shall agree to a plan for providing water to site before the city issues a building permit for the new hospital. 6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. 7. The applicant meeting all the conditions and plan changes required by the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2002. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwatl, Associate Planner Larpenteur Avenue Properties 209, 211, and 215 Larpenteur Avenue East February 27, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description In 2001, Maplewood purchased three single-family homes on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with funds from the city's Housing Replacement Program. The homes had been flooded after the pond located to the north of the properties overflowed during a rainstorm in April, 2001. The flooding caused a large amount of damage to these older homes. None of the property owners was eligible for flood insurance coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust or through their private insurance companies. The purchase of the three homes by the city with the Housing Replacement Program funds helped cover some of the flooding damage expense as well as addressed an older housing stock within the city that needed upgrading. Staff is now exploring several options for redevelopment of these properties. First, the city could sell the lots for redevelopment of three new single-family homes; second, the city could rezone the properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses; and third, the city could purchase two adjacent tots allowing for a more comprehensive land use plan to include rezoning all five properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses. Background On December 13, 1999, the city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the single-family housing stock in the city (see attached Housing Replacement Program Operations and Procedures Plan on pages 5-8). This fund was created from surplus tax increment proceeds and was approved with an initial budget up to $687,000. On July 23, 2001, the city council authorized the purchase of the properties at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement funds as follows: Property Addres_s 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 215 Larpenteur Avenue 2000 Tax Market Value* Neqotiated Purchase Price. $102,800 $145,000 $110,000 $155,000 $102,100 ~146,000 $446,000 Total *Note: The tax-market value can be 20-25 percent below market value. Property values have increased about 10-15 percent for 2001. 3. The cost effectiveness of any housing initiatives and the positive impact they might have on the taxes and revenues of the city and the school district. The housing program evaluation completed by Quam and Associates determined that a home replacement program would be the best program for Maplewood. This is because there are properties that have deteriorated and are inconsistent with the character of the rest of the neighborhood. It is important to remember that much of the housing in older Maplewood neighborhoods was built before zoning and building restrictions were in place. These are often the houses that are now deteriorated and an eyesore. Removing an existing eyesore property and replacing the worst home with a new home that sets a new quality standard is an effective action for change. In a meeting on August 2, 1999 with the HRA, the city council again discussed possible future housing programs. At this meeting, the council directed staff to prepare a housing plan that would replace dilapidated houses with new, higher-value replacement homes. On August 23, 1999, the city council approved developing a Housing Replacement Program that would: 1. Use the surplus tax increment proceeds (up to about $687,000) from Districts 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6 to fund the housing program. The city must reasonably expect to spend this money within 3 years. 2. Buy vacant or dilapidated properties from willing sellers at fair market value. 3. Demolish any dilapidated houses and other structures and rough grade the lots. 4. Deed the vacant properties at no cost to an agency, or group that will use the lots to provide new housing for Iow-to-moderate income persons. Such a transaction would be subject to all Maplewood zoning and building requirements. Note: Because the city was going to be using tax-exempt bonds to fund this program, the city may only do no-cost grants of property. The city cannot sell the property or provide Iow interest loans with the tax-exempt money. The council also adopted resolutions at this meeting that provided preliminary approval for the sale of $719,094 1999 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds and authorized the use of excess tax increment revenues from the Carefree Cottages to finance debt service on the bonds. On September 27, 1999, the city council approved a resolution approving changes for the Development Distdct No. 1 and changes to Housing Districts Numbers 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6. These changes designated that the city will spend the excess funds from the three TIF Districts on a housing replacement program. The total funds available to the city to spend from this program should be about $687,000. 6 On December 13, 1999, the city council approved several city staff requests for the Housing Replacement Program. These included amending the resolution for the 1999 Tax Increment Bonds. The council made the amendments so that the proceeds can be used to reimburse the Sanitary Sewer Fund for the cost of sanitary sewer improvements directly related to the Carefree.' Cottages Phase I, II and III. The improvements involved slip lining a sanitary sewer main to decrease leakage into it and to increase its capacity. Decreasing the leakage has caused a decrease in the flow through the sanitary sewer main and a corresponding decrease in sewage treatment costs. This will result in about a ten-year payback of the improvement costs by decreased treatment costs. There was no need, therefore, for the Sanitary Sewer Fund to keep the $646,929.86 reimbursement for sanitary sewer improvement costs. At this meeting the council also established a Housing Replacement Fund and transferred $646,929.86 from the Sewer Fund to the Housing Replacement Fund. These actions created the Housing Replacement Fund, set a budget for the fund, and most important, gave the city more flexibility in how the city may spend the money in the fund. General Policy Guidelines The city shall follow the standards and guidelines in the Maplewood City Code of Ordinances and in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan when administering and operating the Maplewood Housing Replacement Program. The Director of Community Development shall make the final decisions in cases or issues of uncertainty in the program. Anyone may appeal the Director's decision to the Maplewood City Council for review and possible change. Practices and Methods of Property Purchase and Resale 1. Maplewood will only buy vacant, substandard or dilapidated properties from willing sellers. 2. The city will have an appraisal done and will only pay fair market value for a property. 3. The seller of the property is responsible for properly sealing or capping any wells on the property. 4. After the city closes on the purchase, the city will hire a contractor to remove the structures on the property and rough grade the site. The city also may have a survey of the property done. For a buildable site, the city may do one of two things with the property. First, the city may choose to deed the property at no cost to an agency or group that will use the lot to provide new housing for Iow-to-moderate income persons after the contractor has graded the site. The other option the city has would be to put the property up for sale by sealed bid. In either case, the new construction would be subject to city staff review and approval as outlined below and all Maplewood zoning and building requirements. The city council shall approve any property ownership transfer. The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) will review and approve all new house design and site plans. The construction shall include a garage at least big enough to hold two motor vehicles. The design of the new construction shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby houses. Staff shall consider the following when reviewing these house plans: 7 a. The height, bulk and area of the existing and proposed buildings. b. The color and materials of the proposed buildings. c. The physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structure with the existing buildings (including the architectural elements). d. The site, layout, orientation and location of the proposed and existing buildings and their relationship with existing topography, landscaping and vegetation. City staff or the CDRB may require changes to the plans or may add conditions they deem necessary to ensure that the proposed design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The city must make the following findings to approve the proposed plans: The design and location of the proposed construction and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments are such that it will not impair the desirability of the existing neighborhood. b. The proposed design and location of the construction are in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. c. The propoSed design would be aesthetically pleasing in composition, materials, textures and colors. The developer or builder may appeal the staff decisions about design issues to the city council. If the property the city has bought is substandard in width or area for the neighborhood or area- and it is next to publicly-owned property, the city may choose to keep the property for open space rather than transfer the property to another owner. The city council shall approve any property transfer or decision to keep a property. If the property the city has bought does not meet the city's zoning standards for lot size or lot width, the city may choose to: a. Grant variances to allow the construction of a new house. b. Keep the property for open space rather than transfer the property to another owner. c. Divide the property and sell the pieces to the adjacent property owners. The city council shall approve any property transfer, variance or decision to keep a property. This plan was approved by the Maplewood City Council on January 22, 2001. 8 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Activities and Goals for 2002 February 26, 2002 INTRODUCTION The planning commission, as part of their annual report, adopts a list of possible activities for the upcoming year. Staff wants the commission and the city council to prioritize the activities and develop other goals. We are requesting this assistance so that staff may prioritize our resources, including staff time and budgets, to better serve the commission and the city. DISCUSSION The city council has set a joint meeting with the planning commission for 6:00 on Monday, March 18, 2002 in the Maplewood Room. This meeting is to set priorities for the activities and goals of the commission for 2002. Please plan on attending this meeting. Dinner will be served. RECOMMENDATION Review the list of possible activities for 2002 of the planning commission on page two. Please consider these as a topic list for the meeting on March 18 with the council. Finally, prioritize these activities from most to least important p:misc~pc 2002 goals.doc Attachment - Proposed 2002 Planning Commission Activities MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission's 2001 Annual Report February 25, 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. ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following in: 2001 changes to the land use plan 3 changes to the zoning map 2 preliminary plats 3 ordinance changes 5 conditional use permits and revisions 25 vacations 7 variances 2 miscellaneous requests 7 200~ 199~ 5 7 2 1 6 2 3 2 21 21 0 5 7 3 6 11 In 2001, 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 Alton Rid.qe Approved (Lower Alton and McKnight Roads) From BC-M and LBC to R-3H (residential high-density) This change was for a 40-unit townhouse development that is now under construction. 5-8 Club (Beau's} Approved Approved (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) From R-1 (single dwellings) to BC-M (business commercial modified) This change was for the remodeling and expansion of a nonconforming existing restaurant. Council Action Approved .............................. T · .............. --r- ]' ...... Carefree Villas (Gervais Avenue) Denied Approved From R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3H (residential high-density) This change was for a 12-unit expansion of the Carefree Cottages on Gervais Avenue. 2001 ZONING MAP CHANGES The commission considered two changes to the zoning map in 2001. Change PC Action Afton Ridge (Lower Afton and McKnight Roads) From CO and LBC to R-3 (multiple-family residential) Approved Council Action Approved This change was for a 40-unit townhouse development that is now under construction. .5-8 Club (Beau's) Approved Approved (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) From R-1 (single dwellings) to BC-M (business commercial modified) This change was for the remodeling and expansion of a nonconforming existing restaurant. 2001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS The commission considered the following conditional use permits and permit revi'sions in 2001. Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hail Revision (925 Century Avenue North) PC Action Approved CounCil Action 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 2 University Auto Sales (1145 Highway 36) AT&T Monopole (1681 Cope Avenue) Little School of Montessori (1945 Prosperity Road) The Gardens PUD (Summer Lane, east of McMenemy Street) Afton Ridge (Lower Afton and McKnight Roads) 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 Drive) 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 Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved 3 MEMBER 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 Eric Ahlness 12-11-00 12-04 16 out of 18 Matt Ledvina 12-08-97 12-04 13 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 Dierich 12-11-00 12-03 15 out of 18 As a point of comparison, the planning commission had 17 meetings in 1999 and 18 meetings in 2000. 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 quarterly in-service training sessions or materials 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. 7. Review the city's overall land use plan map for possible changes. 8. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes.