Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2002BOOk MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 4, 2002 5. Public Headng a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study New Business a. Dearborn Meadow Preliminary Review and Discussion (Castle Avenue) b. Zoning Code Amendment - BC-M (business commercial modified) Distdct 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. March 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness b. March 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. April 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. o Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. o The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. o The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Rossbach called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eric Ahlness Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for February 20, 2002. Commissioner Trippler had a change on page 8 of the minutes in the ninth paragraph. Please change the word aid to and. Another change is on page 12 in the ninth paragraph. Please change the third sentence to "read What the staff is proposing to change are the ordinances or re.qulations for currency exchanges, and the city council has already approved the #censing requirements that limit one of each business in the City of Maplewood. The recording secretary also noticed a typo on page 18 in the third paragraph please remove the t after the word referring. Commissioner Mueller asked if the minutes are supposed to be past tense, third person, first person, sometimes it is difficult to understand. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -2- Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minutes with the noted changes. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Mueller V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital Conditional Use Permit (1320 County Road D) Mr. Roberts stated that Dr. 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. 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. 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 ~nd architectural plans. 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. 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. Mr. Roberts said that Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, did a review of the proposed drainage/storm water and grading and erosion control plans. His comments were in the staff report and should be noted since 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 perm. for the project. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 03-04-02 Mr. Roberts said that the city and the owner will need to agree to a plan for providing water to the site before the city issues a building permit for the new animal hospital. Mr. Roberts also stated that the proposed site now has two separate iots. 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. Mr. Roberts said that staff is recommending approval of item A. of the staff report, subject to the seven conditions listed. Commissioner Ledvina said he is unclear to the property ownership of the lots at 3065 and 3085, are they both owned by Sparkle Auto? Mr. Roberts said yes they do, and he should have made it more clearly in the report. Commissioner Trippler said he was offended by the reference to the veterinarian by her first name instead of by doctor. She has been his veterinarian for 20 years and he did not even know what her first name was. She deserves to be addressed as doctor and he said staff and members generally do not and should not address people as their first names. It is very inappropriate in his opinion. In addition, staff said there were 17 property owners that were surveyed and only two replied back and both were for the proposal. He asked staff if the person living at 1296 County Road D respond to the survey? The reason he is asking is that staff raised some issues regarding adequate screening to the west and the hospital has been there for a long time and there has been no screening. He Wondered if the screening is really that necessary? Mr. Roberts said the owner to the west did not reply. Commissioner Dierich asked if the veterinarian hospital will still have the same services that were offered before such as the grooming and boarding and does that require any permitted uses? Mr. Roberts said it was his understanding that they may expand the services available at the hospital and keep what they have as well. The only time the city would be concerned would be if the hospital wanted to have outside animal boarding, but they are not proposing that. Commissioner Dierich had a question regarding the new driveway. The current driveway is a straight shot up the hill and she is having trouble understanding where the driveway is going to access and where the new parking lot will be. Mr. Roberts said there will be the one main entrance off of County Road D and the second entrance off of County Road D near Highway 61 will be removed. From a safety and grading standpoint, this change will be an improvement. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant is going to regrade that driveway to make a more gradual slope? Mr. Roberts said it would probably be about the same. Mr. Cavett stated the parking lot is actually getting lowered a bit. It should be an improvement from what is there currently. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -4- Chairperson Rossbach asked staff if the building will sit lower than the existing building? Right now the building sits on the peak of the hill. ' Mr. Cavett said the peak of the hill is at about a 918 so there will be about a five-foot drop in building height. Chairperson Rossbach asked if that means the building will be built down into the hill or that the top of the hill will be taken off? Mr. Cavett said the hill will be taken off and grading the side. Chairperson Rossbach asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, the owner of the animal hospital at 1320 County Road D, addressed the commission. She stated they are really looking forward to this project because for many years they have been dealing with a very run down building with a lot of problems. There is a lack of room for expansion and there is only room for one full time doctor. Chairperson Rossbach asked if she or someone else actually lived in the house that was demolished? Dr. Bouthilet stated that until the end of December, Dr. Conway J. Rosell owned the house as well as the clinic building. They were already in negotiations for buying the property and the buildings. He had a tenant living in the house and there has been nobody living in the house since the end o' August There were no other questions or comments from either the applicant or by the commission. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 17 and 18 of the staff report. 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 5y 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The owner shall combine the two properties into one parcel for tax and identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. The city and the owner shall agree to a plan for providing water to site before the city issues building permit for the new hospital. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 03-04-02 There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional permit for outdoor storage. The applicant meeting all the conditions and plan changes required by the city engineer. Ayes - Dierich, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler use The motion is passed. Mr. Roberts said this item will go to the community design review board on March 12, 2002, and then to the city council meeting on March 25, 2002. b. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Plan (at Adolphus Street) Mr. Roberts stated that 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. Mr. Roberts said that 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 lots allowing for a more comprehensive plan to include rezoning all five properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses. 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. This fund was created from surplus tax increment proceeds and was approved with an initial budget up to $687,000. Mr. Roberts said 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 Address 2000 Tax Market Value* Negotiated Purchase Price 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 215 Larpenteur Avenue $102,800 $145,000 $110,000 $155,000 $102,100 $146,000 Total $446,000 *Note: The tax-market value can be 20-25 percent below market value. Property values have increased about 10-15 percent for 2001. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -6- Mr. Roberts stated at the time of purchase it was estimated that the city's net cost for each proper (after reselling the lots) would range from $80,000 to $100,000, for a total city cost of approximately, $250,000 to $300,000. This cost, however, did not include grading and drainage improvements that must be made to the site to ensure that the properties will not flood again. Prior to the purchase of the three properties, the fund equaled $547,000. After the sale of the three lots and without adding in the grading and drainage improvement expenses, the Housing Replacement fund will be left with approximately $247,000 to $297,000. After reviewing these figures and the housing needs within the city, staff proposes exploring the options available for redeveloping the land at a higher density. Creating a higher density development would make available a larger number of housing units within the city and should create a profit rather than a loss for the city's Housing Replacement Program The three Larpenteur Avenue properties have the following lot area and lot widths: Propertv Address Lot Area Lot Width 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 215 Larpenteur Avenue Total 16,873 s.f. 16,873 s.f. 16,877 s.f. 50,223 s.f. 75 feet (interior lot) 75 feet (interior lot) 135 feet (corner lot) All three lots meet or exceed the lot area and lot width requirements. No additional single-family lots could be created with the existing zoning without lot width variances. Therefore, the redevelopment of the property with the existing zoning is limited to three single-family houses. Because of the double and multiple dwelling zoning districts to the west of the site and the '[;ommercial zoning district to the east, rezoning the properties to a higher density is an option to consider. The Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) zoning district allows for 3.45 units per acre and the Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) allows for 6 units per acre. For discussion and comparison, staff prepared five redevelopment proposals that are attached and described below: 1. Rezoning the three city-owned lots to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2)- 4 townhouse units (3.45 units per acre). 2. Rezoning the three city-owned lots to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3)- 6 townhouse units (5.17 units per acre). Combining 1701 Adolphus Street to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) - 8 townhouse units (5.44 units per acre). Combining 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue to the three city-owned lots ant rezoning to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) - 6 townhouse units (4.08 units per acre). Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -7- 5. Combining 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) - 11 townhouse units (5.97 units per acre). Mr. Roberts said three of the proposals would require that the city purchase one or two adjacent homes in addition to the three city-owned lots. These two property owners have not yet been contacted and staff is unsure if they would be willing sellers. Staff is requesting direction from the planning commission, housing redevelopment authority, and the city council before contacting these property owners for the possible purchase of their homes. The redevelopment proposals show two different styles of townhouses. These include the front- loaded garage style townhouses constructed by Masterpiece Homes at the Highpointe Ridge and Gardens developments and the tuck-under garage style townhouses constructed in the New Century Development. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends the planning commission make a recommendation on the following items: Should the city redevelop the properties with three single-family homes or redevelop the properties with town homes? Should the city approach the property owners at 189 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street for the purchase of their homes for redevelopment? If the properties are developed for town homes, should the city rezone and amend the land use classification for the properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to allow for 3.63 units per acre? 4. If the properties are developed for town homes, should the city rezone and amend the land use classification for the properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) zoning and Medium Density Residential (R-3M) land use to allow for 6 units per acre? Commissioner. Trippler said there is no indication in the staff report of how much it would cost to do these five homes and he believes this would help him make a decision as to which way he wants to go with this project. Chairperson Rossbach asked how the fund is funded, is it a one-time funding source or a continual tax increment fund? Mr. Roberts said it was a one-time funding source. Anything that is spent out of the fund with the sale or redevelopment of properties, then that money is put back into the fund to help replenish it. The fund will go down unless the city can make a profit off a redevelopment site: Staff did not want to get into a lot of financial analysis until staff got a better feel from the city and the commission what everyone would be comfortable with and what type of land use is used there. Staff wanted to come to commission members early in the process to get a feel for what members thought and not spend too much doing any analysis if three out of the five ideas are a waste of time. You may be able to make a better decision by having some of the financial information available but if it is not a good land use scenario, then it was a waste of time. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -8- Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the city has to build on these sites or can it be left as open space? Does it have to be developed as multiple family? The front page of the staff report says th~. city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the single-family housing stock. Are they going to be single-family houses or multiple? Or is it not likely that someone would buy because of the business of the site on Larpenteur? Mr. Roberts said one of the recommendations on page 4 asks should it stay as three single-family homes or should it be multi-family, the staff is open to ideas. The thought of getting more units on the site is to sell the property for more money and to replenish the Housing Replacement Program fund. If the city redevelops the sites as single-family sites the city does not believe it will generate as much income. The city is not bound to building single family homes in that area. That is what is currently there and will be removed. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if the wetland has been classified? Mr. Roberts said it his understanding it is a Class IV wetland. Commissioner Ledvina asked if traffic concerns have been reviewed as it relates to Larpenteur Avenue and whether you can have multiple driveways at that location backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Roberts said that has been a design consideration. He knows that when Ms. Finwall was designing the project and reviewing these with staff, for example, one of the plans takes three driveways and turns it into one driveway exiting out onto Larpenteur Avenue. Another plan put'. the driveway exiting off onto Adolphus Street. Staff is trying to minimize the driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue so that would be an improvement over the three existing homes that back onto Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Pearson said at the time the HRA purchased these properties, they were looking at maintaining the R-1 and putting the three homes in. But when you look at the area, if you had two willing sellers that area would be better approved with scenario four and access onto Adolphus Street. But it is hard for the commission to make a decision on anything until the commission knows if there are willing sellers living in the other two homes. Another possibility would be to develop those sites as four R-1S lots to get another house in there. In addition to the flooding, there has been a problem with sewers being backed up that effected the resident's foundations also. There was discussion of getting some type of a backup or check valve in place if the city was going to purchase three more homes. He asked if there was anything different with the sewage situation that would make a radical change by changing the grade? Mr. Cavett said depending on the scenario that is chosen, one would be to extend a new main off of Adolphus Street that would greatly reduce the problem that had occurred was on the sewer service. The buildings would be raised and they would not have basements so that would eliminate the problems that had occurred. Planning Commission ~9- Minutes of 03-04-02 Commissioner Mueller said this site is in his backyard. On Adolphus Street is Western Hills Park that is a nice park. Having the apartments and the double dwelling residential it seems to make a lot of sense if the city can get the whole corner and make it all double dwelling residential, apartments, or town homes. According to the newspaper article he cut out awhile back, it states that people need rental property from $375 to $1,250 a month or homes below $125,000. Even without a basement he doubts the city will be able to put a house in that area for under $125,000. The city needs homes available for people that need them and this is the city's opportunity to provide them. He will really be against this is somebody puts a home for $200,000 in there. If the city is going to use this project for an appropriate way for the community he would hope that whatever the city does that it be affordable to whomever comes in there to rent or buy. Commissioner Trippler said he would agree that is extremely difficult to make any kind of conclusion about how the commission should vote without knowing if 189 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street are interested or are willing to sell. He would recommend to staff and to the city council that if they can get those two parties to sell at a reasonable cost. Because that whole open space and the pond sits there, he would think this would be an excellent opportunity to find a developer to come in and maximum the number of units there. If he understands this correctly, any money that can be made on this project can go back into the fund and that can be used to do this again some place else. If that is the case and the city can make money on developing this and regenerate the fund than the city can continue doing this same kind of treatment in areas that need it. Chairperson Rossbach said his thought is that if the city cannot get both properties to get the whole corner than it should stay as single-family homes. It would not be appropriate to leave one house and have it be trapped by itself. When you take single-family residential and you turn it into anything else, unless you are making it open space, it becomes the new outer pier and the next homes that are subject to decay are the ones that sit in front. He feels that happens whether you put in commercial or higher density residential. The current lots that the city has should stay as single-family residential lots if the city cannot get the two other lots. He said he would be open to making it an R-1S scenario to get another house in there and help the fund out more that way. If the city can get the two other homes his feelings would change a little bit because then you would not be trapping any homes'. He would like to stay away from the highest density and stick more with twin homes or something along those lines. There is already a lot of density in that area and the city does not have to pack the homes in. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Mr. Rossbach. She would not like to trap any of those two homes either. She would like to see lower density. Staff made a comment several meetings ago that the City of Maplewood has met the housing density needs for Metropolitan Council. She does feel that the city needs affordable housing but she does not want to see it higher density. Affordable housing should also be nice for people to live in and not so high density. She liked the number 4 plan that shows the driveway going out onto Adolphus Street with the six units. Commissioner Ledvina said he agrees with Mr. Rossbach if the city can get both lots and do a development proposal. Scenario five is his choice but scenario four is also acceptable to him. He would not like the units to back onto Larpenteur Avenue. He asked staff if the homes that exist are a health hazard from the sewer backup etc.? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -10- Mr. Roberts said the fire department has been using the homes for drills and once they are done then the homes are coming down. Since these homes will not have basements they will be sma~. and not have a lot of square footage in them. Mr. Roberts asked the commission to clarify if it was the consensus of members to have the city pursue the two adjoining properties? Chairperson Rossbach said to summarize, if the city cannot get the two properties that the city should not pursue the higher density and would require that they stay with the single-family residential arrangement. It sounds like members would not want to trap one of the houses in a development. It sounded like there was varying thoughts if the city could get the two other homes there was varying thoughts as to what the density would be but it seemed to be somewhat split between the medium and the high density. Chairperson Rossbach asked staff if there is no action needed right now because there is going to be more discussion on this item correct? Mr. Roberts said yes it will be discussed again, this was just a starting point for discussion. Chairperson Rossbach said there was discussion about who should be grading these lots. His thought is if the city does town homes, and the whole area is developed at once, the developer should do it. If it is going to remain as single-family lots then the city should do the grading. c. 2002 Goal Setting Session with City Council Mr. Roberts said the city council has set a joint meeting with the planning commission for Marci i8, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the Maplewood Room to talk about the goals that were outlined in the annual report. Chairperson Rossbach made a comment for staff to note on Monday, March 18, 2002, he can only attend the meeting until 8:00 p.m. Chairperson Rossbach said Mr. Ledvina brought up at the last meeting to add to the list looking at the Carver Ridge neighborhood at the southern end of Maplewood. He would like that added to the list of 2002 activities. He would also like to add to the list an in-service training session dealing with the do's and don'ts of land use and zoning changes. Mr. Roberts said he did not ignore the fact that Mr. Ledvina had asked to have it added to the 2002 list of activities. The city council considered that request a year ago and they did not want to get into doing any zone-code amendments or any changes in that area at that time and that is why he left it off the list. If the planning commission still feels it is important and they want to try and pursue it again, it is your annual report and list of activities and you can suggest it again. However, the city council did not think it was a high priority last year. Commissioner Dierich said she believed the city council did not have the Carver Ridge presentation presented correctly. Given the.fact the homeowners are usually self-builders, they are not held to the same standards she doesn't believe as the builders who are licensed to build homes are. She would really encourage the planning commission to take a look at this item thi year above and beyond what the city council directs members to do. If it has to be done during an in-service than members should do that. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 03-04-02 Commissioner Ledvina said he has Carver Ridge neighborhood review as number one on his list. He said it is an extreme future problem. If the city has a neighborhood that they know is not going to be sewered and it is going to be single-family homes to 10,000 square foot lots. He said it is almost negligent to leave it zoned as farm-residential. If it were sewered he would be okay with it but with it's current scenario and the topography it is a priority and it cannot stay the way that it is. He said the city can either delay it 5 years and have a lot more problems or tackle it right away and have fewer problems, but that is up to the city council to do that. Commissioner Pearson said in 1997 the commission did an in-fill study and a commercial property study as it related to encroachment on R-1. If staff has any copies available of that the commission would enjoy reading that and it would be especially helpful to new members. Mr. Roberts said five or six years ago the commission also did a study on the Carver Ridge neighborhood and started talking about the potential concerns of the map and he could certainly find that report as well. Chairperson Rossbach stated after a lengthy discussion by the commission, the top items on the 2002 activities list were ranked accordingly: 1. Have quarterly in-service training sessions or materials for the planning commission. 2. To look at the Carver Ridge neighborhood. 3. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes. 4. Review the city's overall land use plan map for possible changes. 5. Work with the consultants and city staff on any code or land-use plan changes that result from the Hillcrest Area Study. 6. Study the area west of Maplewood Mall (including the Hajicek property) for land use and transportation issues. The remaining items on the list ranked below in various areas. Chairperson Rossbach asked if the items mentioned by Mr. Pearson and Mr. Roberts could be available for members in the next packet. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. 2001 Annual Report Mr. Roberts pointed out the changes and additions he made to the 2001 Annual Report from the last meeting. Commissioner Trippler said he has to express a lot of frustration of having to go through the Planning Commission 2001 Annual Report once again. He thought if staff could have taken the minutes from the meeting and gone through them it would have pointed out what some of the commission members had asked for. The chairperson had asked for a numeration of the vote count for the planning commission and the city council to see if the counts were close or not. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -12- Commisisoner Trippler said there was also a request that if the planning commission approved something and the city council made changes to the planning commission recommendations or di~ not accept changes that the planning commission had asked for, that should be reflected in the notes. In many of the cases it looks like it is an even approval for both sides and in many cases it is not like that at all. There is discussion and issues and it makes the years efforts look very vanilla. He thought the issues that planning commission members raised are all in the minutes but they did not show up once again in the 2001 Annual Report and he cannot understand why. Mr. Roberts said the reason they are not is because Melinda Coleman said it was not necessary. There is too much staff time spent and the Annual Report would become about 9 pages long. It was her opinion and staff's opinion that members get very lengthy minutes and they get council reports from planning commission members on each council meeting and members have those items to reflect back on over the past year. The annual report is to be a summary and not a blow- by-blow account of everything that has been done. That is what the minutes are for. To go through and label each vote, Ms. Coleman felt it wasn't necessary. Chairperson Rossbach commented that as far as the conditional use permits he would tend to agree with staff and Ms. Coleman. He thought about it a little bit and he thought maybe this is one area that commission members are asking staff to do something when maybe commission members are not doing such a good job of it themselves. He knows that there is a rePresentative that goes.to the city council meetings and reports back to members at the next meeting but he forgets to bring his notes to refer back to them when he has to report back to members about what was discussed. He thought about it and he thinks maybe commission members need to do a little better job of referring back to the minutes. He did comment to Mr. Trippler that the minutes are ir. the public domain and is it really necessary that the comments be put back into the annual report again if during the course of the year members kept a book of the minutes of the year? Commissioner Trippler said all of the issues that he raised were just issues that were brought up by members of the planning commission. He is not saying that he agrees or disagrees with them it seemed to him that the staff is supposed to be supporting the planning commission and if members ask staff to do something he expects that they will follow through. He doesn't know if the annual report would be used by anybody else other than planning commission members but he thinks if the planning commission is going to have an annual report it seemed to him that it really ought to provide some level of information that is helpful to people. What is provided in the annual report is very brief. It tells him that there was only one item that the planning commission denied that the. city council approved over the commission's denial. So it looks like both the planning commission and the city council are in harmony. When he thinks about issues that took place over the year, there is not a lot of disagreement but there is a level of disagreement that is not being reflected in the report. Commissioner Pearson said he was one of the members that had asked for more information. What he had in mind was that after the approved or denied section in the land use plan changes that staff put a 5 to 3 vote (for example) after each item. Not that there be a long drawn out explanation of it, but just the vote split. It is not a crushing issue to him but rather it would have been helpful and informative. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -13- Commissioner Mueller said he teaches at a university so he gives students a little bit of information and if they want to find out more than they need to do that. He thinks that this is what the minutes are for this report is just a summary. He doesn't know what the definition of an annual report is but this report gives him enough information. Chairperson Rossbach said he had a comment in regards to what Mr. Trippler said regarding the staff supporting the planning commission. Yes they do support the planning commission but they only support the commission as far as the city council tells them to. He asked staff if it is necessary that members accept or deny the annual report or ask staff to do more with it? Mr. Roberts said he needs an action one-way or the other. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission's 2001 Annual Report. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes -Dierich, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Ledvina Commissioner Ledvina commented that the reason he voted with an abstention is that he believes that the planning commission shoUld review land use issues associated with the Carver Ridge neighborhood and that is the reason he abstended. This item can be discussed with the city council when they review the annual report at the meeting. Chairperson Rossbach replied, so noted. VIII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. February 25, 2002, city council meeting was represented by Mr. Pearson. Mr. Pearson reported the Carriage Hills development and the entrance and exit lanes were discussed and passed ayes- all. Mr. Roberts added that the developer did revise the plans to shift the driveway as far south as possible. The city council also directed staff to do a traffic study of the areas as a condition of the approval. And the developer incorporate any changes that the traffic study deemed necessary. Commissioner Trippler asked staff what exactly is the charge of the traffic engineer and the traffic study? Mr. Roberts said as he understands it from talking to the city engineer, it is to study the current conditions and to figure out how to ensure that the new development is as safe as possible. That may be putting a turn lane in, or a putting a median in, or adjusting the stop lights, etc. Commissioner Trippler said it is not just an assessment whether 200 more cars on Parkway Drive is going to upset the flow of traffic or anything? Xl. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04~02 -14- Mr. Roberts said no it is to be more than that and to show what are the developer and city goina to do to make it work. Commissioner Pearson said at the city council meeting there was interest expressed in knowing what the actual traffic count was during the rush hour was. b. March 11, 2002, Mr. Ahlness will represent the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be Maplewood Toyota addition, St. Jerome's Church addition, and the Code Amendment for Currency Exchange and Pawnshop. c. March 25, 2002, Mr. Trippler will represent the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Hillcrest Animal Hospital addition and the annual report. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Rossbach asked what the status Was for appointing a new planning commission member?. Mr. Roberts said the city council interviewed applicants at the last meetinq but one applicant was out of town. They agreed to interview him at the meeting March 11 and t~ey will make a decision after that. March 18th would be the soonest that a new planning commission member would be at a meeting. Mr. Roberts discussed the All Parks Alliance For Change report that was covered at the February 25, 2002, city council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 13, 2002 SUBJECT: Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study - City Project 01-11 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Direct Preparation of Alignment and Land Use Study Introduction The city council has established, as one of their top priorities, a resolution of traffic concerns around the Maplewood Mall area. On May 29, 2001, the city council authorized a study of the traffic concerns in the mall area. The study recommendations were presented to a joint meeting of the planning commission and city council on December 17, 2001. Direction was given by the city council to present the study findings to the public and implement the study into the city's comprehensive plan. The public meetings have been held and a public hearing has been called for the planning commission to consider adoption of the final report. We anticipate the public hearing to begin at 7:00 p.m., and a large area from west of T.H. 61 to McKnight Road has been notified of the hearing. Background The Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Traffic Study was initiated by the city council with. a goal of documenting problem locations in the area, identifying measures that will address present and anticipated congestion from traffic growth, and, additionally, provide information necessary to effectively deal with the traffic impacts associated with a large-scale development west of the mall. A number of studies have previously been conducted in the area in attempts to address congestion; however, none of these studies has been adopted into the comprehensive plan." The congestion problem has existed in this area for more than 25 years, and a comprehensive solution consistent with the other goals of the city is needed. This study is a cooperative effort between the City of Maplewood and the Minnesota Department of Transportation; Ramsey County; the cities of Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and North St. Paul; and Metro Transit. The study was guided by an advisory panel of technical staff from each of the participating agencies. Issues reviewed were traffic generators within the area, proposed development, an analysis of the traffic network, projections of future traffic volumes, existing levels of service (LOS is a grade for the intersection, where A is good and F is fail) at key intersections, traffic control improvements, and traffic crash data. The analysis included development of a traffic model that estimates existing and future roadway congestion. A portion of the presentation will be a repeat of the December 17th demonstration of the traffic model that shows the impacts of future development and the benefits of various improvements. A number of improvements were identified to address the congestion concerns. Each improvement was analyzed and prioritized according to the benefits received to the transportation system. Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study March 13, 2002 Page Two Recommended Improvements Two major improvements are recommended to resolve a majority of the traffic congestion at the Maplewood Mall area over the next 10-year planning period. The most promising improvements are: Extension of County Road D, westerly from Hazelwood Street. The new roadway would be a reestablishment of County Road D but would likely be required in a new location at T.H. 61. The current County Road D/T.H. 61 intersection is too close to the 1-694FF. H. 61 intersection to operate effectively. The study suggests that a realigned County Road D should intersect with T.H. 61 south of the current location, approximately one-half way between existing County Road D and Beam Avenue. The County Road D alignment would likely intersect with Hazelwood Street at its current location. An alignment study to determine the most appropriate roadway location, intersection alignment and property acquisition needs is recommended within the next 6-8 months. This alignment study would include a review and update of the land use within the area. Construction of additional lanes on White Bear Avenue between Woodlyn Avenue and Buerkle Road. This improvement would require the replacement of the 1-694 bridge to accommodate the additional width on White Bear Avenue. This improvement would significantly improve the capacity of the County Road D intersection. This major improvement would require a joint project between MnDOT, Ramsey County and the cities of Maplewood and White Bear Lake. It appears to fit well into the plans of MnDOT and Ramsey County for area improvements within the next 10 years, although likely within the 7+-year category. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the attached resolution adopting the Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study as a referenced appendix to the Transportation Section of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, and directing an alignment study to be conducted for the extension of County Road D, westerly and potentially southerly from Hazelwood Street to T.H. 61 and eventually returning northerly, west of T.H. 61, to the original County Road D alignment, and, further, that a comprehensive review of the area land use, adjacent to the new proposed roadway alignment, be conducted prior to the final roadway alignment being determined. RCA jw Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Study Area Map Attachment 1 A RESOLUTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT and DIRECTING A ROAD ALIGNMENT STUDY AND LAND USE STUDY WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council adopted a goal in 2001 to resolve the traffic congestion in the area around the Maplewood Mall, and WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council directed the preparation of The Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study that addressed a plan for traffic in the northern section of Maplewood, and WHEREAS, said Study recommends two major improvements to the overall area transportation system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD that: 1. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to include a copy of the Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study as an appendix to the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. This Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for consideration prior to final inclusion. 2. An alignment study for the extension of County Road D, westerly and potentially southerly from Hazelwood Street to T.H. 61, and then returning northerly, west of T.H. 61 to the original County Road D alignment is hereby referred to the City Engineer for preparation of a study. 3. A study of the land us~ adjacent to and surrounding the future alignment of the realignment of County Road D is hereby directed and referred to the Director of Community Development for study and shall be returned to the Planning Commission and City Council prior to or with the said road alignment study. 4. Funds in the amount of $40,000 are hereby authorized for the purpose of conducting said studies. These funds shall be allocated as a construction fund as preliminary feasibility studies and shall be allocated in the amount of $25,000 for the improvement project from Hazelwood to T.H. 61, and $15,000 for the improvement project from T.H. 61 back to County Road D. Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on this ~ day of ,2002. Attachment 2 a^¥ au,~ed MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 'LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Dearborn Meadow Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue March 12, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to develop a nine-unit housing development called Dearbom Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 3-7. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In ~lddition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 5 and 6.) A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 4. Lot-area and lot-width variances for each lot. The city code requires that each lot have 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of width. The proposed lots would be 5,200 square feet and would have 80 feet of width at the building line. 4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units and a tenth lot for the common area. 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. BACKGROUND The planning commission considered a similar plan for this site in 2000. (See the plan on page 7 and the commission minutes starting on page 8.) These minutes are from the two meetings where the commission discussed Mr. Ackerman's eadier proposal. DISCUSSION Before submitting the applications to the city for the above-referenced project, Mr. Ackerman is asking for comments from the planning commission. Please review the attached materials and revised plans (starting on page 18) and be prepared to discuss and comment on the proposed plans. RECOMMENDATION Provide comments and direction about the revised plans for Dearborn Meadow to the developer. p:sec 11\dearborn 2 2002 prelim plan.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan (Existing) 4. Land Use Plan (Proposed) 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat (2000) 6. April 17, 2000 planning commission minutes 7. May 15, 2000 planning commission minutes 8. March 8, 2002 letter and materials from Mike Ackerman Attachment 1 ~, ~ L ~ NORTH SAINT PAUL "~~ -~ ~ ~ ~/11 ~ ~ [ ~,~] o' ~7oo' ~oo' ~¢~, o" 1 ~" ~ ~ ~ ~/ ,~~~ ~~ NORTH SAINT PAUL Attachment 2 F-- -,-,; ~ ' -: .- ........ HIGHWAY 36' g J"~-J- ¥I~-.- -- =-ii / t ~ .s. ~oz~ . ~ ~ RIE -mmm-m-mmmmI-m. COPE AVENUE _m__m_mmmmm AVE ..l. ....... R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3: MULTIPLE DWELLINGS J N 0 BC= BUSINESS COMMERCIAL ~ ~ LIGHT ~ANUFAgTURING PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP APPLICANT'S SITE °"" ,..~.. :..,%' STAFF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND ~SE~ PLAN CHANGE 4 Attachment 3 .Fro$1 36 ~chan ~C ,rincipal R-3(H) M-1 ' '"' "Cdunt I ~BC1=''--'' KEY Ri = SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3(M) MEDIUM DENSlIY RESIDENTIAL · R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL · Mi = LIGHT MANUFACTURING z: W = WATER LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) 5 arterl&l Attachment 4 ~jQr 36 :m'chanpe rincipal R-31 Mol¸ I":' Cc~ur ~ 1 .Frest , . O .KEY R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL M1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING W = WATER LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) )r~arterl&l R2 tI · Attachment 5 CRAPHIC ,SCALE HIGHWAY 2"-'-'" ~"'",~,,,- +""'cA~=~* .... "1'"' ~j,,~,//~"- ;'"' '/I~R['''''': ' / I FT-- I I · I 1 PROPOSEDL/,~,~P.ELI~MINARy PLAT '1 Attachment 6 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2000 IV. PUBLIC 7p.m. HEARING Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue): Comprehensive Plan Change-- M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Zoning Map Change--M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Lot-Area and Lot-Width Variances and Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. He then answered questions from the commissioners. Commission Trippler asked why the city thought it was a good idea "to approve a variance that is less than half of what was supposed to be recommended." Mr. Roberts said the R-2 code was intended primarily for a typical subdivision on a public street. This is set up as a townhouse development where, if these were three-unit buildings connected together, there is no minimum lot size. He said these are actually double-unit townhomes but the code does not allow for this flexibility. Commissioner Thompson spoke about the difficulty in removing snow from a street with this width. Ken Haider, director of public works, said it was difficult to evaluate a privately built street as a potential public street because it would not meet most of the requirements of the code. He agreed with Mr. Thompson that the city has not been in favor of assuming responsibility for private streets. Chairperson Fischer clarified that Items A and B (the land use and zoning) refer to three separate properties, while C and D (lot area, width variances, and preliminary plat) involve only the development proposal property. Mike Ackerman, the developer, was pleased with the development pr6posal at this point. There were no questions for Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Roberts showed colored photographs, provided by Mr. Ackerman, of similar units that he has previously built in the Twin Cities. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Jack. Swenson, 1930 Castle Avenue East, commented on the increase in foot and vehicular traffic along the street. He asked where the children that would reside in these homes would play. Mr. Swenson desired single-family homes for this site. Jim Oswald, 1948 Cope Avenue East, spoke about the water problems in this area. Richard Oie, 1937 Cope Avenue East, also told about water problems he has experienced on his lot since two new houses were built in the vicinity. He asked whether trees will be removed and replaced when the utilities are run to this site from Cope Avenue. Ken Haider conceded that the drainage from the two new houses along Cope Avenue does come to this Iow area. He said the city of Oakdale has a format they have used to allow a resident to utilize a city-owned piece of property for a particular use for the advantage of everyone involved. Mr. Haider is hoping to use this model to help alleviate some of Mr. Oie's drainage problems. He also noted that the additional drainage calculations requested from the applicant's engineer have not been received. Mr. Haider wanted to ensure that the runoff was collected on-site and directed to a storm sewer connection that is being made to an existing pipe to the south. Mr. Oie felt certain that the water from the two walk-out units would run toward his property. Mr. Haider said this would require a change in the applicant's stormwater plan. 8 Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -2- Commissioner Thompson observed a piece of property on Cope Avenue that had a "noticeable, substantial" swale. It appeared to him that drainage was intended to run across this property. Mr. Roberts felt it was difficult to address this situation because he did not know which lot Mr. Thompson was specifically referring to. Mr. Thompson said it was on Cope Avenue west of German Street. Mr. Roberts said the long, narrow piece of property, between 1937 and 1949 Cope Avenue, is a tax-forfeited piece of property. The city can ask the state to get a use deed for the property and keep control of it. Mr. Haider confirmed that it was on this parcel that he intended to use the Oakdale model. Mr. Oswald said this lot is spring-fed. He mentioned that a substantial amount of soil was brought in for the two new houses and a big drop into the empty lot has resulted. There were no further comments, so Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Mueller had a concern about the drainage issue and was hesitant to approve this type of application until that problem was addressed. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the wetland had an outlet. Mr. Roberts said it would have an emergency overflow but not a pipe or stormsewer outlet. Chairperson Fischer asked if permits were obtained when the additional soil was brought into these lots. Mr. Haider thought they were. Commissioner Thompson wanted "concrete answers" before he approved this application. Commissioner Ledvina agreed and felt the entire west half of the proposed development could increase the drainage problems. Commissioner Rossbach felt the density was too high and the buildings would be too close to the property lines. He noted that the "basic look" of the neighborhood was single-family · residential. He had concerns about the drainage. Commissioner Ledvina also thought the density was too large. In addition, he was concerned about the proximity of the two facing buildings on the southern part of the development. He suggested that the rear of these two buildings should face the rear of the buildings on Cope Avenue. Commissioner Mueller asked about a provision for a playground area. Mr. Rossbach thought single-floor units with an association quite typically are senior residents. He didn't think it was fair to require a developer in this instance to provide a play area. There were comments by various commissioners about the density, consistency with the comprehensive plan and maximum use of the land. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said she recently received notification from the Metropolitan Council that Maplewood was not providing enough density and needed to find more places for medium and high density development. The council felt that Maplewood was not doing what they needed to meet population growth goals for the next twenty years. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that the density on this parcel would be increased because it is currently not residential and has no density. Commissioner Thompson asked it there was a way to approve the project and yet get assurance on the drainage. Mr. Haider indicated that a drainage condition was required in the recommendations but said he wasn't "100 percent sure I like that responsibility all the time either" of making a decision after the fact. Commissioner Mueller moved the Planning Commission recommend tabling all four items of the Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) proposal until additional information regarding drainage that is involved with the preliminary plat is received. 9 Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -3- Commissioner Thompson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all Ms. Coleman informed those present in the audience that no further notification would be sent regarding reconsideration of this proposal at the May 1 meeting. l0 Attachment 7 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 15, 2000 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue): Comprehensive Plan Change--M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Zoning Map Change-M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings; Lot-Area and Lot-Width Variances; and Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, summarized the staff report. Commissioner Frost asked how the city ensures that the drainage plan, which the applicant submits, works as proposed. Ken Haider, city engineer, said many grading inspections are done to make sure the water goes where it is planned to go. However, the city does not "as built" the site where survey measurements are taken. Commissioner Trippler asked the city engineer to address specific aspects of the drainage plan. Mr. Haider explained that D.2.c.(3) was basically saying "when the developer of the Dearborn site establishes the sanitary sewer, they must run an extension to the east property line so that there is access for the property to the east--that undeveloped property." This property to the east is not owned by the City of Maplewood. Mr. Haider said the same applies for storm sewer as identified in a previous condition. He thought the information provided by the developer's engineer addressed the drainage issue, in the city's opinion, from a "qualitative perspective as opposed to a quantitative perspective." Mr. Haider said the city was not sure that all the areas and the analysis were exactly accurate but they are representative of the situation in this development. Mr. Haider explained that a significant area that now drains south and west through this site will be intercepted by the roadway that is proposed as part of this project. Everything east of the roadway will be picked up by a 27-inch storm sewer that this project will connect into. He said that "some of the back ends" of the proposed project will drain to the west and south as they currently do, but the area is "significantly decreased." Therefore, it is the city's opinion that the drainage situation will be improved. Before final engineering drawings are approved, the city will want more definitive information from the designer as to how "they came up with these things." Commissioner Trippler thought the driveways, on the house in the northwest corner, that lead out to Castle Street could be in a dangerous location because of limited visibility. The road drops off and curves. He felt it would be better to rotate this unit so that the drives exited to the road within the project. Mr. Roberts said the developer considered this but felt the unit would be getting too close to the wetland. He suggested that the community design review board require driveway turnarounds on this building so it wouldn't be necessary to back out onto Castle Avenue. Commissioner Thompson asked about the discrepancy in classifying the wetlands. Mr. Roberts did not know why it was called a Type II on the plans. He thought it could have been a Type II in a different criteria. Mr. Roberts said it is a Class V by Maplewood ordinance. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the rear yard setback would be in an R-2 zone as opposed to what would be required in an M-1. Mr. Roberts said, in an M-1 (depending on the wall size of the building), the setback would be at least 50 feet up to 100 feet if it is adjacent to residential. In the R-2, it is 20 percent of the lot depth of each townhouse. Mr. Rossbach said the problem he had with this plan is that he thought it "imposes too heavy of an aesthetic burden on the existing neighborhood in that these buildings are too close to the existing houses that are on ll ! Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -2- Cope." He also noted that they sit uphill from the Cope Avenue houses so they will be "big and imposing." Mr. Rossbach referred to the large commercial building that was constructed on Cope Avenue, east of English Street. He felt that allowing this building to be built so close to single-family homes was an error. Mr. Rossbach emphasized that he had no objection to this development being R-2 and no objection if a bigger building was put on this lot. He summarized by saying this "was too big an imposition on the existing neighborhood." Commissioner Frost felt the only issue was that the intent was to have another street between Castle and Cope Avenues (which was vacated at some time). He was satisfied with the drainage issues. Commission Thompson complimented Bill Priebe of the Engineering Department. He said Mr. Priebe "knew every manhole, every catch basin" and he hoped the community appreciated his expertise. Mr. Rossbach rebutted Mr. Frost's comments about the vacated street. He said "we are not comparing where the street is now, we are comparing that it is currently M-1 and that will be under certain standards which would restrict the building's closeness to certain houses on Cope." Rich VanSickle, who worked with Mike Ackerman on this project, was present. He pointed out that they had been working with staff on the drainage and felt the commission was satisfied that the drainage will be improved when the project is built. Mr. VanSickle noted that having this density, which is less than would be allowed under R-2, satisfies some of the Met Council goals. He didn't think the project would be too appealing for families with children because of the single-level floor plans and association taking care of ground maintenance. There were no questions for the applicant. Charles Themmes, 1928 Castle Avenue, claimed that every project that has taken place in this neighborhood during his 40 years of residency has turned into a "nightmare." He contended that Ariel Street down was a "natural runoff" and shouldn't be interfered with. Mr. Themmes was also against this project because of the traffic situation on Castle Avenue. He said that, in spite of what the engineers say, the wate~ cannot be made to run back up the hill and the result of this project will be drainage problems for the three houses near the nursing home. Commissioner Thompson said there are two intakes to a storm sewer to alleviate some of the ponding problem. Mr. Themmes acknowledged that this does help somewhat when it is not plugged. Richard Oie, 1937 Cope Avenue East, was concerned that the setbacks on the back sides of the homes on the south end of the project were very close to the back of the houses facing Cope Avenue. He said headlights would shine on the homes to the east of his. Mr. Oie did not Want a drainage way across his yard. The ground north of his property is about three feet higher than his basement floor. Mr. Oie said he has lived here for ten years and never had water in the basement until the two houses were built to the east of his residence. He maintained that the R-2 was put in as a buffer zone to go from R-1 to M-1. Since there is no longer M-l, Mr. Oie felt these homes should be single family. He said he would prefer M-1 zoning because a commercial facility would shut down for the weekend and evenings. Jim Oswald, 1948 Cope Avenue, questioned why ten units should be put on this site. He advocated single-family homes. Mr. Oswald also mentioned the increase in traffic from this many homes. Commissioner Thompson said that the 2.11 acres in this development would qualify for 7.65 single-family homes. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that even though there was this much acreage, there was not street frontage so it would only be possible to put in four houses to front on Castle. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -3- Chairperson Fischer asked staff about attempts to control the water problems in this area. Mr. Haider said there was a drainage swale that came down through these back yards from Ariel Street. A storm sewer project with additional capacity was added after the nursing home was built. He claimed that years of flooding, septic systems and drainfields in this area caused the land to take a long time to dry out. Mr. Haider said it was thought that the city-owned lot on Cope Avenue, between 1937 and 1949, would be filled and sold at some time. Because the homes on both sides of this lot were built Iow, he now feels that this lot will remain vacant to receive localized drainage. Mr. Haider said an option at this time is to clean up this lot and create a sump with some stone or rock in an area in the lowest part of the lot. There would then be a convenient place to put a pump if it was needed. Mr. Haider also said the city would like to put in a little storm sewer pipe but this would require tearing up Cope Avenue which is a relatively new street. Commissioner Trippler observed that it looked like about four feet of elevation difference between the house on Cope and the elevations of the end of the proposed street. He asked what accommodations would be made to alleviate the problem of headlights. Mr. Roberts said the developed planned to install a six-foot-tall privacy fence along the south line of the site. Commissioner Ledvina thought the development seemed "just too packed in" and would not support the project. Commissioner Thompson asked if the developer would be agreeable to a time extension to work out some of these issues. Rich VanSickle said he was not authorized by the developer to agree to an extension. He also wasn't sure what issues some additional time would resolve. Commissioner Frost suggested voting on a motion, taking the proposal to the city council, and then the applicant could consider his options after that. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: Approve the resolution which changes the land use plan for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been bet~veen two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Approve the resolution which changes the zoning map for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons 13 Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 05-15-00 for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. C. Approve the resolution which approves lot area and lot width variances for each lot in Dearborn Meadow. The city is approving these variances because: 1. There is an unusual hardship. A homeowners' association will own and maintain the land that the developer would normally use to meet the lot area and frontage requirements. 2. This variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since the project would meet the city's density requirement. 3. Maplewood has approved the same variance for the Holloway Pond Town House developments at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. D. Approve the Dearborn Meadow preliminary plat (received by the city on March 31, 2000). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. fo Have NSP install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private drive'way (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: 14 Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -5- (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan which: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development run off. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. (3) Design of the sanitary sewer allowing for the unrestricted access to the sanitary sewer in the development from the undeveloped properties adjacent to the site (primarily to the east). 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review, of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the private street as Castle Place and label Castle Street as Castle Avenue on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. e. Provide easements to allow for unrestricted access to the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main in the development from the undeveloped parcel to the east. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site 15 Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -6- drainage and utility easements. o The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Submitting the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Chairperson Fischer chose to call for a separate vote on each request. She asked for a vote on the comprehensive plan change from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Thompson Nay--Rossbach Ms. Fischer.asked for a vote on changing the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (sin~11e and double dwellings). Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Thompson Nay--Rossbach Ms. Fischer then called for a vote on the lot-area and lot-width variances. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Muller, Pearson, Thompson Nays--Rossbach, Trippler A vote was taken on the preliminary plat. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Mueller, Thompson Nays--Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler 16 Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -7- The motion failed. Commissioner Ledvina said his concerns were that the two southerly units would be "in conflict" with the existing houses and the buildings in the development were "too tightly la'id out." Commissioner Pearson also thought it was "too intense a plan for the amount of area." In addition, he was concerned about the drainage. Commissioner Trippler thought "it was cramming too much in too small an area." Commissioner Rossbach said the majority of his concerns had been stated but he "agreed most" with Mr. Ledvina's thoughts. He said if it wasn't for the way the rear two buildings at the south end were located, he would not have as much problem with the proposal. Mr. Rossbach advocated combining units closer together so that there is more open space on the property and "a smaller footprint of buildings." 17 Attachment 8 CUSTOM BUILT HOMES 651.779.4149 6060 50th St. N., Suite 2 Oakdate, MN 55128 March 8, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission members Mike Ackerman, Developer Proposed Plat for Dearborn Meadow Dear Planning Commission members, HAR - 8 2002 RECEIVED Thank you for taking the time to consider this proposed plat. It will be very helpful for me to get some initial feedback from you before I officially submit this proposal to city staff. As many of you may remember, I did have a very similar proposal before you almost 2 years ago. Due to earlier comments by you as a commission, and to concerns expressed by neighbors to the site as well as city staff, I have made a few significant changes to my proposal. These changes include the following items: Elimination of one townhome unit. The total square footage of the site has always been more than adequate support a density of 10 townhome units according to the city density guidelines. However, due to factors such as existing utility easements and an on site wetland area, the configuration of the ten units caused the units on the east side of the proposed road to be as close together as 15 feet. By eliminating one unit on the east side of the road the buildings can now be 30 feet apart and the southern most unit will be 38 feet away from the property to the south. As you can see by looking at the aerial photo in the enclosed packet, these side yard setbacks far exceed most of the setbacks in the neighboring area. 2. Increasing the width of the road from 24 feet to 28 feet wide. In accordance with city code, this change allows for the parking of cars along one side of the road. The planting of evergreen trees along the south border of the property instead of a wood privacy fence. This change was the result of conversations with the property owners to the south who felt that trees would be more aesthetically pleasing and just as effective at blocking the glare fi'om car headlights that travel south on the new proposed road. Changing of the grading plan to use the wetland on site to help improve the quality of storm water run-offbefore it enters the city storm water system. This change comes at the request of city staff and has been approved by the Watershed District. Also, since the time of my initial meeting before the planning commission, calculations have been given to the city engineering department demonstrating that the development of this project in accordance with the grading plan will actually decrease the amount of surface water that currently runs off site. This is due in most part to the fact that the road and the wetland will now direct water into the storm sewer system instead of on to neighboring properties. One of the things that I would really appreciate some input on would be on what direction you think I should take in changing the current zoning of the site. The site is currently zoned M-1 for light manufacturing. The concept for the Dearborn Meadow proposed development is for each homeowner to own only a small lot around their individual townhome unit. The rest of the open area as well as the road itself would be maintained by an association. The last time that I brought this proposal before the planning commission I was asking for a zoning change from M-1 to R-2, the zoning designation for single and double dwellings. The problem with this zoning designation is that it requires a lot size of at least 6,000 square feet for each unit. As I stated earlier, there is more than enough square footage on the site to be in compliance with this square foot requirement. However, designing the project with an association owning and maintaining all of the common areas causes each individual lot to be significantly less than the code requirement. Therefore, along with my zoning change request I was asking for a lot size variance. Asking for a variance combined with having the units 18 CUSTOM BUILT HOMES 651.779.4149 6060 50th St. N., Suite 2 Oakdale, MN 55128 on the east side of the road as close together as ! did certainly gave the appearance that I was trying t° "cram" more units on the site than the site could support. The city of Maplewood does not currently have a zoning designation that is tailored for the type of use that I am proposing. That is why a variance is often granted for these types of developments. City staffhas informed me that the only alternative to this method is to propose developing the project as a planned unit development. Other than the lot size issue I really can see no other benefit to a PUD. Every other part of the project would be in compliance with the R-2 zoning designation. Which direction would you as a commission suggest that I take? Are there any other issues that you would suggest that I consider before I officially bring this proposal before you? Once again thank you very much for taking the time to read this letter and to offer me some input at your next meeting. Also, if you would like to personally speak to me about this project please give me a call at 612-986-3898. Michael Ackerman Attachments: Color'plat concept plan Preliminary plat Preliminary grading plan Aerial photograph of surrounding area Outside elevations oftownhome units Floor plans of proposed townhomes 19 3 j O9 .'.Z: ' I t 21 I I I I °~i-- I I [ J W 0 · i I,.I ZZ 25 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Code Amendment - Restaurants within the Business Commercial (Modified) (BC(M)) Zoning District Chili's Restaurant 1800 Beam Avenue March 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Business Commercial (Modified) Restaurants Chili's Restaurant at 1800 Beam Avenue is located within the Business Commercial (Modified) (BC(M)) zoning district (see attached map on page 4). Within this zoning district, restaurants are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) as long as there are no "drive-up order windows or serving of food to patrons in their automobiles." The BC(M) zoning distdct is considered a Iow-intensity commercial district since it is usually located adjacent to residential property. The intent of the ordinance prohibiting restaurants with drive-up order windows is to ensure that restaurants do not cause a negative impact on adjacent residential properties through idling of cars, gasoline exhaust fumes, and intercom noise which may be associated with ddve-up order windows. Background Last December, Chili's Restaurant constructed a food-to-go counter in their restaurant. To better accommodate their food-to-go customers, Chili's also added an exterior canopy over their side door, a ddve-up lane, a call box, and also designated three parking spaces for the food-to- go customers (see attached Chili's pictures on pages 5 through 7). This curbside service was designed so that a customer who previously called in a food order can ddve up to the call box, announce their name, park in one of the designated food-to-go parking spaces, and wait for a Chili's employee to deliver their food to their car (see attached December 12, 2001, Chili's correspondence to the city on pages 8 and 9). ~ The food-to-go counter and curbside facilities were constructed without the required building or zoning approvals. Once the city became aware of Chili's curbside service, city staff obtained the city attorney's opinion on whether this service is a violation of the city's zoning code (see attached December 17, 2001, correspondence to city attorney on pages 10 and 11). The city attorney states that Chili's curbside service violates the ordinance only to the extent that Chili's serves food to patrons in their automobiles (see attached December 31, 2001, correspondence from city attorney on pages 12 and 13). The city attorney's opinion was shared with Chili's Restaurant management who then indicated that Outback Steakhouse, also located within the BC(M) zoning district at 1770 Beam Avenue, offered a similar type of service (see attached Outback picture on page 14). City staff contacted the management of Outback Steakhouse who indicated that Outback has been offering food to go for the past two years. Outback's to-go service involves customers calling in an order and identifying the type of vehicle they will be driving when they pick up the order. Once the customer ardves at the restaurant, they park in one of the designated to-go parking spaces. A camera mounted on the building notifies the Outback employees of the waiting customer and an employee then delivers the food to the patron in their automobile. Because two restaurants located within the BC(M) zoning distdct were conducting a similar to-go service where food was being delivered to patrons in their automobiles, Chili's management requested that the city review the BC(M) ordinance for possible changes. Request Chili's Restaurant is requesting that the city allow restaurants within the BC(M) zoning district to serve food to patrons in their automobiles. This is being requested in order to facilitate Chili's and Outback's existing food-to-go service. DISCUSSION Zoning Requirements Within the BC(M) zoning district, restaurants are allowed with a CUP with the following restrictions: no drive-up order windows, no serving of food to patrons in their automobiles, and all cooking odors must be controlled so as not to be noticeable to adjacent residences. These restrictions were put in place to ensure that adjacent residential properties were not negatively impacted by intercom noise and automobile and/or food odors that may be associated with a fast-food drive-through restaurant such as a McDonalds. Existing Restaurants There are approximately 58.68 acres of BC(M) zoned land within the city (see attached map on page 15). Other than Chili's and Outback Steakhouse, the only other restaurant zoned BC(M) is the new 5-8 Club Restaurant located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue (scheduled to open spring 2002). The proposed amendment will therefore only affect these three restaurants at this time. Chili's and Outback's Food-to-go Service Chili's Restaurant and Outback Steakhouse are full-service restaurants. The serving of food to patrons in their vehicles is offered as a convenience to their customers and does not cause the negative impacts associated with a fast-food drive-through restaurant. Since both restaurants began their food-to-go service, no complaints have been received from adjacent residential properties. For this reason, staff agrees that the existing ordinance should be amended to allow this type of service. However, care must be taken in the language chosen to ensure that high- impact restaurants such as a McDonalds are still prohibited within the BC(M) Iow-impact commercial zoning district. Chili's Restaurant and Outback Steakhouse began their food-to-go service without the city's knowledge. Therefore, these restaurants did not obtain the required building permits and design review. If the ordinance is amended to allow for such facilities within the BC(M) zoning district, Chili's and Outback must comply with the city's building code and the Americans with Disability Act as well as obtain the necessary administrative design review for the exterior improvements. Business Commercial - Modified 2 March 13, 2002 Proposed Code Amendment In order to allow restaurants within the BC(M) zoning district to have food-to-go facilities, staff proposes removing the language that prohibits the "serving of food to patrons in their automobiles." To ensure that fast food, drive-through restaurants will remain prohibited within the BC(M) zoning district, staff proposes adding language that prohibits ~ddve-up food or beverage windows or outdoor menu or ordering boards." Drive-up food or beverage windows will then be defined to mean "an opening in the wall of a building or restaurant designed and intended to be used to provide food and/or beverage sales and/or food and/or beverage service to patrons who remain in their vehicles." The proposed code amendment will then allow Chili's and Outback' Steakhouse to continue their food-to-go service, but will ensure that fast-food, drive-through restaurants will remain prohibited within the BC(M) zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the ordinance amendment on pages 16 and 17. The amendment allows restaurants within the BC(M) zoning district to offer food-to-go services where the food can be served to the patrons in their automobiles. P:ord~bcrn restaurants Attachments: 6. 7. 8. Location and Zoning Map Chili's Restaurant Pictures Chili's December 12, 2001, Letter to City Staff City Staff's December 17, 2001, Letter to City Attorney City Attorney's December 31,2001, Letter to City Staff Outback Steakhouse's Restaurant Picture BC(M) Zoned Land Amended BC(M) Ordinance Business Commercial - Modified March 13, 2002 Attachment 1 Beam Avenue ZONING Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Shopping Center Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential High Multiple Dwelling Residential High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo Planned Urban Development 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate Farm N Chili's Location and Zoning Map 4 Attachment 2 t ! - ! ....... Attachment 3 December 12,2001 Shann Finwall City of Maplewood Planning Department Dear Shann, I would like to apologize for performing work at our Chili's location on Beam Ave without noticing your department before the work had been initiated. The scope of work that was performed should have been submitted for approval and I was not aware of the zoning restrictions. Chili's restaurants have been adding the to-go counters in over 600 units across the country. We have done very few modifications to the exterior of the building and have simply removed two table and added two counters and a divider wall in the interior. The exterior scope consisted of removing two of the atrium Windows and adding a low wall and window in place of these atrium windows. The paint matched the existing exterior. We have deleted a section of the awning that previously was located over the door and atrium windows. In place of this awni,ag, we have added a canopy avafing that designates this is an entrance for to-go service. With the inclement weather in Minnesota, we decided to extend this awning to doe curb linc to provide protection for our guests and servers. This awning is flame retardant and the framing meets the forty pound snow load requirements. The manufacturer of the awning should be arriving in your office with the plans and specification sheets. The curb side service program has be.e.n a new initiative that compliments the to-go service. Curb side service has been dcsigmed to accommodate the guest when they arrive to pick up their previously called in to-go order. We have added a call box to this program to help expedite the flow of customers that are arriving to pick up their orders. The call box's single purpose is for the guest to identity themselves to the empityees so we em greet the guesl' as they pull up next to our to-go door with the proper food order. Ifa guest arrives before their order is ready, we direct them to pull into a parking space and deliver the food to their car when it is ready. Chili's is not a fast food concept and we do not have the capacities or thc desire to become one. We are a full service, casual dining restaurant and will continue to look for ways to give om' guest more service than they expect. This call box has been useful in providing to-go service to our guests that have disabilities. When these guests arrive at our curb side and we bring their prepared order to tl~em, thc accessibility issues are eliminated. Ifa guest with disabilities arrives and speaks into the call box but would like to enter the building, we can direct them to 6820 LBJ Freeway / Dallas, TexAs 75240-5515 I (972) 980-9917 / www. brinker.com 8 the front parking spaces designated for handicap parking and greet them with their food at this point in our restaurant. Shann, I have tried to explain the scope of work and our intentions for installing these components. In reviewing thiswork scope, I hope that you fred we were not trying to circumvent the pem~itting process. We felt that the limited scope of work involved in this project did not deem being permitted. Please call me with any questions or any C OllC~TI').S, Mike Snyder Regional Facilities Manager 972-770-3229 Together We Can Attachment 4 December l7,2001 Patrick Kelly, Esq. Kelly & Fawcett, P.A. Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Drive-Through Restaurants Dear Mr. Kelly: Chili's Restaurant located at 1800 Beam Avenue in Maplewood is located.~ithin the city's Business Commercial (Modified), BC(M), zoning district. This is a tiansitional commercial zoning district that is usually located adjacent residential property. Within this zoning district, restaurants are allowed through a conditional use permi[as long as "no drive-up order windows or serving of food to patrons in their automobiles" exists (see enclosed ordinance). Chili's Restaurant was originally approved by the city council through a conditional use permit for a restaurant within the BC(M) zoning district. Last week the city found that Chili's Restaurant had undergone remodeling of their restaurant without the required building or zoning permits. The remodeling included interior and exterior additions for a to-go food entrance (see enclosed pictures). To accommodate the to-go food entrance, a drive-lane was painted on the back and side of the building that leads the drivers to an intercom. The driver then announces their name and previously called in order in the intercom. The driver then waits at the side door entrance or parks in three reserved to-go parking stalls. A Chili's Restaurant employee then brings the food out to the driver (see enclosed Chili's letter explaining the to-go facility). 10 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-770-4560 FAX: 651 - 748- 3096, CITY Of MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Patrick Kelly, Esp. Page 2 December 17, 2001 City staff has interpreted that the intent of the BC(M) ordinance prohibiting restaurants ~ with drive-up order windows is to ensure that restaurants adjacent residential property do not cause a negative impact through idling of cars, gasoline exhaust fumes, and intercom noise. Chili's to-go facility could feasibly cause car staking in the to-go drive lane that would produce idling of cars and gasoline exhaust fumes. Also, the intercom may be audible from adjacent residential properties. These are all negative impacts to the adjacent residential properties. For these reasons staffhas interpreted that the intercom that announces a patron's order and the delivering of foOd to the to-go patrons in their automobiles is a violation of the ordinance in that Chili's Restaurant is "serving food to patrons in their automobiles." Staff further attests that if Chili's Restaurant removed the drive lane and the intercom and required to-go patrons to enter the restaurant to pick up their order that they would then be in compliance with the ordinance. Please review Chili's to-go service and let me know if you agree with staff's interpretation. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ Shann Finwall Associate Planner EnclOsures Kelly & Fawcett, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2350 U.S. BANCORP/PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 Attachment 5 PATRICK J. KELLY SONG LO FAWCETT SIA LO CHAD D. LEMMONS SAKAH J. SONSALLA ROBERT J. FOWLER DAVID L. PALM December31,2001 .Of Counsel: McGUIGAN & HOLLY, P.L.C. (651) 224-3781 Facsimile (651) 223-8019 E-Mail: admin(~.kellyandfawcett.com Ms. Shann Finwall Associate Planner City of Maplewood Office of Community Development 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Chifi's Restaurant Dear Ms. Finwall: I have reviewed your letter and materials dated December 17, 2001 and have conducted the necessary and appropriate legal research concerning this issue. I did discuss this matter with you at some length on December 27, 2001. This letter will serve as a written opinion fi:om the City Attorney's Office concerning this matter. ' According to Maplewood Ordinance §36-155, Commercial District Modified, Subd. c of that section defines conditional uses. Conditional uses must have a Conditional Use Permit to be allowed in the BC(M) zone. Section 36-155, Subd. c(3) stat~s that a restaurant may be a condkional use. That section states: "Restaurant where there are. no drive-up order windows or serving of food to patrons in their automobiles. AIl cooking orders must be controlled so as not to be noticeable to adjacent residences." It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the actions of Chili's Restaurant as outlined in your December 17, 2001 letter and supporting documentation is in violation of the Ordinance. However, it is only in violation of the Ordinance to the extent that Chili's serves food to patrons in their automobiles. According to the documentation supplied, and based on the information in your letter, Chili's does not currently possess what would be interpreted to be "a drive-up order window." It is apparent that the patrons place their orders via telephone, announce their presence through a microphone or intercom and then park their vehicle. As I stated on the phone, and as demonstrated by the enclosed case of City of Chanhassen v. McDonald's, ordinances are strictly construed against the City in these situations. However, it is also readily apparent that Chili's is currently serving patrons in their automobiles. This is prohibited by the ordinance. Ms. Shann Finwall December 31,2001 Page Two !n addressing the second to the last paragraph of page two of your December 17, 2001 letter, it is the legal opinion of the City Attorney's Office that Chili's would be in compliance with the current ordinance if they required the to-go patrons to enter the restaurant to pick up their order. The only actions of Chili's and its employees who violate the ordinance as currently drafted, is the fact that they serve patrons food in their automobiles. Lastly, we discussed recommending changes to the currem ordinance to make it clearer that only restaurants without any type of drive-up or drive-through or a lane which encourages patrons to form lines for service would be allowed as a conditional use. I will shortly be sending you several such proposals by way of separate letter. If you have any questions about this, or any other issues, please contact me. Respectfully yours, RJF/sjh encl. KELLY & FAWCETY, P.A. Robert J. Fowler 13 Attachment 6 14 Attachment 7 Business Commercial Modified Zoning Districts (58.68 Acres) Restaurants Zoned ~usiness Commercial (Modified) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BC(M) BUSINESS COMMERCIAL (MODIFIED) ZONING DISTRICT Attachment 8 The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section amends Section 36-155 of the city code by clarifying the types of uses allowed in the Business Commercial (Modified) zoning district (deletions are stricken and additions are underlined): Sec. 36-155. BC(M) Commercial District (Modified). (c) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (1) All permitted uses in R-3, multiple-dwelling district. (2) Laundry. (3) Restaurant, where there are no drive-up .food or beveraqe er-der windows or outdoor menu or orderinq boards c~,":Jng '-~ ~,-,,-~ *,- .-~* .... ;" their autemebiles. All cooking odors must be controlled so as not to be noticeable to adjacent residences. (4) Place of amusement, recreation or assembly, other than an indoor theater, indoor athletic activity or itinerant carnival. (5) Minor motor fuel station, subject to the requirements in section 36-151 (b)(9). (6) On-sale liquor business (subject to license). (7) Any use that would be similar to any of the above uses, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (d) Prohibited uses: (1) Drive-in (2) Commercial or fee parking lots where such use is the only use of a given parcel or where such use provides for general rather than specific use parking. (3) The exterior storage, display, sale, or distribution of equipment, goods, or materials. 16 (e) Section 2. (4) (5) (6) (7) Car wash: Public garage or major motor fuel station. Compressed natural gas or liquid petroleum gas dispensing facilities. Restaurants with drive-up food and beveraqe windows. Restaurants with outdoor menu or orderinq boards. Definitions: "Drive-up food or beverage window" means an opening in the wall of a buildinq or restaurant desiqned and intended to be used to provide food and/or beverage sales and/or food and/or beverage service to patrons who remain in their vehicles. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2002. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays - 17