The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/06/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 6, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. April 15, 2002 5. Public Headng a. 2003 - 2007 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan 6. New Business a. Conditional Use Permit - Over-sized Accessory Building (Schlomka) - 1481 Henry Lane b. House Moving Request (Crockett) - Sylvan Street c. Kline Nissan Vehicle Dealership - 3100 Maplewood Drive 1. Wetland Setback Variance 2. Conditional Use Permit 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. April 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. May 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller ?? c. MaY 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 10. Staff Presentations Bo Annual Tour - July 29? May 20 PC meeting 1. Start time change (8:00 instead of 7:00) 2. Tentative Items a. Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) b. Home Occupation License (Sewing Business) - 2492 Highwood Avenue c. Lexus Dealership Expansion - 3000 Maplewood Drive d. Washington County Bank- White Bear Avenue e. Hmong Alliance Church Expansion - McMenemy Street 11. Adjournment r- ........ '-T ...... T-'[' - WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: o The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eric Ahlness Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Absent Present Present Present Present Absent Absent Present Present Staff Present: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, ReCording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler The motion is passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for March 18, 2002. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for March 18, 2002. Commissioner Dierich seconded Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 1,2002. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for April 1,2002. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -2- Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes-Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention -- Ledvina The motion is passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Gladstone Park Addition Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bruce Anderson, representing the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department, is proposing to develop a seven-lot plat for single-family homes called Gladstone Park Addition. It would be on a 2.7-acre site on the east side of English Street, south of County Road B. To build this project, Mr. Anderson is requesting that the city approve: 1. Change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from P (park) to R-1 (single dwellings) for the site. 2. The vacation of an unused street right-of-way and an unused alley. 3. A preliminary plat for seven lots. In the fall of 2001, the city engineering department held two neighborhood meetings about the possible reconstruction of English Street from Frost to Cope Avenues. Staff also discussed with the neighbors at these meetings the idea of developing the Gladstone Park site into a cul-de-sac with lots for houses. On November 13, 2001, the city council adopted a resolution ordering the preparation of a feasibility study for an eight-lot subdivision for this site. The city engineer has been working on these plans with the engineering consultant that is preparing the plans for the reconstruction of English Street from Frost to Cope Avenues. Mr. Roberts said as part of approving the proposed plans, the city needs to vacate an unused street right-of-way (Burke Avenue) and an unused alley. These existing public facilities have never been used or developed for their original purposes and do not fit with the street and lot layout on the proposed plans. The city will be dedicating a new street right-of-way for a cul-de- sac and all the necessary easements with the new plat. As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 10,148 square feet to 26,138 square feet with an average lot size of about 16,696 square feet. The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. All of the proposed lots would meet or exceed the city's zoning standards. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -3- Mr. Roberts said it is estimated that the lots will sell for $55,000 to $60,000 per lot with estimated construction costs of $200,000. The proceeds from th.e project should be forwarded to the P.A.C. fund. There is no expected value on the homes but the city is proposing that the value of the homes will be no less than $200,000. The project plans show an 8-foot-wide bituminous trail from English Street to the existing Ramsey County Trail east of the project site. This trail may extend east of the Ramsey County Trail onto the Weaver School property to provide better pedestrian access to the school property. The city would construct this trail as part of the improvement project and also will be. building a sidewalk along English Street with the project. As Mr. Roberts understands it, the. engineering department has been working with the school district to make a connection, down into the school property to help allow pedestrian access onto the school site. Bruce Anderson, the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, was present to answer questions as was Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer from the. Public Works Department. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they could indicate to planning commission membem.whe're the drainage and utility easement is on lot 3, 4, and 5 and is there any thought of eliminating any of the drainage or will it stay the way it is? Mr. Roberts showed members on the overhead where the easements were. Mr. Roberts said the drainage easement area is needed for a ponding area but Chris Cavett could answer that question. , Commissioner Trippler said the effective size of lot 4 is less than 10,000 square feet because once you reach the line almost all of the lot is in the drainage area. Mr. Roberts said clearly a large area of the lot is in the drainage area but he has not calculated it. Maybe Chris Cavett could answer that. Commissioner Trippler said according to the diagram he was looking'at, it was 107:feet from the cul-de-sac to the drainage easement line back and it is about 110-112 feet across the back and only about 60 feet in the front. It can't be more than 10,000 square feet big. The reason for his question is the city has a goal of having a lot size of 10,000 square feet but if half of the lot isn't available to the homeowner, doesn't that make it not Idart of the equation he asked? Chairperson Fischer asked staff to address the policy the city has for 10ts with ponds etc, on them and how the city calculates the minimum square footage for them? Mr. Roberts said in the past the city has looked at lots like these both ways. With gross acreage or gross square feet and also looking at the area. Mr. Cavett told Mr. Roberts the lot would be about 9,500 square feet outside of the easement. Commissioner Trippler said if an owner put a $200,00,0 hOuse on the land and there is a 30-foot setback would the back of the house be about 4 feet from the line? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Cavett told him if the pad is 30-feet deep from the back then there would be another 20 feet from the back of the house to the easement line. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -4- Commissioner Ledvina said he noticed from the engineering plan there were soil borings that were done on the site and he is aware that street sweepings were placed on the site, is there concern for soil correction for foundations? Mr. Cavett said there are soil corrections required for the site and it is proposed to have this done during the English Street project. The recommendations from the soils engineer is the material is acceptable for backfill but there is material under that which would need to be removed and the material put back and compacted and tested again. Commissioner Dierich asked staff about the pricing of the lots. The city is looking at doing significant improvements to these lots and yet the city is going to charge roughly $60,000 for these lots she said. Mr. Roberts said that has been the early indication of the price of the lots but to be clear the final price has not been set yet. Commissioner Dierich said judging from unimproved property in the city, at present the city should be contemplating much higher prices for those lots, especially if the city is doing all of these improvements. Commissioner Trippler asked staff why the city is getting involved in preparing these lots? If the city gets a developer, wouldn't one expect the developer to put in the sewer, water and the street etc.? Mr. Roberts said that is typically correct but since the city owns the land, and the city is doing the English Street project, they thought there could be some coordination and cost savings that the city can benefit from by being the developer. This was a decision that started with the parks commission and Mr. Bruce Anderson that the city council had endorsed. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the city has a developer they are working with on this and if so, why is it a secret? Mr. Roberts said there is no developer lined up for this project. Chairperson Fischer asked if Mr. Bruce Anderson would like to address the commission? Mr. Bruce Anderson, the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, addressed the commission. He said there are some fairly significant soil corrections on the site and it was the feeling of the city that given the efficiency of cost, that it made sense that the city did the work and did it right and to accept the responsibility up front. There are certainly some costs to benefit doing it at the same time as part of a much larger contract. From a park perspective, he thinks the biggest issue is the concept of selling public lands. The park commission and staff discussed this at great length. This is always a difficult issue, especially for a park director, to bring up. He has been with the City of Maplewood long enough that he remembers Gladstone Park as a neighborhood park with a small building and a skating rink at that site. Then it was a city nursery for about 10 years, and the last 15 years it has been utilized as a site to drop off street sweepings. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 04-15-02 The site has Weaver School to the east and Robin Hood Park to the south and then Harvest Park to the north and Frost and English as the open space property approximately a half a mile to the south as well. It is staff's recommendation the Park Commission sensed that the benefits of having this site be residential as a small seven lot subdivision was a benefit to the community. His response and contact with the neighbors is this is what their pleasure was to see it developed as residential and the city felt that the park needs were more than addressed with the park sites mentioned. In addition, English Street is a fairly significant barrier for residents to cross English Street from west to east to utilize Gladstone Park. One of the stipulations that the parks commission has Placed on this project is that the monies would go into acquisition of additional lands so there would be no net loss of park land within the city. Whether it is trail corridors or other park sites within the city, this provision addresses the no net loss issue of public lands. Mr. Anderson said this is the issue of the city marketing the land and making it available to the 'general public. Based on the sign that has been up at the corner of Burke Avenue and English Street, his department has sent out over 20 requests for this project. This has far exceeded what he anticipated was out there. Mr. Anderson said one of the dollar amounts that was put out there was $60,000 for each single-. family lot and the city has since found that the lots are probably worth more than $60,000 per lot, so that price may be adjusted. It would be staff's preference to sell the land to a developer once the lots are prepared and not be into the marketing and land sale business, and it would be cleaner and there would be only one closing. There has been interest expressed by one developer, and if the city went the route of selling to a developer, the city wouldadvertise the site for bids and they would receive sealed bids and open it up to the general public and advertise it as a seven lot subdivision. The city has not gotten to that point, but he believes that is the direction the city would pursue more actively. The city thinks this development is a benefit to the community and believes it is in the best interest of the community as well as the residents at large. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr, Anderson if there is a waiting list that the parks and recreation department has for properties that they want to purchase, or would the monies be allocated to something that Would be determined in the future. Mr. Anderson said there is a waiting list and a priority established. The number one priority is to acquire additional land for Applewood Park in southern Maplewood. The s. econd priority is trail corridors. Chairperson Fischer asked if there were any audience members that would like to speak on this subject. If so, they should come forward and give their name and address and ask their question. Mr. Bill Diesslin at 2115 English Street addressed the commission. This proposal is diagonal frOm his home. When he purchased his property in the mid-sixties they told him there was going to be a park on the other side of the street. He purchased the property with the understanding that there was some day going to be a park there. They put a skating house and rink at the park area for the kids to use and then they turned it into a garden for a couple years and they tried to grow some trees there but they never really did anything like a park that they promised him when he bought his piece of property. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -6- He said now they are talking about selling the property and putting houses there. When they talked earlier about the proposed English Street they said the only way they were going to be able to slow the traffic down on the street would be by putting trees on both sides of the street. He said it is impossible to put trees on the west side of English Street because of the power lines, the telephone lines and the cable lines. There are ten houses and one business on the east side of English Street that the wires run across English Street. He asked them earlier why couldn't they take a portion of the money and turn English Street into a park. He really thinks the park on English Street belongs to the people on English Street. He said if they could put those wires in the ground and put trees along that street it would really look good when they got done and it wouldn't look like it looks now. He asked the commissioners to drive down English Street and look at the trees that are along the west side of the street because every one of the trees are chopped off. He thinks they are the ugliest trees he has ever seen in his life. But they could make that a real nice looking street. If the city has to put houses in that area, he asked why couldn't there be five houses instead of seven houses and have two of the lots for a park and put a really nice park in there that they promised to do forty years ago? He thinks the residents have something coming to them. They paid their taxes on English Street and they charge the residents just as much taxes as they do on the side streets. He said the side streets get everything and they get nothing! Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Diesslin who is "they" that he keeps referring to? Mr. Diesslin said the realtor is the one that said the property would be park property. He said year after year they kept saying that they were going to do something with that property. It wasn't too many years ago that they said they were going to build a tennis court there. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Diesslin if he is referring now to "they" as the "city"? Mr. Diesslin said yes. Mr. Dennis Joriman at 1349 Belmont Lane East addressed the commission. He commented that it was a couple referendums ago that the city tried to ask for more money for more park space and now the city is trying to take park space away. He asked if the city is now into real estate because they want to sell these lots individually instead of going to a developer? He can remember when there was a building and skating rink there because his kids used to skate there. He has lived there for thirty plus years and he has seen city members come and go. and more go than come actually. He is concerned why the city is trying to make the park bigger down south when there is already a park here that the city isn't using? Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they could answer some of Mr. Joriman's questions? Mr. Roberts said he would defer the questions to Mr. Anderson. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -7- Mr. Anderson said there have been two park referendums in the City of Maplewood. In 1993 one referendum was successful, and an unsuccessful referendum occurred in either 1999 or 2000. There would not be a net loss of park land for this particular site. The majority of feedback from residents has been this site doesn't serve as well as the neighborhood park from a standpoint of size, location etc. The priority of the development of this site is going to be with very limited dollars. The site from a development prospective is not going to occur for a number of years. The proposal right now is the city would complete the trail corridor from English Street to the east to Weaver Elementary School. This becomes more critical with the reduction of busing for local walkers there as well. As far as being in the real estate business, if it makes sense to market the land to a developer, that is the approach the city would follow and sell the lots to a developer so that the developer can market the property to be in the real estate business more than the city. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Anderson if he can give the commission a rough idea how much park space is in the south area of Maplewood as opposed to what the commission is looking at in the Gladstone Park Area? Mr. Anderson said he would haVe to go get a map and then he could respond to that. Mr. Joriman said it doesn't make any sense to him to be able to look at the park that exists and then Mr. Anderson says they are going to forget about the existing park land and build homes and the city will expand the park in south Maplewood. Mr. Anderson may as well tell him to go to Goodhue, Minnesota because they have a nice park there. He said the park will not be in his neighborhood and this is what this is all about. He doesn't want to see anything taken away when the city has it there already. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else would like to speak on behalf of the Gladstone Park Area? She then closed that portion of the hearing. Commissioner Trippler said because of all the developmental issues that need to be addressed in making this land sellable, does the staff have any idea of the cost to do the work verses what the city would be likely to get for the land? Mr. Roberts said the construction costs will be about $200,000, and if the City could sell seven lots at $60,000 a piece, that is $420,000 for a net of at least $220,000. Mr. Joriman asked if that figure included putting the street in too? Mr. Roberts said yes. Mr. Anderson returned with a map to answer Commissioner Dierich's question earlier regarding the park space in south Maplewood verses the Gladstone Park Area. Mr. Anderson put his map on the overhead for commission and audience members to see. Mr. Anderson said Timber Park to the west of the Gladstone Park Area is .5 acres, Robin Hood Park is 4 acres, three blocks to the south is Weaver Elementary that is 12 acres, Harvest Park is 25 acres, the open space is 23 acres, Flicek Park is the three ball fields is about 4 acres and those are the sites that would serve this area. The two that directly impact this area are Robin Hood Park and Weaver Elementary. With the Bruce Vento Trail running adjacent, this provides direct access to Robin Hood Park to the Gateway Trail, so it is all off-road access as well as to Weaver Elementary and Harvest Park. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -8- Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Anderson to look at the south end of Maplewood and give her an idea of how much park acreage there is from Highway 494 south of Upper Afton Road? Mr. Anderson said there would be five neighborhood parks and two open space sites. Crestview Park is 2 acres, Mailand Park is 2 acres, Vista Hills Park is 14 acres, Applewood Park would be the open space site and that is 16 acres, Afton Park is 12 acres, and Pleasantview Park is 16 acres. But the commission is looking at a very different area. The space from Highway 94 down to Carver Avenue is 4 miles. If you took a 4-mile circumference around Gladstone Park you would be in the thousands of acres because you would be in the Phalen Park and Regional Park system. Mr. Joriman interrupted Mr. Anderson and said, "we are still talking about losing our park"! Commissioner Dierich said by her calculations for that area there are 46 acres for parks, and most of it is undeveloped at this point, plus 16 acres of open space verses 45 acres in the English Street area and 23 acres of open space. That is a significant disparity and she personally thinks that is a reasonable thing to do to move the park space to the areas that are developing as well so they get more park space. There is very little park space in the south end of Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach said there was a feeling from the neighborhood that they were generally in favor of the seven residential homes being built. He sees in the citizen's comments that although staff sent out 50 surveys, there was only one reply. He said the two residents that are in the audience don't seem to be in favor of this proposal so where did the input you referred to earlier come? Mr. Anderson said generally his understanding is that the positive people don't respond to the surveys. You tend to hear from the people with negative responses, at least that is what his experience has been in the public sector he said. He has spoken with the neighbors, and the sign has been up for 6 weeks. Residents have had an opportunity to contact him or contact the city if they had any questions or concerns. He has not received any negative comments, and the comments he has received have been positive. Commissioner Rossbach stated that Mr. Anderson said he had received some phone calls from people in the neighborhood responding to that sign. He asked if any of those comments were from neighborhood meetings or were they just casual conversations? Mr. Anderson said they were casual contacts and he did not have a formal neighborhood meeting with the residents. Maybe that is something he should have done. He said, however, the response was so positive he did not think it was necessary. There were two neighborhood meetings regarding the street project, and to his knowledge there were no negative comments. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Anderson if the neighborhood meetings discussed the street project as part of this project? Mr. Anderson said yes. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommend to the city council to approve the resolution on page 25 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -9- for the proposed Gladstone Park Addition plat on the east side of English Street, south of County Road B. This change is from P (park) to R-1 (single dwellings). The city is making this change because it will: 1. Be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. Eliminate the planned park that would have been between two residential areas. 3. Be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. 4. Provide for orderly development of land uses. 5. Help minimize conflicts between land uses. 6. Provide additional moderately priced housing stock. 7. Allow for the construction of an in-fill residential housing development in the city. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommend to the city council to approve the resolution on page 26 of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of an unused street right-of-way and an unused alley on the east side of English Street, south of County Road B. The reasons for these vacations are: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The existing street right-of-way does not fit the location of the proposed street layout. 3. The city will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the proposed plat. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommend to the city council to approve the resolution for the Gladstone Park Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on March 8, 2002). The developer shall complete the following conditions before the city council approves the final plat: 1. The city council shall order the public improvement project for the Gladstone Park development. 2. * Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall show the lot design and layout consistent with the preliminary plat. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat to show the street as Burke Circle. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 7. Record the following with the final plat: a. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits the driveways on Lots 1 and 7, Block 1 from going onto English Street. b. An 18-foot-wide easement for the trail across the southern parts of Lots 5, 6 and 7. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -10- The applicant shall submit the language for these covenants or restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 8. If the developer decides to final plat a part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes-Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler The motion is passed. Mr. Roberts said this item goes to the city council on May 13, 2002. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Beaver Lake Townhomes Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tony Emmerich, representing the AJE Companies, is proposing to develop a 148-unit planned unit development (PUD) called Beaver Lake Townhomes. It would be on a 27-acre site on the south side of Maryland Avenue, between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. To build this project, Mr. Emmerich is requesting several city approvals including: A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 148-unit housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36-566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings having more than four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Beaver Lake and would have a mix of housing with 40 single-family detached townhomes and 108 rental units in 11 8-unit and 5 4-unit buildings. Street right-of-way and easement vacations. These would be for the unused street right-of- ways and easements on the site. 3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. The on-street or driveway parking standards and no on-street or driveway parking requirements for the development. Authorization for city staff to spend city open space funds and to use a $150,000 DNR grant to buy about 8.9 acres of the project site for park and open space purposes. Mr. Roberts said the applicant has not yet applied for design approval. If the city approves the above-listed requests, then the applicant will apply to the city for final plat approval and design approval (including architectural and landscape plans). Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -11- On March 12, 2001, the city council held a public hearing to consider a development proposal by Mr. Emmerich for this site. This plan had 162 housing units in 42 detached town houses and 120 rental-housing units in 15 8-unit buildings. At this meeting, the applicant agreed to a time extension for city council action until May 14, 2001. This time extension was to allow the developer to possibly redesign the project and to have a meeting with the neighbors. On May 14, 2001, the city council considered a revised proposal for this site. This plan had 148 housing units in 42 detached town houses and 106 rental housing units in 4 and 8-unit buildings. At this meeting, the city council ordered the hiring of an independent consultant to prepare an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for this proposal. They ordered the EAW because of potential significant issues including traffic, effects on the creek bed, the size of the proposed buffer area and storm water ponding and run-off concerns. On September 24, 2001, the city council received all comments and responses to the EAW and the proposed findings of fact for the proposed project. It is important to note that the EAW recommended that the developer make several changes to the project plans to make the project more sensitive to the exiSting environmental conditions on the property. At this same meeting, the city council also adopted resolution 01-09-91 about the Beaver Lake Town homes PUD EAW. This resolution made a "finding of no significant impact" (FONSI) from the proposed project. The resolution also stated that the environmental review rules had been met and that the potential environmental effects were not considered significant enough to warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement (ELS). As was noted above, the city had an EAW prepared for this site in 2001. This study looked at the potential impacts that the proposal could have on environmentally important features of the site. These include the woodlands, ecologically sensitive resources (including the wetlands and the creek), state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) plant or animal species and storm water and water runoff. The EAW also studied shoreland district concerns, erosion and sedimentation, geological hazards and soil conditions, solid and hazardous wastes, traffic and traffic mitigation, vehicle-related air emissions, odors, noise and dust, archaeological, historical and architectural resources, scenic views and vistas, visual impacts, impact on infrastructure and public services. Mr. Roberts included a summary of the issues that the EAW identified. It is important to note that the EAW found that the proposed project, if carefully constructed, would not cause great harm or damage to the environment or to the area. The EAW, however, did identify several areas where the developer could change the plans to make them more sensitive to the existing conditions on the property. In response to the concerns that the city and the EAW identified, the developer's engineer redesigned much of the project. These changes are in the current proposed plans and include moving the south driveway north on Lakewood Drive and widening the undisturbed area along the creek. The proposed changes are to address the concerns and issues identified by staff and the EAW. It is staff's opinion the latest plans (dated March 12, 2002) have addressed the major design concerns and issues identified to date by the city and in the EAW. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -12- Mr. Roberts said the city wetland and stream protection ordinance requires the developer to protect much of the stream and wetland corridor on the site. Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance requires a 50-foot wide no-disturb buffer around the wetlands on the property. The wetland ordinance also requires at least a 50-foot-wide no-disturb buffer area along both sides of the stream (as measured from the top of the stream banks) to help protect it from the effects of the proposed development. The proposed plans meet these requirements. The revised plans dated March 12, 2002, show a wider corridor along the stream and around the wetlands on the site than the earlier proposal. This revised plan, with the publicly owned corridor, should provide the stream and wetlands with more protection from the development and human impacts than the earlier proposals. An area of concern raised by the neighbors and studied in four pages in the EAW is traffic. The EAW analyzed the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection for how it operates (or how traffic flows) for both the morning and afternoon peak hours. This analysis was done for the existing conditions (2001), for the year 2005 with nothing built on the proposed site and for 2005 if the development was complete. The study also looked at the year 2020 with no development and with development on the proposed site. Mr. Roberts said the traffic study explains that traffic operations for intersections are rated by level of service (LOS) from A to F. Specifically, a LOS of A is the best and smoothest operating intersection while a (LQS) F is a congested and poorly operating intersection. According to the traffic study, the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection now operates at an acceptable level both in the morning and in the afternoon. The study notes that the intersection, especially the south approach (northbound traffic), with no development on this site, will operate at a level of service (LOS) E during the afternoon peak hour in 2005. The study goes on to say that in 2005, with the addition of the proposed development, the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection will operate at a LOS E during the afternoon peak hour. For the year 2020, the traffic study notes that the'intersection will operate at LOS E or F for the peak hours with or without the proposed development, depending on which direction one is traveling. In all cases, the decreasing LOS for this intersection (and for all intersections in the area) can be partially attributed to the increasing level of traffic on all roads. That is more people are driving more often on all the streets and roads in the region. For the years 2005 and 2020, the traffic study suggests that the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue would improve the operations of the intersection to a LOS D during the peak hours and the overall operations to a LOS B. Mr. Roberts stated that Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, reviewed the revised plans. Mr. Solar notes that he is satisfied with the proposed changes to the plans and that the county will be monitoring the Lakewood Drive/Maryland Avenue intersection to determine if or when the criteria or warrants are met for the installation of a traffic signal. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -13- As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade much of the site to create the private driveways, the ponding areas and the building pads. This grading would disturb about 18 acres of the 27-acre site while preserving many of the slopes and some of the large trees on the site, especially near the stream and pipeline. The applicant, however, has not yet prepared a tree plan for the property. Before grading the site, the city should require the developer to submit a detailed tree plan to staff for approval. Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading. For this site, the ordinance requires that at least 270 large trees remain. If the developer cannot keep that many large trees, the ordinance requires him to plant replacement trees. This would be up to a maximum of 10 trees per gross acre so there are at least 270 trees on the site. Mr. Roberts said the developer should provide this plan, along with the proposed landscape plan, to the city for review by the Community Design Review Board. Mr. Roberts concluded by saying the city is striving for balancing the interests of the property owner and the developer to have the development occur on the property with the concerns of the neighbors and protecting the sensitive environmental features. He thinks the EAW provided some good input to the city and got some good changes made. Widening the corridor, ensuring more trees are protected and the wetlands are protected, changes in driveways to ensure more safety, and that balances with the owners right to use the property and the interest of the city and the neighbors to preserve the most significant features on the site. Mr. Roberts said staff surveyed the owners of the 65 properties within 350 feet of this site about the first proposal (in 2001) and received 15 written replies. After receiving the latest plans (in 2002), staff sent a new survey to all those that had expressed an interest in this site (about 118 people). Staff received 16 replies to the latest survey. Those who wrote had several comments about the revised proposal. They were included in the staff report. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends approval of the Beaver Lake Townhome proposal in the staff report for the items listed on pages 12 through page 23 of the staff report. Commissioner Dierich said when she spoke to staff on the telephone she had a concern about units 35-38 and units 5-7 being so close to the buffer zone. What kind of guarantee is the city getting from the developer that those buffer zones are not going to be impacted both during construction and after construction since those buffer zones run across their land? Mr. Roberts said the best guarantee is that the city will have the developer fence off the whole public corridor and the buffer areas and put signs up saying "stay out" and that it is publicly owned and it is not to be graded or gotten into. The big challenge for the city will be to monitor those fences and to ensure that they stay up. If something gets knocked down, the city will need to make sure it gets put back into place. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the city is proposing a city easement across those lots to protect the land that is in the buffer zone? Mr. Roberts said it was his recollection that all of the buffer would be publicly owned but he will have to check on that. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -14- Commissioner Dierich because she is looking at lots 35 and 36 in particular where the porches and the foundations are right on the buffer zone. Mr. Roberts said yes they do get close. Commissioner Trippler said staff said this parcel was rezoned R-3 in 1983. What was it before? Was it farm? Mr. Roberts said yes, it was farm. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they have any recollection if anybody has come to the city and asked for it to be rezoned as R-l? Mr. Roberts said that he is not aware of any rezoning proposals or development proposalS since the rezoning. The members in the audience said, "that is not true". Commissioner Ledvina said he recalled there was a substantial discussion of relocating the sanitary sewer that is routed near the creek. He asked if this is that part of this proposal? Mr. Roberts said that is mentioned in the staff report on page 10. Chris Cavett and Chuck Ahl of the city engineering staff and Ed Nadeau, the city sewer foreman, reviewed the proposed plans. They noted that the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the site near the stream is difficult to maintain and may need repairs. They believe there is an opportunity to work with the developer to design new sewer lines that will serve the needs of the development and that will better serve the city as a whole. The city council ordered a sewer improvement study in 2001 to review this matter. The city engineer expects this study to be done in May. It is the intent to abandon and seal up the sewer line located by the creek and relocate it within the development site. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant would like to address the commission. Mr. Larry Olson, the project engineer for LSJ Engineering at 1875 Commercial Boulevard in Andover, addressed the commission as the representative for the developer. He said Mr. Roberts gave a good summary for the proposal. There was a question that came up regarding the buffer zone and lots 5, 8 and 7. There is a 50-foot buffer line on the plans from the top of the creek bank and there is another one 80 feet from the creek bank, and that is the line that the units are up against and that is a setback for the units not the actual buffer. All the grading and construction activity will stay out of the buffer area with the exception of some storm sewer outlet piping down to the creek that the watershed is requiring. It is their intention that they won't have to go into the buffer area for any construction he said. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anybody in the audience that would like to be heard regarding the Beaver Lake Town home proposal, if so to step forward and give their name and address. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -15- Thor Nordwall at 1142 Sterling Street addressed the commission. Mr. Nordwall said he is concerned about this beautiful property. He hoped all the commission members took time to go and see the possibility of this and the great plans that have been outlined. There are people who are wondering why the city is buying some of the land. If you look at what is being proposed, in the long run this small piece of land ties into so much more. It will go from the Nature Center to the Gateway Trail and the money the city has and the money that the DNR has provided will make for a nice plan. Beaver Lake Estates is a little piece of a big plan. He said he probably won't be around to see this plan develop but he is hoping to see it. People were worried about the creek bed and how it would be possibly polluted some day. If you look at the 1983 plan, it would have gone a long time ago and there would be no Beaver Creek. All the housing would have been right up to it. Now is the big chance to save this watershed and keep it clean. The corridor will provide enough for the animals and the birds and people to enjoy this land too. Mr. Nordwall read the conclusion paragraph on page 11 of the staff report aloud. He believes if the people work with the developer, everyone comes out on top. Margaret Lutfey at 1076 Mary Street North addressed the commission. She said she has been a big opponent against this project. While she can't say the developer has a right to develop this project like Thor Nordwall did, she is going to say she disagrees with the proposed plan that the owner has now. When the owner talks about the corridor .and the city talks about buying 8.9 acres for $400,000 and then the DNR is going to give the City of Maplewood $150,000 that sounds really good, but in case the people don't know, the owner owns 27 acres of property in which he can't use the center property because it is within 350 feet of the creek. She said this means he is selling the city property he could never use anyway and the city is willing to pay a lot of money for it and he profits from it. She said he could be a good citizen and donate the property in his name or something, but he is greedy and wants to fill his pocketbook. Don't get her wrong she said, it is nice that the city can make a trail with the property, but be cognizant of the fact that it is not like he is doing the people or the city a favor. Ms. Lutfey said her neighbors have stated that when they moved into the neighborhood a few years ago they were told a trail was going to be built, and since that time all that has been done is a bunch of trees have been cut down. She wonders what makes the people believe that the developer will build his development and the trail won't be put off and won't be a priority? The people will be stuck saying the same thing as the neighbors in the Gladstone Park Area. That neighborhood was promised that something would be built and it never happened. She thinks the reason many of the neighborhood residents didn't come to the meeting is because they have lives, and people have to cut their lives short to come over to the city hall to be heard again and again. Everyone on this commission is either being paid to be at the meeting or they chose to be on the commission that meets the same night and time every meeting. She has no pity for the commission members, but the neighbors do have lives and they do care about their neighborhood. They are just tired of getting nowhere. The city shouldn't say they are working in the interest of the people. It is the city and the developer. She doesn't know anyone except Thor Nordwall who approves of this project. People may have agreed with something similar like the project that is being built up the street, putting single-family homes on the site. Here you can't tell the people that the developer is looking out for the best interest of the city. He is looking at the interest of his pocketbook and how many people can be stuffed in one plot of land. Ms. Lutfey said at one point someone said the housing was going to be affordable housing yet the city said they don't know if it will be section 8 or what. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -16- Ms. Lutfey said the neighborhood is unable to know this information because it is not legal to release, so how do the people know or trust what will happen? The main point is the density. She said if she understands the PUD correctly, it is saying that a PUD makes it so a developer can bend the rules a little and a developer can build this development. She said in reqard to the shoreline ordinance, you are not supposed to see these townhouses or apartmen~'s from the street, but you will be able to if the PUD gets passed. She asked where is the park going to be located? You are going to have 168 families and many of these will have children. Where will the children be able to run and play she wondered. She said don't tell us that Geranium has enough room for the children to play. The people in the neighborhood were going to try and change the zoning but they were told the best way to do that was to do the EAW report first. To change the zoning from farmland to R-3 was illegally done. She said nobody will admit it but if you use the analogy of a Nazi person, they killed someone and then they hid for 40 years. They are found and they are still guilty. This land was illegally zoned and what happened 20 years ago still counts but they said that zoning change happened a long time ago. She said the people have to pay for the sins and the mistakes of the city now for something that happened back then. If you are changing the zone from parkland to R-1 for the Gladstone Park Area, then why can't the city do that same type of thing in this area changing it from R-3 to R-1 ? What prevents the city from doing that other than the city is going to get money from the developer and a bigger tax base. Once again it is all about the money. When the developer says he is going to put in trees, what kind of trees is he talking about? Is the developer talking about big beautiful trees like what is there now, or is he talking about those pathetic little sticks that you see put in on all the new developments? Those trees take twenty or more years to grow again. Everyone thinks Maplewood is a beautiful city but it is not, it looks like Brooklyn, New York where she is from where all the homes are crammed together and they all look alike. In her opinion a townhouse is a glorified row house. Ms. Lutfey said regarding the traffic, it is terrible. She went to visit her friend that lives on LakeWood Drive, and now her friend sold her house because of this development and also how dangerous the traffic is. She wants commission members to go out and drive that area not only during rush hour but anytime and see how terrible the traffic really is. She believes the traffic study is fixed because she lives right around the corner and she never saw anybody doing a traffic study. She hopes that the commission members use their God-given brains and think about this project and look at the impact of this from a personal standpoint. Would you really want this project built in your neighborhood? It should be rezoned and reevaluated and made into a single- family development. She would not even mind if the homes were $400,000. This would be better than prefab homes or cramming a bunch of units into a development. Kathleen Peterson at 1085 Mary Street addressed the commission. She said this doesn't get any easier to talk about. She wondered how many times the people have to come to the city to fight against this project? The neighborhood people have filled this room and the fire station with people. The city is having meetings upon meetings upon meetings until the city wears a person out, until they no longer believe their voices are heard. Young and old people have come into this building to talk about this project and talk about what was best for their neighborhood. Finally they have given up because they do not believe in government anymore. Ms. Peterson said she is losing her faith in government too. She knows this development is going to happen no matter what she says. She will repeat her comments over and over again and will go down fighting against this development. The people are tired of filling out the city's surveys and writing letters. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -17- What did the city do with all the other letters and surveys from the other meetings when people came up to the microphone night after night to fight against this development? The responses haven't changed and the people still feel the same. They are just tired of fighting and complaining. She said she remembers an elderly person that walked out from one of the other meetings with her and said it is a done deal, the city won't listen because it is government and big money and that is the way it is. She has lived in that area and she has seen what the area has developed into and it is not what Maplewood should have developed it into. She sees the city taking a park that was planned away from the residents and putting houses into it. At least those people will have single-family homes in there instead of the development her neighborhood will have. Maplewood gets to pay $400,000 for something the developer can't build on anyway just to get the property. Ramsey County was willing to develop that beautiful land connecting the Nature Center, the creek, and Beaver Lake into the Gateway Trail. Maplewood had their own agenda and would not work with Ramsey County. They worked on the developer's side instead. The school district just closed the Beaver Lake Elementary school where all those children would have gone. Now where will all these children go from this crammed in housing development? She said she has a whole list of questions and she will go through them all because they are all important questions to her. You are developing this for the developer and for the tax base. The city talks about the park space in north and south Maplewood but there is not much park space in this particular area of Maplewood and nobody seems to care. Ms. Peterson said two years ago a child was killed on Maryland Avenue because of the traffic problems, and now they are going to make the flow even worse. The entrance to Lakewood Drive is very hazardous, and now the city will put another entrance on that street. If you have ever gone into Rosewood Estates and try to exit on Lakewood Drive it is very dangerous. Now the city is going to add 168 families to access that road and she wishes the city luck. They will be having 911 calls to the police department from accidents and injuries and will have to pick up the pieces. Eventually all the waSte from the neighborhood yards will run down into the creek and that creek runs into Beaver Lake. Ms. Peterson said they have had a hard enough time keeping Beaver Lake clean, and what difference does it make if it gets contaminated a little more. She does not recommend approval of this project in any way, shape or form. She would be approving this project if it was single-family homes. The city cannot guarantee what type of apartments will be built or townhomes. Most of these units will be built right up onto the edge of these zones. Nobody cares about that and the creek line. She said that Maplewood has so little open space left, one day the city will look back and wish they were not so greedy and should have kept more open space. Sue Dwight at 1158 Sterling Street addressed the commission. She said she is a fairly new homeowner in the area and will probably be asking a lot of questions. She was disappointed that Mr. Roberts did not address the impacts to Beaver Lake in his assessment report. She asked Mr. Roberts to address those impacts. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to answer the question. Mr. Roberts said he thinks Chris Cavett would be able to answer the impact question better regarding how the drainage on the site will work. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -18- Chris Cavett said the site, as it is proposed right now they are addressing bioretention and infiltration areas to reduce the runoff and encourage infiltration, to treat the water before it goes into the creek and then into Beaver Lake. Ms. Dwight asked what assurances will the residents have that this will happen? Mr. Roberts colored the proposed ponding areas on the proposed site plan and displayed them on the overhead. The final plans will be reviewed by the engineering department and by the watershed district before they can proceed. Ms. Dwight asked if there is a wetland mitigation plan? Mr. Roberts said 'no wetland mitigation plan is needed because they are not filling any wetlands. Ms. Dwight said they are disturbing the wetlands though. Mr. Roberts said no they are not. Ms. Dwight said when she read the public meeting notice it sounded like the city has a different set of criteria for the building of town homes and apartments than the city does for single family homes. Listening to the discussions that the commission had there was mention of a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. What is the minimum lot size for a town home? Mr. Roberts said there is no minimum lot size for an apartment building or a town home; the project is looked at strictly from density or number of units on number of acres. In this case there are 148 units proposed for the 27 acres. That is about 5~ units per acre, and the comprehensive plan allows for 6 units per acre. Ms. Dwight said she would encourage the planning commission to look at rezoning this land as single-family homes as R-1. Beaver Lake is a very fragile lake because it is so small it cannot tolerate any runoff. If you put in dense housing, you have concrete driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, and there is very little lawn space, and you have a lot of curb and gutter. It does not matter how many ponds you put in to protect a small lake like Beaver Lake. It cannot refresh it self like a larger lake can and you have to be careful of that. Although Beaver Lake is out of the city's jurisdiction it should be a concern. There are shoreland regulations that were put in place for a reason and they should not be broken. Commissioner Rossbach asked if staff could comment on whether the city is breaking any shoreland regulations? Chairperson Fischer said along with the answer to that question, could staff answer the question of how much water would be retained on site verses how much would flow off the site? Mr. Cavett said the site is designed so that not only is it maintained with preexisting 100 year runoff rates with the use of the rainwater garden bioretention basins etc. but it is actually encouraging infiltration. The characteristics of the runoff and drainage on this site are actually less impacting on the lake as the existing neighborhoods that were developed under previous design standards. This would be characterized as using Iow-impact development. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -19- Mr. Roberts said as far as the shoreland regulations are concerned, he has reported on that on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report. The city is not proposing any variances or waivers to shoreland regulations. An important part of that regulation is screening from the lake, and that would be accomplished with the final landscaping plans. This would be done very similar to what the Rosewood Estates had done with planting of large trees to screen the building. Ms. Dwight said then she did not understand what the public meeting notice means when you say that the applicant is requesting a CUP because the city code specifically states the shoreland district regulations requires a PUD for development. Mr. Roberts said the shoreland code requires the PUD because the development is proposed to have buildings that have more than 4 units. If this building had one or two up to four-unit buildings, a PUD would not necessarily be required. The shoreland code specifically says though if you have any housing with more than 4 units in any one building you automatically have to have a PUD. Ms. Dwight said there were comments made that once the city allows a PUD then you are going to allow for flexibility for things such as setbacks, street widths, and right-of-ways. Does that mean the buildings will be able to be built right on the street with no setbacks she asked? Mr. Roberts said the driveways and streets within the development are all private. There are no public streets, so therefore, there are no setback standards from the internal streets. The setback standards that do apply are along Maryland Avenue and along Sterling Street because those are public streets and will remain public streets. Mr. Roberts said what the PUD would allow the city to do is if this was a public street and the normal setback for a front yard would be 30 feet, because with a private driveway within a PUD you can reduce that to 20 feet allowing the city to pull farther away from the buffer and the corridor allowing for shorter driveways and less pavement on the site. That is one example where there is internal flexibility through the PUD to hopefully get a better design that would have less impact on the neighborhood and on the corridor. Ms. Dwight asked staff what plan B was if the city decides they don't want to buy this corridor or if the DNR doesn't have their money. She said everyone knows what kind of funding situations the state agencies are in. Mr. Roberts said in the staff report the letter from the DNR is included and Mr. Roberts specifically asked Mr. Singer with the DNR that same question. The $150,000 is still there and has not been lost in the process of the budget cutting process as of last week. If the city decided not to buy this then it would revert to private ownership and would probably become large backyards off the town homes or a privately owned strip of land that would be owned by the homeowners association within the development. Then there would not be public access to the corridor. The benefit of the city and the DNR buying it together is that then it becomes in the public domain and all of the public can use it. Ms. Dwight would like to reiterate that she was disturbed when they called this a park to begin with because it is a creek bed, not a park. She does agree that it is open space but it is not a park. The more open space the city can provide, the better for everyone. There is a lot of wildlife there in that area, and confining wildlife to a creek bed is possible and they could adapt, but it is important that the city keep as much green space there as possible. If the city could make it wider than what is proposed so far, she would appreciate that. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -20- She also thinks it is very important to switch the zoning on this to single-family homes rather than multiple to save the lake. The city has not done a very good job at developing Beaver Lake and this is the last area to develop so the city should do it right. Commissioner Rossbach asked the staff to comment on the ability that the city has to change the zoning while there is a proposed development in the process? Ms. Coleman said this is the fundamental question of the evening. The city has tried to talk to the neighborhood about this for the past year that the city has been working on this development. The property was zoned R-3 back in the 1980s and it was not done illegally. There are city records that denoted the process that happened. The property owner has not changed the property and it has remained in the property owner's hands. He has not requested that the property be rezoned. During that time the city did approach the property owner to buy that property for open space, and as council member Kathy Juenemann knows, who was involved with the open space committee and is also in the audience, part of that program to buy open space was "willing seller" and "willing buyer" only. If a particular property owner was approached to buy their open space and they chose not to participate, the city moved on and worked with people that were willing to sell their property. Subsequently Mr. Schrieir sat on that land for quite some time and has now chose to sell it for development. He has not asked to have it rezoned. Ms. Coleman said a city would find themself in legal trouble if they take people's property and try to rezone it without a public purpose. In her history with the City of Maplewood, they have never asked anybody to rezone their property without their permission or without some kind of overall land use plan commitment. The only example she can think of where the city has taken land and rezoned it is a few parcels on White Bear Avenue that were zoned as single-family homes and were planned commercial property and the city rezoned the property to match the land use plan. In this case, the land use plan is consistent with the existing zoning, If the city were to go with the resident's recommendation to down zone this property to R-l, the city would end up in court very quickly and lose, There is case law all Over the place that would say the city would lose. The city would then pay attorneys to battle this out in court and the city would lose and Mr. Schrieir would still have the R-3 zoning. You can't just take someone's property and diminish its value. In this case it would by down zoning it from R-3 to R-1. That would be like her taking one of the resident's property and her deciding it should be zoned R-4 for apartments and wipe out the block. Ms. Peterson spoke again. She said when the residents fought to have it rezoned, the residents lost. The residents asked if the rezoning could be put back to what it was originally. She thinks Mr. Schrieir is too selfish to do that because he is a wealthy land developer and he will not live long enough to see what will be developed in this area. The people that do live in the area are the ones that will have to put up with it, and he doesn't really care about the people. Kathleen Juenemann at 721 Mount Vernon addressed the commission. Although she is on the city council, she represented herself at the meeting as a citizen. No one is sadder about the fate of this property. As she grew up in that neighborhood. You cannot take away the last 8 years of history and that is a very sad thing for a lot of people. Developing that corner is not something she wants to do. She sits on the city council and will have to vote on this project. She has to let people know that what Melinda Coleman says is true. If this were to go to court it would lose. When you annoy a developer, it doesn't make it any better. The city and the residents have to follow the rules and the laws. She understands the passion and she understands the sadness. Laws are laws and Mr. Schrieir owns the property and if the people could go back 25 yea,rs to Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -21 - change history it would make people happy but we can't. She thinks the setback should be wider for the creek bed. The best thing for everyone is to watch and cooperate with the developer to make this the best outcome as possible. The open space program is willing seller and willing buyer. It is sad but it is also a fact that Mr. Schrieir did not want to sell the property to the city. Tim Kennedy at 1134 Glendon Street addressed the commission. He thinks what the city is missing here is granting a PUD to a developer is a gift and it is not a requirement. The city can hold the developer to any and all restrictions on the property. The city has talked about the seven acres at previous meetings, the creek way and the right-of-way for the pipeline as buying down density. However, the density has not been bought down. The remaining 18 acres of land after the city buys the greenway through the middle of it will allow 108 units. He doesn't know why the city wants to take liability on approving a leaky pipeline. They have taken six or seven houses out on Bartelmy Lane just to the south of there, and it is the exact same pipeline. The entire stretch of pipe was made at the same time. It's proven to have problems and he doesn't understand why the city wants to take on the liability for any reason other than having a bike path. What is the interest of the city in it is? It has been mentioned that it is on unbuildable property. In response to Mr. Trippler's question, was the rezoning to R-3 legal; the residents had questions about that at previous meetings. It was Mr. Fursman's indication at a previous meeting that perhaps it was not a valid request to have it rezoned. Mr. Kennedy said there were no valid development plans, the plan had expired on it before the beginning of the year in 1982, and at the end of February, 1982 it was rezoned from farm to R-3 without any valid plans for the land. Mr. Fursman had indicated that it was his belief that was an illegal move on the developer's part and an illegal move for the city to accept and to extend the R- 3 zoning on that land, and he would like someone to comment on that. Ms. Coleman said her understanding of the zoning law is that you don't rezone with plans in front of you, that you really rezone on the merits that it make sense to rezone the property. So the statements that Mr. Kennedy just talked about don't really make any sense to her because when you do that it is called contract zoning when you say we are not going to rezone that land until you show us some plans. In practice the city sees the plans at least conceptually. If the city were just to make a deal with Mr. Schrieir that the city is not going to rezone his property until the city sees exactly every building and layout, that could be construed as contract zoning and that is illegal, so she is not sure where the argument came from or if there was some misinformation, but staff will do some more research on this. Mr. Kennedy said there had been a valid land use plan. At one time they had a project they were going to build on it. The project expired at the end of 1981, and the zoning went forth and it was voted on and approved by the city council two months later. Ms. Coleman said that it is perfectly legal to keep the zoning in place if the project doesn't happen. When there are plats and they don't get built within two years, they do become null and void, but rezoning is completely different. The city council can decide whether to rezone the property with or without plans. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what the time limit constraint is on a PUD? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -22- Ms. Coleman said a PUD also has a one-year time constraint on it. If the developer does not start within one year of approval, they would have to come back to the city council and ask them to extend it. Mr. Kennedy said another concern that has been at past meetings is the traffic. Apparently something that was never done in a traffic study was the traffic on Geranium Avenue. He lives to the east of this proposed project off of Geranium Avenue. Geranium Avenue has become an arterial road that it was never designed for. It has the park on one side and there has been a three-way stop put on it to try and slow down traffic. Few vehicles actually stop for the stop, and it has a high rate of speed on it as well~ He noticed that the Maplewood Police Department recommended for this project that there be no left turns out of the development onto Lakewood Drive. He believes that will force further traffic to utilize Geranium Avenue. What he would like to know is if there is citiZen input and agreement on it? There are going to be all the roads ripped up at the time of the development anyway to extend the sewer and the other utilities. Would it be possible for Geranium Avenue to no longer be a thru street and could it dead end somewhere east of Sterling Street? If you look at the plans, the developer actually added units from the first proposal and this new version he said. Chris Cavett said regarding the concept of cul-de-sac Geranium Avenue, the city has entertained some of those requests in the past during street improvement projects if it has made sense, but it is not an area that is currently planned for reconstruction within the next five years. In regard to speed and volume, it is definitely a concern of the city that the city is concerned with. The city recommends that residents contact their neighborhood officers. If there are other things that can be done to caim traffic, the city would look at those options. Mr. Kennedy said actually he believes the city will be doing improvements on Geranium Avenue because the city will have to restore the road after the utility hook-ups. Mr. Roberts said he disagrees because the sewer and water come in near Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street, and he doesn't believe Geranium Avenue would be touched at all in this project. Mr. Kennedy said it was the resident's understanding at past meetings that this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and is going to require just about a total sanitary sewer redesign which is going to encompass Maryland Avenue, Sterling Street and Geranium Avenue. Mr. Cavett said there is currently a sanitary sewer that pretty much follows the creek alignment, and the materials are in pretty poor condition. It has been a reconstruction the city has been looking at for a number of years now. With this development, the city is proposing to replace that line and sharing some of the cost with the developer. It will require reconstruction of a small portion of Sterling Street but basically the line goes through the development. It needs to connect from Sterling Street on the east to Lakewood Drive on the southwest part of the development that is where that line runs. There is nothing other than the connection at Sterling Street that is going to disrupt anything else. Mr. Kennedy said he was misinformed on that. He would, however, like the city to consider putting a cul-de-sac on Geranium Avenue. If anyone from the city spent any time in the area especially when there are ball games at the park ball fields, the road is impassable and is very unsafe. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -23- He would like to know if the council has given any consideration to the fact that Beaver Lake school is closed, and the school board has indicated it is closed permanently because it would cost too much to upgrade the building. Because of the access laws it is not feasible to open the building again. They have not taken a vote on it yet, but their studies find that they probably will be at least looking at selling the property again. Is the neighborhood going to be going through this all over again? That is about a 20-acre piece of land that will be open for development, plus they own all of the woods on the fault line of the hill that abuts the parkland. Ms. Coleman said the school district has not approached the city on reuse of that building. She actually put a telephone call into Leslie Steinhauser earlier in the day, and Ms. Steinhauser did not return her telephone call and Ms. Coleman wanted to get an answer to that question for the meeting. But nobody has called the city in regard to anyone's concerns about what their plans are or if they are going to sell. She doesn't think they would do that until an action is final. Mr. Kennedy said he hopes the city can see where this is a viable concern of the residents. Ms. Coleman said if this becomes an issue for the city to discuss, they would certainly want to meet with the neighborhood to see what kind of use they would like it to be. The city will try to get that conversation started with the school district once they make their final decision. Mr. Kennedy said his concern is if the residents are going to end up with 100 rental units in the area from this development and a 300-unit apartment complex, could another development be put where the school is? Where does it end? He really questions any need for any more rental property and Iow-income housing in the area. You can draw a circle around the area and you don't have to go too far because there are two mobile home parks and three apartment buildings, and he thinks the area has become saturated. Somewhere along the line, the city quit looking at the big picture for the city in his opinion. Richard Gilbert at 1140 Glendon Street addressed the commission. He said he supports the residents in their feelings regarding this proposed development. It is about density and having a quality of life and the room to breathe. The issue of traffic is his highest concern. How would the commission members feel having this project coming into their neighborhood? Even without the development, the level of service will be a level E. Imagine what it will be when the development is complete then. That is not acceptable, he said, as a resident of Maplewood. There are a lot of homes going up for sale in the area and these are decent law-abiding citizens. The police report says they expect increased traffic and emergency calls, but everyone knows that will mean more violence calls as well, he said. He said maybe he should not be concerned and the property will turn out nice and there will not be a high level of crime and everything will be fine. He believes if there were single-family homes in this development, the neighborhood would be more peaceful there. He bought his home in the neighborhood in 1995 to get away from the thru traffic and there was a ninety-degree street there. He has to imagine that the planners and commissioners realize there is going to be additional costs to expand streets if it is LOS E. He came to the meeting to stress the lowering of density, to stress the priority of traffic, and to support the other residents that have come tonight. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -24- Carolyn Anderson lives in Eagan but she is at the meeting representing her parents that live at 1070 Lakewood Drive. Her parents' property abuts this project directly. She wants to say this plan is a much more responsible plan than what the residents have seen in the past. She has attended three of these meetings on her parents' behalf. It appears with this plan to do the vacation of Magnolia Avenue and to put the street further at the top of the hill, from a traffic standpoint this will be an improvement. She thinks development should be single-family homes, but it looks like this project is going to move forward as it is anyways. Mr. Nordwall spoke again. He thinks this is the best plan they can do. The city is saving the corridor, and it is more than 50 feet, and he wonders if Mrl Roberts could give the exact width of the corridor. Mr. Roberts said the current proposal at the narrowest point is 155 feet wide for the corridor and that is up from 130 feet wide and up from 80 feet wide from the first proposal. Mr. Nordwall said yes, the city and the residents want to protect the wildlife and he doesn't want this land to be developed on either because he lives right across the street. However, it is going to be developed anyway. What can be lost if this doesn't get approved by the residents is if you hassle the developer, then he won't allow the corridor width. Everyone has a responsibility for all types and classes of people that live in Maplewood. Whether it is a mobile home park, apartment complex or single-family homes, everyone has a right to live there. Mr. Nordwall said that really bothers him when people say a certain kind of person shouldn't live in that area because there are too many living there already. At least 50% of the open space is going to remain of the 26 acres. The tallest structure will be 25 feet tall. Will the city allow a structure higher than 25 feet tall he asked? Mr. Roberts said he doubts it, but that would be a city council decision. Mr. Gilbert spoke again. He said his comments were regarding the amount of people, not the type of people, and he apologized if he offended anyone. He understood there was some soil testing done in the area. Is that correct he asked? Mr. Olson said there was a soils report prepared for the project. The soil was generally very good for development in the areas that buildings are proposed in. They see no problems with standard construction procedures. Mr. Gilbert asked if there were any issues with the pipeline and the soil? Mr. Olson said there were contaminants found in any of the soil samples. Mr. Gilbert asked if that is a matter of public record? Chairperson Fischer said that staff is nodding their head yes, that it is a matter of public record for the soil report, and they do have a record of it. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -25- Ms. Lutfey spoke again. She said she would like the planning commission to really think about the density. That really is the biggest issue here she said. They keep saying they are building 51/2 units per acre on 27 acres and they are not. Be cognizant of the fact that it is 18 acres and if they did abide by the laws and not have a PUD and not have special treatment, there would only be 108 units. That is one PUD that has to be 9ranted she said. It just seems that the city has been siding with the developer because he has been granted extension after extension. She is not sure if legally he can do that but she guessed they can. She asked if that was legal. Ms. Coleman said he did it as a special favor to the City of Maplewood and the city extended it so the EAW could be done. That was driven by the residents concerns that the city addressed those issues, so an EAW was ordered, and that prolonged the process. The sixty-day time limit will expire May 13 and the city talked to the developer about agenda placement because the city has several assessment hearings on the May 13 city council meeting. The city thought it would be best' to postpone it until the May 28 city council meeting. That was just a discussion with the developer and staff because if the city left it on the May 13 agenda there would probably be two hours of public hearings on the assessments before the city could get to this item. The city did it out of a courtesy for everyone involved to move it to May 28, but the developer has been given no special consideration. Ms. Lutfey said a PUD, in her understanding, is when a developer is asking the city to bend the laws so the developer can build what he wants the way he wants to. Is this correct or not she asked? Mr. Roberts said that a PUD is often used by a developer as an alternative to a zone change to allow a development. He said he wants to make it clear that the PUD in this case was required by the shoreline code. The developer did not have a choice. He had to go through the PUD approval process again because of the type of buildings he is proposing. Ms. Lutfey asked if a CUP that the developer is asking for, is he under any law, or does that mean the developer is asking if they can build it even though your laws say you can't build it? Mr. Roberts said all PUDs are approved by conditional use permit (CUP) so it is essentially the same item. To approve a PUD, the city is technically approving a conditional use permit (CUP). Ms. Lutfey said so basically the planning commission does not have to approve the PUD? Mr. Roberts said the city council would have to approve the PUD. Ms. Lutfey asked if the planning commission has to approve the PUD in order for it to go to the city council? Mr. Roberts said no, the planning commission can recommend denial and the city council will still hear it. Ms. Lutfey said then she is asking the planning commission to take into account all the residents that have spoken. One of the residents that talked about how great this new plan was, the house that she is referring to just happens to have a for sale sign. Not that it matters, but it is easier to like something that you know is really not going to directly affect your life or your loved one's life. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -26- But for many people that are going to live there for years and years, this is going to affect their lives. One of the neighbors said it at one of the past meetings, the people that live there want to live there for the rest of their lives. She knows couples that had intended to retire there so, this is going to affect a lot of people. She really hopes the planning commission is cognizant of that when they recommend this. Know that you have a lot of people's lives at stake here, and this is not a trivial thing, and the residents really appreciate members giving it their full thoughts. She would say 95% of the residents do not approve of this proposed development. Members have it in their ability to help change this a little bit or a lot depending on how members decide the final decision. Mr. Kennedy spoke again. He had a duplex built next to him about eight years ago and he petitioned the city council to adopt a resolution that rental properties have a maintenance-free exterior. He asked if that is still in effect and will that be required for this proposed development? Chairperson Fischer said she realizes this is a community design review board item, but can staff answer that question? Mr. Roberts said it is standard practice to have maintenance free exteriors on all of these buildings. Mr. Matt Ledvina is on the community design review board and he would be looking at that when they receive the plans. Mr. Kennedy asked if the developer has submitted any plans yet? Mr. Roberts said not yet. Commissioner Rossbach said he is curious if the city has a code or an ordinance that says you have to have maintenance-free exterior or is it just standard practice? Mr. Roberts said he doesn't think it is written as a specific code, he believes it is just standard practice. Commissioner Ledvina said it is just in the best interest of the homeoWner to have it be the least expensive for upkeep over the long haul to have maintenance free exterior on the home. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to address one of the statements that spoke to the commission. Are the 27 acres the whole property, or is that not including the 8.9 acres that is going to be open space? Mr. Roberts said that is the whole site before the 8.9 acres that is going to be open space. Commissioner Trippler asked if the developer is able to use the 8.9 acres as part of that in figuring his 5~,~? Mr. Roberts said density calculations are allowed over gross acreage over a site before anything is deducted like wetlands, streams or easements. Planning Commission -27- Minutes of 04-15-02 Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the city is buying the wetland then that is not his property? Mr. Roberts said it won't be after the fact, but the practice of the city has always been to give density credit before hand. Commissioner Dierich asked if staff could tell members how much density there would have been had this site remained farm zoned? Mr. Roberts said his best guess is single-family homes at 4 units an acre, which is the higher density you could get with single-family homes. There would be around 100-to-110 single-family homes built there. Commissioner Dierich asked what the ordinance was on private drives and how long can they be? Mr. Robert said there is no length limit on private drives. Commissioner Dierich said there is no length limit and the city does not want to put in the roadways to this and have the city set setbacks. Mr. Roberts said that is correct, and the benefit to the city is they won't have to maintain them and plow them etc. Commissioner Dierich asked on the pipeline setback how is it that the lots on number 1,2,3,4, 23,24,41, and 42 can be inside the setback for the pipeline? Mr. Roberts said the pipeline ordinance allows ownership of pipeline easement, but the buildings themselves have to be at least 100 feet from the pipeline, and all the buildings meet that setback standard. Commissioner Dierich asked staff to address the issue for the money for the corridor. She is trying to process what the residents were saying about the city paying for land that the developer can't develop anyway. Ms. Coleman said the city is working with the DNR to purchase the 8.9 acres and the city will be using open space funds with the DNR funds to buy that, and what the city is buying is access to that property. If the city were not to buy that property, it would be held in private ownership and the lot lines would be extended out to the middle of the creek, and the city would have no right to be there. So the city is buying access and use of that wetland corridor. Commissioner Dierich asked how much per acre is the city going to buy the land for? Ms. Coleman said the city is paying $400,000 minus the $150,000 from the DNR, so the city is paying $250,000. Commissioner Dierich said so about $50,000 per acre is the actual dollar amount for undeveloped land. ,. F ................... --!' .... ¥ ............ Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -28- Commissioner Rossbach said that is a similar amount that the city is proposing to ask for in the Gladstone Area for the seven lots that are 16,000 square feet. Commissioner Dierich said but that is for developed land, not undeveloped. She said that is quite a bit more than what undeveloped land acreage is going for in the city at this time. Commissioner Trippler asked staff about the letter that the city got from the Department of Natural Resources. On page 64 of the staff report on the bottom paragraph, it talks about storm water detention basins, and one of the things that caught his attention is it talks about who will be responsible for ensuring that they function as intended over their lifetime. Also on page 65 of the staff report in the second paragraph, it talks about site restoration, and they talk about a natural resource management plan for the easement area will be required, is that something the city is doing, or is that something the developer does, and where is the city on that? Ms. Coleman said Mr. Singer from the DNR is in the back of the room in the audience, but she is going to try and answer that question and if he has something different to answer he can let the commission know. The city is going to be reviewing that to figure out who is going to do the plan, but her understanding is that the two agencies will be working on that together. Commissioner Trippler asked who takes care of the storm water retention basins? Ms. Coleman said the basins that are on the city's land the city will manage, and the basins that are on private land, they will manage. Mr. Cavett said one condition of the engineer's review, for example, that there be some treatment structures on site to capture sediment, and that a condition of the homeowners association is that they do an annual cleaning of that, possibly with their street sweeping. That will be something on the city's responsibility to inspect and enforce if it is not being done. Joan Doehling at 1115 Sterling Street addressed the commission. Her father also owns some property behind her house. Mr. Schrieir came to her father's house and offered him some money for that land. When they saw that he wanted Maplewood to pay $50,000 an acre he did not even come close to that dollar amount. So here Mr. Schrieir wants Maplewood to pay $50,000 an acre, and in January 2002 he would give her father a measly $10,000 an acre for the land. Kathleen Peterson spoke again. Joan Doehling is her sister. If Mr. Schrieir really cared about the area, people and the neighborhood, he would donate to the city that acreage and not ask the city to pay $400,000 which most of it he can't really develop anyway. They tried stopping the creek at one time, and everyone knows what happened with that proposal. Mr. Schrieir was willing to give her father peanuts for any amount of land he could buy off of him, and that is taking advantage of people who will be long gone after he makes his millions off this development. Ms. Doehling spoke again. She wondered if this project goes through if the land behind 1115 Sterling Street North is going to be landlocked and will the developer have access for a driveway from the town homes or the apartment buildings? Mr. Roberts said there is no proposal to provide any access to the neighbor to the south and they would have to negotiate that from the owner or the developer. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -29- Chairperson Fischer closed the meeting for public input. Commissioner Dierich said she really appreciated hearing from the people that are concerned about this neighborhood and congratulated all of them fOr coming out to this meeting. Whether you like the proposal or not, she commended them all for speaking out. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked staff about the natural resources management plan. She thought there were sOme residents that had an issue of how the creek bed and the setback and the buffer area would be maintained? Does that put into effect some authority of the DNR to help take a look at this to make sure this is not disturbed or encroached on by the residents? Mr. Roberts said that would be something the city would be working on with the DNR and probably the naturalist from the Nature Center and those who work on the open spaces to put a plan together that works both for the DNR and the city. The city hasn't started that process yet, but the city will have a lot of work to do on that. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said being a responsible Maplewood resident like everyone in the room, she does appreciate that this plan has changed. She was not a part of the planning commission when the first proposal came through, but what she does like about this proposal is Some connection the city has between the Priory property, Jim's Prairie, Beaver Lake and possibly a connection to the Nature Center. Ms. Monahan-Junek wants people to understand her heart hurts too when the city sees a development like this. But there are a few good things. The city has an opportunity to work with the DNR and to be able to preserve and share some of this property and make it open for more than just these residents but also for others that live on other streets, and that opens opportunities for others to come down Lakewood Drive on the sidewalk and get to the Nature Center rather than driving. She appreciates this opportunity to work with the DNR and provide a connection. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks this is a good development. He doesn't think that Mr. Schrieir is on trial, but it doesn't sound like he is too swell of a guy, but that isn't the point here. He thought this was a good development even before the EAW. The plan hasn't changed that much. The city and staff specifically, in his opinion, have done an excellent job with negotiating with Mr. Schrieir and arranging it so there is going to be some public access, and there will be a lot of land preserved. This is a good development plan, and he has no reason to change any of the recommendations from staff to the planning commission. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve to the city council the resolution starting on page 55 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit deVelopment for the Beaver Lake Town Home development on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped April 30, 2001, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: F ...............---1' ..... Planning. Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -30- a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) No grading or ground disturbance in the park dedication area and in the wetland and stream buffer areas except: (a) As allowed by the watershed district. (b) For the utilities and trails. (2) The required trails and sidewalks. (3) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP pond ordinance standards. (4) At least fifty (50) percent of project area (13.5 acres) remaining as open space. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting the grove of coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural significance) that is in and near the south side of the stream corridor near the rear of proposed buildings 26-34. (6) Changes to the private roadway parallel to Maryland Avenue that is to provide access to the proposed homes on the south side of Maryland Avenue. This private roadway shall be: (a) Set back at least 15 feet from the Maryland Avenue right-of-way. (b) At least 20 feet wide. (c) Posted for no parking on both sides. (7) Additional 20-foot-wide driveways that connect the: (a) Driveway west of building Number 44 to the private driveway near buildings 26 and 27. (b) Driveway between buildings 52 and 54 to the private driveway in front of building 11. (c) Driveway south of building 54 to the private driveway in front of building 15. These driveway changes shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief. (8) All driveways should be at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of a driveway, then that driveway must be at least 28 feet wide. (9) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -31 - bo The developer deeding the area labeled "Park Dedication" on the plans to the City of Maplewood. This dedication is to help protect the most sensitive natural features on the site and would protect this part of the site from building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, grading, dumping or other ground disturbances. This dedication also would help ensure the natural linear or corridor aspect of the site (primarily around the stream) would remain as it is now. The Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the land for area(s) for dedication to the city. The city may use the Greenways grant from the DNR, while matching the state dollars with city open space money, (as is required) to buy the protected area along the stream and wetlands labeled as Park Dedication on the plan dated April 30, 2001. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.*Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Show no grading or ground disturbance (except where utilities or trails are installed) in the: (1) Required wetland and stream buffer areas. (2) Park Dedication area. This land will be for city park and open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect the park dedication area, including the grove of coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural significance) that is in and near the south side of the stream corridor, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. City-required trails are allowed in the buffer and park dedication areas. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. do Include a coordinated plan with the public works department for the design and installation of the sanitary sewer lines or for the repair or realignment of the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the site. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -32- b.*Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping. d. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. e. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the wetlands, stream corridor, park dedication area and site. Furnish and install a tot-lot or playground near buildings 49 or 51 on the western part of the development, if required by the city council. The Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the plans for this facility, go Install a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the east driveway of Rosewood Estates to the west of the site. The developers engineer shall show this sidewalk on the grading and construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the details of these plans. h. Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: (1) From the private drive in the west side of the site between Lots 9 and 10 to near the stream in the center of the site. (2) From the private drive in the east side of the site, between Lots 24 and 25 to near the stream in the center of the site. The trail must have a surface that is not impervious when trail is in a wetland or stream buffer area. The developers engineer shall design the trails to follow the existing property contours and proposed utility corridors to save as many trees as possible and to minimize the amount of grading necessary to install the trails. i. Restore all disturbed areas within the stream corridor and park dedication areas with a native seed mix approved by the watershed district and by the city engineer. The developer shall give the city wetland easements over the wetlands and the stream. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland. The easements also shall cover the stream and any land within 50 feet of the top of the stream bank. These easements shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within fifty feet of the wetland and the stream or within the wetland itself. The purpose of this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands and the stream from fertilizer and to protect the wetland and stream habitat from encroachment. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -33- The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Beaver Lake Town home PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a private driveway): minimum-20 feet, maximum-35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum-25 feet, maximum-35 feet c. Rear-yard setback: none d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum-5 feet to a property line and 10-feet minimum between buildings e. Side yard setbacks (apartments): 20-feet minimum between buildings This approval does not include the design approval for the town homes or for the apartments. The project design plans, including architectural, site, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. The buildings shall have a maximum height of 25 feet (unless the city council approves taller structures). The developer shall design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake. This shall include using vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color or other means to accomplish the screening. The city may require additional vegetation to help screen these facilities. d. For the driveways: (1) (2) (3) Minimum width-20 feet. Maximum width-28 feet. All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28-feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for no parking on one side. e. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 9. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots for any outlot in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. 10. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -34- 11. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission recommend the city council approve the resolution starting on page 60 of the staff report. This resolution vacates part of the unused Magnolia Avenue and Sterling Street lying west of Lakewood Drive and south of Maryland Avenue in the Beaver Lake Town homes PUD. It is in the public interest to vacate these right-of-ways for the following reasons: 1. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. 2. These right-of-ways are not needed for the public purpose of street construction. 3. The developer will be dedicating new right-of-ways with the final plat for the project. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission recommend the city council approve the resolution on page 62 of the staff report. This resolution vacates the unused drainage and utility easements lying east of Lakewood Drive, west of Sterling Street and south of Maryland Avenue in the Beaver Lake Town homes PUD. It is in the public interest to vacate these easements for the following reasons: 1. The adjacent properties have adequate street and utility access. 2. These easements are not needed for their original public purposes. 3. The developer will be dedicating new easements with the final plat for the project. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission recommend the city council approve the Beaver Lake Town Homes preliminary plat (received by the city on April 30, 2001). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Co Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate streetlights in at least 15 locations - primarily at street and driveway intersections and street or driveway curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. go Complete and replace as necessary the curb and gutter on Sterling Street and on Maryland Avenue. This is to replace the existing driveways and driveway aprons on these streets. This shall include the repair of the pavement and the restoration and sodding the boulevards. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -35- h. For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following: (1) ConstruCt an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: a. From the private drive in the west side of the site between Lots 9 and 10 to near the stream in the center of the site. b. From the private drive in the east side of the site, between Lots 22 and 23 to near the stream. All trails between lots shall be in an 18-foot-wide trailway or pedestrian way or in easement areas. (2) The developer also shall build a five-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the east driveway of Rosewood Estates. (3) The developer shall install a two-rail split-rail fence on both sides of each trail and posts at the end of the trails to prevent motorized vehicles from using the trail. (4) The developer shall build the trails, sidewalks and fencing with the driveways and streets and before the city approves a final plat. (5) The city engineer must approve these plans. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland and stream buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state 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. j. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the area labeled "Park Dedication." These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a public park area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. I. Install signs where the driveways for the apartments and for the town houses intersect the public streets indicating that they are private driveways. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk, driveway and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. Planning Commission -36- Minutes of 04-15-02 b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each b'uilding site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) BUilding pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street, driveway and trail grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1 .. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Additional information for the property south of the project site. This shall include elevations of the existing ditch, culverts and catch basins and enough information about the storm water flow path from the proposed ponds. (11) Emergency overflows between Lots 9 and 10, Lots 22 and 23 and south of proposed building 42 (out of the ponds). The overflow swales shall be protected with permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (12) Restoration in the stream corridor and park dedication area being done with native seed mix or vegetation as approved by the city engineer and by the watershed district. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. Planning Commission -37- Minutes of 04-15-02 (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (21/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, park dedication areas or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the trails (d) along the east side of Lakewood Drive to screen the proposed buildings from Beaver Lake (e) along the south side of the site (west of Sterling Street) to screen the development from the existing house to the south The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences. (7) Show the planting of at least 270 trees after the site grading is done. d. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (1) An eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: a. From the private drive in the west side of the site between Lots 9 and 10 to near the stream in the center of the site. b. From the private drive in the east side of the site, between Lots 22 and 23 to near the stream. The parks and recreation director shall approve their locations and design. (2) The public streets and driveways shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (3) All the streets, parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. [ I i r ........... Planning Commission -38- Minutes of 04-15-02 (4) The removal of the unused driveways and driveway aprons and the completion of the curb and gutter on Sterling Street and on Maryland Avenue, the repair or replacement of the trail pavement and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (5) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (6) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (8) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. (9) A coordinated sewer realignment and reconstruction plan. The city engineer must approve the sanitary sewer realignment plans. (10) A five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the east driveway of Rosewood Estates. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear ProPerty lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. c. Show the park dedication boundary and area on the final plat. d. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul-de-sacs or perpendicular to the driveways and street right-of-ways. e. Show street names for the driveways as follows: (1) The private driveway in the west one-half of the site shall be called "Beaver Creek Parkway." Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -39- (2) The private driveway in the east one-half of the site shall be called "Beaver Creek Trailway." (3) The private driveway parallel to Maryland Avenue shall be called "Beaver Creek Lane." ~f. Show the existing pipelines and pipeline easements on the final plat. g. If necessary, increase the lot widths for the lots next to the pipeline to ensure .that the building pads will be at least 100 feet away from the pipeline. (code requirement). h. Label the common areas as outlots. i. Show the trails in publicly-owned property or easements. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include: a. Any off-site drainage and utility easements. Wetland and stream easements over the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland and a stream. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 50 feet of the wetland or stream or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the stream, wetland or within the wetland itself. A stream buffer easement that is at least 50 feet wide on each side of the stream that crosses the site. The easement shall prohibit any building, structures or any mowing, filling, cutting, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream. The purpose of these easements is to protect the water quality of the stream and wetlands from fertilizer and runoff. They also are to protect the stream and wetland habitat from encroachment. d. Any easements the city needs for the realignment of the sanitary sewer through the site. 6. Sign a developer's 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. Provide for the repair of Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the driveways. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -40- d. Work with the city as necessary for the realignment of the sanitary sewer through the site. This sewer project also will require an assessment agreement between the developer and the city to compensate the city for the benefit the developer receives from the city sewer construction. 7. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Lakewood Drive and onto Maryland Avenue. A deed restriction prohibiting the construction of a dwelling or its attachments within 100 feet of the Williams Brothers pipeline. This affects Lots 1 through 3, Lots 19 through 24 and buildings 41 and 42 of the proposed preliminary plan the city received on April 30, 2001. The' developer also shall notify the purchasers of the pipeline location. d. A deed dedicating a 100-foot-wide (50 feet from the top of each stream bank) stream buffer easement for the stream that crosses the site. e. Deeds dedicating the necessary stream and wetland buffer easements surrounding the stream and the wetlands. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. g. A deed that transfers the ownership of the park dedication area to Maplewood. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 8. Submit the homeowners' 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 structures. 9. Show the wetland boundaries on the plat as approved by the watershed district. A trained and qualified person must delineate the wetlands. This person shall prepare a wetland delineation report. The developer shall submit this wetland information to the Watershed District office. The Watershed District must approve this information before the city approves a final plat. If needed, the developer shall change the plat to meet wetland regulations. 10. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -41 - 11. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the resolution on page 64 of the staff report. This resolution is for the on-street parking standards and no on-street parking requirements for the Beaver Lake Town Homes PUD south of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. Authorize city staff to spend up to $400,000 of city open space funds for the purchase of about 8.9 acres of the Beaver Lake Town Home site shown as park dedication. This purchase is subject to the: 1. City council approving the PUD, street vacations and preliminary plat for the proposal. 2. Developer recording the final plat for the project that shows the park dedication area. 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approving the use of the $150,000 matching grant money from the Greenways program for this site with the proposed plan. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. He would also like to add a friendly amendment item F. that the planninq commission recommend the city council to authorize the spendinq of $400,000 of city open space funds for the purchase of about 8.9 acres of the Beaver Lake Town Home site as shown on the park dedication subiect to the conditions 1,2, and 3 identified in the staff report. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Rossbach if that is agreeable for the motion? Commissioner Rossbach said yes. Vote on motion: The motion is passed. Ayes- Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler Nay- Dierich This will go to the city council on the evening of Tuesday, May 28, 2002, after Memorial Day and a notice will be sent before hand. b. Resolution of Appreciation - Eric Ahlness Mr. Roberts said Mr. Ahlness has tendered his resignation.and staff is recommending a resolution of appreciation. I Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -42 - Commissioner Dierich moved to recommend approval to the city council for the resolution of appreciation for Mr. Ahlness. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. April 8, 2002, Ms. Dierich represented the planning commission at the city council meeting. Commissioner Dierich said they discussed the Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant and their to-go service and call boxes. Both managers showed up at the meeting and they were able to clarify some of the issues that the planning commission had questions about. Apparently the corporate group was responsible for pulling the permits so that is how they slipped by without the management being aware that they needed to have that permit. The city council is going to allow the restaurants to set it up the way it is. The city council is going to ask the planning commission to review the CUP in 6 months to see if there had been issues with the call boxes. The city council did approve a double fee for the permit violation. The Markham Pond outlet improvements were voted on .and it was 4-ayes and 1-nay and the biggest problem was that they wanted to approve the road access and sewer connection and bringing the water to the site and selling the old lift station as well as acquiring the green parcel, so they approved all of that. The city council also approved the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study. April 22, 2002, Mr. Ledvina will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. One item to be discussed will be the street vacation of McKnight Road and Reaney by Cardinal Realty. May 13, 2002, Mr. Mueller will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. One item to be discussed will be the Gladstone Park Area. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -43- Commissioner Rossbach asked Commissioner Dierich the reason she voted nay for the Beaver Lake Proposal. Commissioner Dierich said she voted nay because the $150,000 from the sale of the lots at the Gladstone Park Area will be used toward purchasing the land for Beaver Lake for $400,000. She would rather have had that money be used toward Applewood Park, otherwise she has no problem with the development for Beaver Lake. Commissioner Ledvina said he can understand her concern but he feels that any additional acreage that the city can obtain as part of this development is going to be very important for the environmental outcome. It is a high price to pay, but he thinks it is very much worth it. Commissioner Dierich said she agrees, but she feels like the city's toes are being held tothe fire so to speak. She doesn't have a problem having the city paying for the land, but she doesn't think the city should pay that much per acre for it: Ms. Coleman said the city was actually in negotiations with the DNR and the landowner before the development proposal even came forward because it was such an important piece of land for the city. Commissioner Dierich said the whole project reminds her of Haller's Woods. The people that are surrounding this Beaver Lake development have tried everything that the people at Haller's Woods tried, and you cannot stop somebody from building the development. She would like to see the city not have to pay so much money for the land. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if in the surveys that are sent out to the residents, could there be wording that states the planning commission does not, have the power to stop this development but the commission can modify it with the residents input. So people are aware upfront that one of the options is not to stop the development, but it is possible to make modifications to the plan. Ms. Coleman said she believes it would be tough to do because then you are speculating on how the city council will vote on something. Mr. Roberts said the staff may be able to better explain in the survey what the existing zoning and density is and what is allowed. Ms. Coleman said she thinks that can be worked on by staff to change the wording a bit and take it a step further. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts asked planning commission members to get their questionnaires in by April 22 to help prepare for the upcoming staff retreat on April 29, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the Maplewood Room. planning Commission Minutes of 04-15-02 -44- Mr. Roberts said it is time to start thinking about the annual tour. He looked at the calendar and there is a fifth Monday in July on July 29 that the tour could take place. He would like planning commission members to think about that and they will decide on a date in May. Think about visiting a different area or something you have not seen in the past. The tour is to help all commissions to see various areas in Maplewood. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Capital Improvement Plan Apdl 29, 2002 INTRODUCTION I have enclosed the proposed 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Plan. The city updates this report each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan, RECOMMENDATION APprove the 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Plan. kr/p:miscell/cipmemo.mem Enclosure (PC only): Capital Improvement Program MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit 1481 Henry Lane April 30, 2002 INTRODUCTION Gary Schlomka is proposing to construct a 48-foot by 66-foot (3,168 square foot), 18.5-foot high metal pole barn on his property at 1481 Henry Lane (see attached plans on pages 7 through 12). The pole barn will be used to store hay and agricultural-related equipment used to harvest hay. He would also store his personal vehicles in the proposed pole barn. Refer to the applicant's narrative on page 6. Request Mr. Schlomka is requesting that the city council approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a pole barn that exceeds size and height requirements. On a lot the size of Mr. Schlomka's property, the code allows a maximum of 2,250 square feet for the combined area of the accessory structures. No accessory structure may exceed 1,250 square feet. The maximum height of accessory structures is limited to 16 feet, measured from grade to the mid point of the roof. The proposed pole barn will exceed the maximums allowed by 1,918 square feet in area and 2.5 feet in height. The code allows the city council to approve a CUP to increase the area or height of an accessory building. BACKGROUND Pole Barn Construction Mr. Schlomka began construction of the pole barn earlier this year. He thought that because the pole barn would be used for an agricultural use that no building permit would be necessary. The building official discovered this construction in progress and stopped the work. Mr. Schlomka then applied for all necessary zoning and building permits. Currently, the pole barn is framed with a portion of the siding installed (see the pictures on pages 11 and 12). If council approves the CUP, Mr. Schlomka will obtain his building permit and proceed, if denied, Mr. Schlomka must remove the pole barn. Property Background Mr. Schlomka repairs and sells farm equipment, boats and recreational vehicles from this site. He also sells wood. His father started these activities here 45 years ago. To supplement his retirement income, Mr. Schlomka currently purchases boats from auctions, repairs them, and sells them from this property as well as the adjacent 1461 Henry Lane. Years of this type of activity have left the applicant's property strewn with old boats, old automobiles and other junk. In addition, the property has several old accessory structures including a barn, two garages, a bunkhouse, a machine shed, a garden shed and a wood shed. Constructing this pole barn is the first step to cleaning up the property. With his son's help, Mr. Schlomka would remove five of the accessory structures, leaving only the barn, bunkhouse, and pole barn (if approved). In addition, Mr. Schlomka proposes to remove all of the old automobiles and other junk items on the site, including several old automobiles, which were dumped near Fish Creek. DISCUSSION Farm Residence Zoning Mr. Schlomka's property is zoned Farm Residence, as are surrounding properties. Farming, including the use or storage of associated equipment, is a permitted use within the Farm Residence zoning district. Mr. Schlomka has several acres of hay located on the west side of his property that he harvests. Because Mr. Schlomka has not had appropriate means to store hay, he was giving the hay to farmers who raise elk or other livestock. The proposed pole barn is designed with large garage doors that will accommodate Mr. Schlomka's hay bailer which is currently stored off site. Mr. Schlomka will now be able to store his hay in the Proposed pole barn and sell it rather than giving it away. Storing and selling hay is allowed in the farm zone. Mr. Schlomka's part-time business of repairing and selling boats from the property is prohibited in a farm zone. The city's nonconforming-use ordinance, though, states that "a nonconforming use existing at the effective date of any provision of the code may be continued although such use does not conform to the provisions of the code.' Mr. Schlomka stated that he would not use the pole barn in his part-time boat business. He, therefore, may continue the boat business unless he expands or stops this activity for a year or more. Metal Storage Buildings The code allows metal pole barns in a farm residence district. Similar Uses The city council approved CUPs for two other pole barn requests in this area. 1. In 1997, the city council approved a CUP for Larry Grand of 2405 Carver Avenue to construct a 4,200 square foot pole barn. Mr. Grand needed the pole barn to replace his damaged 2,100 square foot wood-frame barn, which he used to store his personal vehicles. In 2001, the city council approved two CUPs for Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue. One CUP allowed the construction of a 4,224 square foot pole barn and the other CUP allowed a landscaping business. Gary Schlomka Pole Barn 2 Apd126, 2002 Summary The proposed pole barn will be smaller than the two recently approved pole barns. It will be located on 30.20-acre lot, visible only to the applicant and a relative who lives to the south. The pole barn will not negatively impact surrounding properties and will, in fact, result in a neater, cleaner property. Also, all of the neighbors that responded to our survey were in favor of this proposal (see page 4). RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on pages 13 and 14 approving a conditional use permit for the construction of metal pole building that would measure 48-feet by 66-feet (3,168 square feet) and 18.5 feet in height for the property at 1481 Henry Lane. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits pdor to resuming construction of the pole barn. Pdor to the building department conducting a final inspection on the pole barn, the applicant will remove five detached accessory structures from the property as shown on the approved site plan and described as follows: the two garages located on the east side of the property, the machine shed, the garden shed and the wood shed. The applicant shall also clean the site of all old automobiles and other junk items on the site and that were dumped in the Ramsey County Open Space Fish Creek area to the north. The pole bam shall not be used for commercial or business activities, other than agricultural related uses as specified in the Farm Residence zoning district, unless the city council approves such a request. 5. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Gary Schlornka Pole Barn April 26, 2002 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the property owners within 350 feet of this site to get their opinions of Mr. Schlomka's metal storage building proposal. Out of 31 properties, we received 12 responses; all were in favor of the proposal: Linda G. Suthedand, 1340 Dodand Road South: "1 support Mr. Schlomka's application. I believe it will be an improvement. I have no objections.' Shelley L. Schlomka, 1501 Henry Lane South: "1 think this is a good idea. It will clean up the property by taking down all of the ugly sheds and garages. It's a nice looking building.' 3. Daniel H. Dobervich, 2523 Stillwater Road: "Great! We're excited for you!' Mary Lou Gramenz, 2466 Carver Avenue East: "1 don't see that this should cause a problem for anyone in this neighborhood! I certainly do NOT have a problem with this proposal.' 5. Jeffrey R. Schalz, 1399 Steding Street South: "OK by me.' Gregory M. Miller, 1372 Dodand Road South: "1 have no objections to this project. Mr. Schlomka's property is mostly farmland and isolated from any residential property. This project would have no'effect on anyone else. Property values would remain the same with or without this project." Richard F. Amdt, 1364 Dodand Road South: "This would be fine as long as the building had a nice outside appearance and was landscaped with shrubs and trees to help with the outside look." Chades W.. Forrest, 2346 Heights Avenue East: "1 see no problem with the new proposed building." Jon L. Lawson, 1380 Dodand Road South: "We don't have any objection. Perhaps that will help him organize all the stuff (boats, trailers, etc.) that he has all over his yard." 10. Robert A. Wilds, 2410 Carver Avenue: "Have no objection for Gary Schlomka putting up a pole barn." 11. Thomas Kevin Brengman, 1347 Dodand Road South: "1 have no objections to Mr. Schlomka building his metal storage building." 12. Cad P. Erb, Jr., 2354 Heights Avenue East: "No objections.' Gary Schlomka Pole Barn 4 April 26, 2002 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 30.20 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Ramsey County 'Open Space - Fish Creek (Zoned Farm Residence) Interstate 494 RamSey County Open Space (Zoned Farm Residence) One Single Family House to the Southwest (Zoned Farm Residence) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT Section 36-77(a) allows a maximum of 2,250 square feet of combined accessory strUcture area on lots that are 42,000 square feet or greater, with no one accessory strUcture exceeding 1,250 square feet. Section 36-77(b) allows a maximUm accessory strUcture height of 16 feet, measured to the midpoint of the roof. Section 36-77(c) allows the city council to approve a conditional use permit to increase the area or height of an accessory building. CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 13 and 14.) APPLICATION DATE Mr. Schlomka submitted his complete application on April 3, 2002. The requ red 60-day deadline for decisions on this CUP is June 2, 2002. sf/p: Sec:24-28/1481 Henry- Gary Schlomka Attachments: 1. Metal Storage Building Use Description 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Site Plan 6. Pole Barn Pictures 7. CUP Resolution Gary $chlomka Pole Barn Apd126,2002 i Attachment 1 Intended use of the property and why the city should approve this request: This pole barn will be Used to store hay, our tractors, and equipmem. This pole barn is placed in an open area that was once was used as a garden, and therefore does not change the character of the surrounding area. This building will not depreciate property values, by putting this building up we will be able to store equipment that is now stored outside and in three separate garages in the new pole barn. We will then remove the three existing, older garages thereby improving the esthetics of the property. There will be nothing hazardous stored in this building, there will not be any excessive noise, pollutants created, or other nuisances. This building will not create any new traffic to the area, and will not create additional costs for public facilities or services. This pole barn is placed in an existing open space and the color is earth toned to blend into the site. I can see no adverse environmental effects that this building could create. Metal Storage Building Use Description Attachment 2 Ramsey 1501 Henry Ln Space ? 1481,,Henry Ln 1481Henry Ln. i Ramsey County Open Space 1461 Henry Ln //1525 Sterling St N Location Map ! i ! ........ T ........ Attachment 3 1481 Henry Ln Farm Residence ZONING ¥ Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) ~ 40000 Residential Estate (RE-40) ~ Farm (F) N Zoning Map 8 Attachment 4 Ramsey County Open Space 1481 Henry Ln Ramsey County Open Space 1461 Henry Ln N LAND USE I I 11 Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) -- 40000 Residential Estate (RE-40) ~ Open Space (O) Land Use Map Attachment 5 ~Y N Site Plan S lO -to -rl~e Attachment 6 11 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Schlomka is requesting that City of Maplewood approve a conditional use permit to build a 48-foot by 66-foot, 3,168 square foot, and 18.5-foot high metal storage building storage building on his property. WHEREAS, this conditional use permit applies to the property at 1481 Henry Lane. The property identification number is 24-28-22-31-0017 and the legal description is: Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Except the North 500 feet, part lying 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 6, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On , the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council opened the public headng and allowed everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The ci{y approves this permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances: The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, sm°ke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The uSe would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Gary Schlomka Pole Barn ] 3 April 26, 2002 I The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The applicant will obtain all necessary building permits prior to resuming construction of the pole barn. Prior to the building department conducting a final inspection on the pole bam, the applicant will remove five detached accessory structures from the property as specified in the attached site plan on page 10 and described as follows: two garages located on the east side of the property, machine shed, garden shed, wood shed. The pole barn shall not be used for commercial or business activities, other than agricultural related uses as specified in the Farm Residence zoning district, unless the city council approves such a request. The applicant will remove all unlicensed automobiles from the property, including automobiles dumped in the Ramsey County Open Space Fish Creek area to the north. 6. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. Gary Schlomka Pole Barn ]4 April 26, 2002 MEMORANDUM ' TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: House Moving LOCATION: Sylvan Street, North of Larpenteur Avenue APPLICANT: Bart Crockett DATE: April 30, 2002 INTRODUCTION Mr. Bart CrOckett is asking the City Council to allow him to move a house and a detached garage from Oakdale to a vacant lot on Sylvan Street. (See the maps on pages 6 - 9.) The house is one Story with a white stucco exterior. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 10 and photos on pages 11 -16. BACKGROUND On December 18, 1980, the City Council vacated the Kingston Avenue right-of-way from Sylvan Street to a point 135 feet to the east. After this vacation, the former right-of-way was divided between the adjacent properties to the north and the south. This vacation helped to create the vacant lot south of 1754 Sylvan Street that is now under consideration for the house-moving request. CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 9-64(a) of City Code requires that the Council make the following findings to approve a house moving: 1. The proposed building is compatible with those in the neighborhood it would be moved to. A determination of compatibility may be based on comparing the structure's exterior siding, height, mass, age and style of construction to the average home in the neighborhood to which the house is to be moved and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That all City Code requirements can be met. 3. That water runoff from the site will not cause an adverse effect on surrounding properties. 4. Public streets can be protected from damage. DISCUSSION The design of this house would fit into the Sylvan Street neighborhood. The homes along Sylvan Street were built in the 1940s and 1950s. Most of these homes are ramblers, but there is a split- level to the south. There also are homes along Sylvan Street with stucco exteriors. Several of the neighbors felt that the lot is too small for a house.' The zoning code requires lots for houses in the R-1 zoning district to have 10,000 square feet. This lot, according to the Ramsey County property records, is 11,941 square feet. As such, the lot and the proposed site plan for the house and garage can meet all city requirements. I had Nick Carve~:, the Assistant BUilding Official, inspect the house. His preliminary inspection report is on Page 17. This report outlines.most, if not all, the work Mr. Crockett will have to do to the house.' This includes bringing all systems of the house up to current code standards and repairing and painting the eXterior of the' house. Easement When the City vacated the Kingston Avenue right-of-way in 1980, the City failed to keep a utility easement over the south part Of the site. This' area has an existing sewer line and overhead power lines. (See the isite plans on,pages 7 and 8.) To remedy this situatiOn, the City should require the property owner to dedicate to the City a drainage and utility easement over the south 30 feet of the site. ', REc~)MMENDATION Approve the moving o~ a one-story stucco house and a detached garage for Bart Crockett t° the lot south of.1754' Sylvan Street. T[li~ approval shall be Subject to the applicant, doing the following: -' .. 1. Submit the following to the city for approval before the city issues a building permit: a.A.h irrevocable ietter of credit or cash escrow for 1-1/2 times the estimated cost of · completing the construction, including .all yard work and exterior remodeling. The applicant shall complete the work withi~ .90 days of the City issuing the permit. The . Director of Community Development may extend this .deadline for sixty (60) days if ' the.re"has been a reasonable delay. The construction shall meet.all Building Code requirements. (Code requirement).. b. A new certificate of survey for the Site and verify the lot lines with survey pins. (Code 'requirement) ... C. A grading, drainage at~d erosion'control plan to'the city engineerl This plan shall show that the 15roPosed house location and. grades will not cause any adverse affects or cause any drainage problems for nearby 'ProPerties. T~e City shall not isSue a moving .' permit, until.-the 'city engineer approves these plans and the co. nstruction shall follow ,th.ese plans (Code requirement) . d: A drainage and utility easement from the owner to the City over the south 30 feet of · the site. " ' 2. Sign an agreement to COnveY the title. This' agreemenl~ shall allow the City to take possession of the house,and property if the required work is not completed within 90 days after the City · issues the-moving.permitI Thi~ agrbement would 'allOw the City the right to complete the . construction r~equired by Code or demolish and remove the Structure. The City Attorney shall prepare th. is'agreement.. (Code reqUirement) 3. The applicant Shall complete and redash the stucco, reshingle the roof, replace and paint the tdm and remove or replace the awnings. The applicant also shall meet all the requirements of the. city's building inspection department. Mo~e tl~e'hou'se between the hours of 3 and 6 a.m. The applicant shall leave the house in the street until at least 7:00 a.m., but no later than 10:00 a·m. There shall be no excessive noise or Work on the house or site between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Code requirement). Place the house ten feet from the north property line. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 22 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received eight replies. Five were opposed to the request and three had comments. Opposed I do not want a house on the vacant lot. The lot is a good ball field for the children. It is too small for a house and a garage. No one in neighborhood wants the house. It is too narrow. The neighbors take care of the snow plowing. Why should the buyer use the neighbors? We are all very happy and satisfied with the way things are. There must be another lot to move that house onto. Do not let it happen. We are all very upset. I do not think the buyer would be happy with the neighbors. (Dubbe - 1754 Sylvan Street) We oppose this plan because it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. The proposed moved house is a Iow-grade dilapidated shack that would be an eyesore and would depreciate the house values in the area. We do not want it. (Bisson - 1758 Sylvan Street) 3. I feel there should not be a house moved on that lot. The property is too small. (Gdffin - 1751 Gurney Street) When I purchased my home in 1982, I was informed that the vacant lot in question was too small to have a house on. It has not gotten any larger! Please deny Mr. Crockett'S request. (Huppert - 5 Kingston Avenue) 5. Not a good idea. I think a house of any sort in this small spot could and would be an eyesore. (Taylor- 1765 Gurney Street) Comments The exterior looks shabby. WilI it be fixed up? (i.e. tdm and stucco). Will it be owner occupied or a rental property? We .do not need more rentals in the neighborhood. We will not allow it to cross our property to be moved in. (Lesch - 1738 Sylvan Street) I am concemed about drainage in the area. Water now drains from Kingston down the hill to Sylvan Street. Where will the water go if this is approved? (Derider - 12 Kingston Avenue) 3. See the letter on page 18. | [ f · · -T REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 11,941 square feet Existing land use: Undeveloped Owner: Lois Jacobs SURROUNDING LAND USES Single dwellings to the north, east and south. Saint Paul Water Utility property across Sylvan Street. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: RL (Iow-density residential) Zoning: R-I (single-dwelling residential) P:sec 18/sylvan house move.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Site Plan 5. Photo of site and 1754 Sylvan Street 6. 4-17-02 Applicant's Statement 7. House Photos (six pages) 8. 9. April 24; 2002 letter from Nick Carver to Bart Crockett Letter from Muscatello (1736 Gumey Street) COUNTY LITTLE RD. CANADA SKILLMAN AVE. Mr. VERNON DOWNS AVE. BELLWOOD AVE. SUMMER AVE. LOCATION 5 MAP BELMONT LN. Park ROSELAWN [LWOOD RtPI Attachment 1 KINGSTON PAUL Attachment 2 PUM. PINiG ~T.,/t 7"1041. SAINT PAUL WATER UTILITY ¢V O ~ K ,-% ' (2..IG,~..) a (~.50~.~ 754 -,I KINGSTON AVENUE' PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP SITE 6 Attachment 3 SITE KINGSTON AVENUE 0 10 20 30 Feet SITE PLAN '7 Attachment '4 ¸5o rl~o~hwe~ . Powe 1~.1G- of, V.eafed 'KINGSTON AVE.. I Pole. ~e,Hujdrant SITE PLAN 8 Attachment 5 I 7 5"~ Attachment 6 I T ! 10 Attachment 7 ll 12 15 16 To: Bart Crockett From: Nicholas Carver Date: April 24, 2002 Re: Together We Can Proposed building relocation project on Sylvan Street, MaPlewood. Attachment 8 This is a one story single-family dwelling with breezeway and attached garage. Structure appears to be different then description submitted for city review. Per 1997 Uniform Building Code, Buildings or structures moved into or within a jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or structures. This project is subject to field inspection comments. Electrical circuits shall be inspected and approved. Wiring shall be upgraded to current minimum standards. Smoke detectors mUst be hard-wired and located in accordance with all applicable codes and manufacturer's instructionS. Mechanical and heating systems shall be inspected and approved. All systems and components shall be upgraded to current minimum standards. All gas piping must be- tested in accordance with the mechanical code. Plumbing systems, including but not limited to waste, vents and fixtures must be inspected and approved. Plumbing shall meet all current minimum standards. Toilet does not have required 30 inches clear width or 24 inches clear width to the front. One window per bedroom must meet all UBC egress requirements. Existing windows do not meet this requirement. All beams, headers, joists and roof systems shall be repaired, altered or sized to carry all superimposed loads. Several areas in the sill appear decayed, includingj'oist ends that were previously embedded in beam .fill. The garage trim and header supports appear decayed. Treated sill plates will be required to the new foundation. I was unable to inspect the dwelling roof framing members. A 22 "x30" attic access opening and adequate ceiling insulation is required. Stairs, handrails, guardrails, and other code related items will be addressed individually but must all meet the requirements of the 1997 UBC. All glass and glazing shall meet the requirements of UBC Chapter 24. Several windows and jalousies on the breezeway need to be safety glazed. The entire roof covering needs to be removed and replaced. All damaged or decayed wood would also have to be replaced. Attic ventilation requirements must be met. Stucco must be repaired, flashed, and weep screeds added to meet current code requirements. The new foundation must meet all current code requirements. Plans must be submitted to the city for review prior to the relocation process. 17 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651- 770-4560 FAX: 651 -748-3096 CiTY OF MAPLEWOOD ! 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 18 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Kline Nissan Dealership- Wetland Buffer Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive May 1, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Rick Kline, of Kline Auto Wodd, is proposing to build a 25,502-square-foot, two-story Nissan dealership with a 16-bay automobile maintenance garage. The dealership will be constructed at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive, which are located at the southeast comer of County Road D and Maplewood Drive (Highway 61). The site is zoned M-l, Light Manufacturing, and currently contains two vacant single-family homes. Refer to plans on pages 11 through 20. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A 75-foot wetland buffer variance. The RamseyANashington Metro Watershed District has classified the wetland on the site as a Class I wetland. City code requires a 100- foot-wide buffer along Class 1 wetlands. The applicant is proposing a 25-foot-wide buffer. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a maintenance garage. The sale of new and used vehicles is permitted. City code requires a CUP for service and maintenance garages. 3. The design plans (architectural, site, landscape, and lighting plans). DISCUSSION Wetland Buffer Variance Watershed District Approval The wetland on the proposed Nissan site, a Class I wetland, has characteristics and functions that are most susceptible to human impacts; they are the most unique type of wetland and have the highest community resource significance. The 100-foot wetland buffer is required to help protect the wetland from human impact. According to Kad Hammers of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, grading and filling have degraded the buffer surrounding parts of the wetland. In addition, some of the buffer has been overrun by green ash and buckthom. Rob Langer, also of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, stated that even though some of the buffer has been degraded, the .wetland is a high quality Class I wetland, particularly the flood plain wetland to the east of the property. It is beneficial to maintain as much of a surrounding buffer as possible. The applicant proposes to grade up to the wetland edge and to reestablish an "improved" 25-foot-wide wetland buffer. He would construct the parking lot 25 feet from the wetland's edge. The applicant is working with Sunde Engineering to design and install a subsurface storm water infiltration system that will help treat the water prior to being deposited into the wetland. This type of system was also installed at the Volvo dealership located to the south of the Nissan site. Watershed District Approval On April 4, 2002, the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct approved the wetland buffer variance. The Watershed District approved the applicant's plan to remove the entire buffer and to provide an improved 25-foot-wide buffer with reestablished native vegetation after the infiltration system is installed. Refer to watershed district approval on pages 21 and 22. Previously Approved Wetland Buffer Variances October 11, 1999: The city council approved a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer setback variance for the Volvo dealership on Highway 61, located directly to the south of the Nissan site. City code required a 100-foot-wide buffer. Volvo was required to install a subsurface storm water infiltration system and plant native vegetation in the 25-foot-wide buffer. December 9, 1996: The city council approved a 60-foot-wide wetland buffer setback variance for the Winiecki building located at 1420 County Road D, on the east side of the wetland east of the · Nissan site. City code required a 100-foot-wide buffer. February 26, 1996: The city council approved a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer setback variance for the Lexus dealership on Highway 61, located directly south of the Volvo dealership. City code required a lO0-foot-wide buffer. Lexus was required to plant native vegetation in the 25-foot- wide buffer. Comparison of Dealerships with Wetland Buffer Variances DEALERSHIP LOT SIZE BLDG SIZE WETLAND ParkINg BUFFER Lexus 3.62 acres 14,074 s.f. 176 25-foot (one story) Volvo 2.32 acres 14,778 s.f. 88 25-foot (one story) Nissan 4.71 acres 25,502 s.f. 269 25-foot (Proposed) (two story) (Note: The Lexus building is currently 11,000 square feet in size. They are proposing, however, to add on and increase their square footage to 14,074 square feet.) 2 Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 Variance Concerns Regarding compliance with the state law findings for variance approval, staff does not feel that the wetlands pose a sufficient hardship to warrant the 75-foot variance requested. We feel that a lesser variance is justified. Staff has shown on page 24 how much land would lie within a 100-foot and a 50-foot buffer as well as the proposed 25-foot buffer. Clearly, with no variance, a 100-foot buffer would render over half of the site unusable. The 50-foot buffer, however, would allow considerably more land area to be used by the applicant. With the 50-foot buffer altemative, the major impact on parking loss would occur along the northeast side of the site where there are 34 spaces proposed. Staff feels that preserving more of the natural wetland buffer along this side of the property would be a suitable compromise. It would be the least disruptive to the site plan while preserving considerably more of the natural buffer. Mr. Hammers of the Watershed District stated that if the city requires a 50-foot-wide buffer, it would be beneficial to grade within 10 feet of the wetland and reestablish 40 feet of the buffer with native plantings. He said that the additional improved buffer would help protect the wetland. Staff does not find as much of a problem with the proposed 25-foot buffer on the other sides. Allowing the proposed 25-foot buffer on the east and south would preserve much of the applicant's site plan and cause the least disruption to his parking and traffic patterns as proposed. With this alternative of requiring a 50-foot-wide buffer on the northeast side, the applicant would be left with 235 parking spaces. For comparison, this would be 59 more than Lexus of Maplewood (they have 176 spaces) and 147 more than Kline Volvo (they have 88 spaces). Precedent The council granted 75-foot buffer variances for the neighboring auto dealerships. It just does not seem warranted, however, to grant such a large vadance again just because the city has done so before. Variances should be approved based on the circumstances of each individual request and circumstances. In this case, staff agrees that a variance is justified, just not the size requested. With a 50-foot buffer on the northeasterly side, we will achieve a suitable balance between determining a 'reasonable use of the property' and code compliance. Conditional Use Permit The proposed 16-bay maintenance garage meets the findings for CUP approval. (Refer to the applicant's conditional use permit statement on pages 25 through 27). Lot Combination The Nissan site consists of two lots with vacant single-family homes located on them. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant should combine the two lots into one lot with Ramsey County. County Road D Alignment Study The City of Maplewood is working with URS, engineering consultants, to study the possible realignment of County Road D. The intent of the study is to explore the relocation options of moving County Road D further to the south, away from the 1-694 interchange. The study and proposed realignment should be complete by Fall 2002. Chuck Ahl, City Engineer, states that 3 Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 the realignment would take place to the south of the Nissan site and no land would be required from the applicants for the possible realignment. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the special parking requirements for an automobile dealership, i.e., parking spaces for automobile inventory. However, using the ratio of 1 space for each 200 square feet of office/showroom, 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of parts storage, 3 spaces for each service bay, and 1 space per employee, the Nissan site is required to have 131 parking spaces. The applicant proposes 269 parking spaces. Building Design The proposed building will have a front exterior of flat metal panel wall systems, corrugated metal panels, and anodized aluminum frames with insulated glass. The sides and rear exteriors will be rock-face concrete block and EIFS (exterior insulation finish system - a stucco-look material). The front and the south side of the building will be visible from Highway 61. The south side of the building has a large expanse of rock-face concrete block, giving the appearance of a very large and plain wall. For this reason, staff recommends that design elements found on the front of the building also be implemented onto the south side, including the extension of the flat metal panel wall systems with decorative corrugated metal panels. Much of the north elevation is already treated decoratively. Landscaping The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all quality trees removed from the site, which have a trunk diameter of at least 8 inches, be restored one for one up to 10 trees per acre. The site has 18 large trees, 14 of which will be removed. Therefore, the applicant is only required to plant 14 trees on the site. The proposed landscape plan shows a total of 35 trees on the site, exceeding the tree preservation requirements. The proposed landscaping is acceptable. The applicant has not provided a turf restoration plan, however, for the wetland buffer. This plan should be provided for city and watershed district approval before a building permit is issued. ,Any landscaping and turf establishment within the highway right-of-way should be subject to MnDOT's approval. Trash Storage The code requires that all trash containers be kept in screening enclosures with a closeable gate. The applicant proposes to keep their trash inside the building. If they later decide to have outdoor trash storage, they must provide an enclosure with a 100 percent opaque gate as required by code. Staff will monitor this during annual CUP reviews. Lighting The lighting plan meets city requirements and includes 24 parking lot pole lights (25 feet high) and 4 wall-pack lights. The maximum light intensity at the property line is .4 foot candles. Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 Site-Plan Concerns Vehicle- Transport Unloading Unloading on public right-of-way has been a recurring problem with auto dealerships along Highway 61. Unloading on Highway 61 or County Road D is not allowed and should be prohibited by a condition of the CUP. Access The applicant should install a right-turn lane from Highway 61 as required for the Volvo and Lexus dealerships. This lane should be subject to MnDOT's approval. Police Concerns Lieutenant Banick expressed concem over the design and locatiOn of the proposed parking lot for the Nissan proposal. He states that the layout of the parking lot behind the building and the proximity to a major freeway will promote vehicle theft. Refer to Lieutenant Banick's memo on page 30. Other Comments Engineering: See attached grading and drainage statement on page 28-29. Fire Marshal: Any tanks being installed must have proper permits pulled. Building Official: Proposal looks good. A full plan review will be done when plans are submitted for the building permit. Female bathroom should be provided in maintenance garage. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the wetland buffer setback vadance resolution on pages 31 and 32, approving a 50- foot wetland buffer vadance along the northeast property line and a 75-foot wetland buffer variance along the southeast and south sides of the property for the proposed Nissan dealership at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Ddve. Approval is based on the following findings: Stdct enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 100-foot-wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would improve a portion of the wetland buffer substantially over its present state and will treat storm water from the site with a subsurface storm water infiltration system. The city council previously approved similar wetland buffer variances for three developments near this proposal. Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 50-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the northeast lot line and a 25-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the remaining wetland edge. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundarY of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will isSue a building permit. Submitting a revised grading plan showing compliance with the required wetland dedications. The grading plan shall include grading to within 10 feet of the wetland edge on the side where the 50-foot buffer is required, with restoration of the 'remaining 40 feet of wetland buffer consisting of native plantings to be approved by staff and the watershed distdct (see landscape requirement below). C, Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the wetland- protection buffer on the northeast side of the site and for the 25-foot buffer in the other wetland buffer areas. This plan Shall be subject to staff and watershed district approval. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped areas, excluding the wetland protection buffer. d. Installing signs at the edge of the wetland-Protection buffer which prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Submitting a signed maintenance agreement to the Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed District and the city for maintenance of the subsurface storm water infiltration system that accepts responsibility for any necessarY maintenance and upkeep of the system. AdoPt the resolution on pages 33 and 34, approving a conditional use permit for a maintenance garage at the proposed Kline dealership at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: bo All construction Shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community .development may approve minor changes. -. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council. approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline f(Jr one year. c. The applicant shall not load or unload vehicles on public right-of-way. d. Cars can only be parked on designated paved surfaces. e. The city council shal[ review this permit in one year. Approve the plans date-stamped March 5, March 20, and Apdl 22 for the proposed Nissan dealership at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Ddve, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Before getting a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following: 1) Dedicating a 50-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the northeast lot line and a 25-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the remaining wetland edge. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a building permit. 2) 3) Submitting a revised grading plan showing compliance with the required wetland dedications. The grading plan shall include grading to within 10 feet of the wetland edge on the side where the 50-foot buffer is required, with restoration of the remaining 40 feet of wetland buffer consisting of native plantings to be approved by staff and the watershed district (see landscape requirement below). Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the wetland- protection buffer on the northeast side of the site and for the 25-foot buffer in the other wetland buffer areas. This plan shall be subject to staff and watershed district apprOval. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped areas, excluding the wetland protection buffer. 4) A revised site plan showing the following revisions: a) A 50-foot setback for the parking lot from the wetland on the northeast side of the site. The revised site plan shall include the reconfiguration of the parking stalls. b) A right-turn-lane from Highway 61 into the site, subject to MnDOT's approval. c) ^ trash enclosure that matches the building in material. This enclosure shall not be placed in required parking spaces. It must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. If the trash dumpster is kept inside the building, an outdoor enclosure is not required. 5) Verification that all watershed district special provisions, as indicated on the watershed district permit, are met prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for the site. 6) A revised south building elevation showing design elements found on the front of the building including the extension of the flat metal panel wall systems with decorative corrugated metal panels. 7) Combine the two parcels (3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive) into one parcel with Ramsey County. Proof of lot combination must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. ? Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 2) 3) 4) Install a reflectofized stop sign at the exit and a handicap-parking sign for each handicap accessible parking space. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and the sodded areas between the highway and the parking lot. Lawn irrigation in the fight-of-way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. It is also. waived in the wetland buffer area. 5) Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces. 6) Install city approved wetland buffer signs at the edge of the wetland buffer easement that notifies that no building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping is allowed within the buffer. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. This approval does not include the signs. Signage will be reviewed by staff through the sign permit process. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.71 acres Existing Land Use: Single-Family Homes (Vacant) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and Interstate 694 (Vadnais Heights) South: Wetland and Kline Volvo Dealership South of Wetland (Zoned M-l) West: Highway 61 East: Wetland PLANNING Land Use: M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Ordinance Requirements Conditional Use Permit Section 36-151(b)(9)(c) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 33 and 34. Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer for the proposed Kline dealership site. State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a vadance from the zoning code: 1. Stdct enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the. property under consideration. 2. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 Design Review Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the ci~s comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. APPLICATION DATE Mr. Kline submitted his complete applications on Apdl 4, 2002. The required 60-day deadline for decisions on this proposal is June 3, 2002. P~sec3\Nissan.2. doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan 5. Landscape/Lighting Plan 6. Building Elevations 7. Nissan Dealer Signature Elements 8. Lower Level Floor Plan 9. Upper Level Floor Plan 10. Watershed Distdct Approval Letter dated Apd126, 2002 11. Applicant's Narrate Statement for the Vadance dated March 5, 2002 12. Wetland Setbacks Map 13. Applicant's Narrative Statement for the Condi~onal Use Permit dated March 5, 2002 14. Memo from Assistant City Engineer dated Apd129, 2002 15. Memo from Lieutenant Banick dated Apd125, 2002 16. Variance Resolution 17. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 18. Plans Date-Stamped March 5, March 20, and Apd122, 2002 (separate attachments) Kline Nissan l0 May 1, 2002 Attachment Interstate 694 lq Location Map 11 Attachment 2 Interstate 694 County Road D 3090 and 3110 M-1 Maplewood Drivei ZONING Light Manufacturing (M-l) Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) ~ Planned Urban Development (PUD) N S Zoning Map 12 Attachment 3 Interstate 694 Cou, Road D M-1 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Dri Open Space N ZONING Light Manufacturing (M-i) Single Dwelling ReSidential (R-l) Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) Open Space Land Use Map 13 Attachment 4 ~ Z Proposed Building For KLINE NISSAN Maplewood, Minnesota 14 SITE PLAN Attachment 5 Proposed Building KLINE NISSAN Maplewood, Minnesota r'.* ~m LANDSCAPE/ LIGHTING PLAN Attachment 67 Proposed Building For KLINE NISSAN Maplewood, Minnesota 16 ELEVATIONS Attachment 7 Outdoor Vehicle Display 17 NISSAN DEALER SIGNATURE ELEMENTS Dealership Exterior showing elements of the new design The optional Canopy is a striking feature of the new design NISSAN DEALER SIGNATURE ELEMENTS Attachment Proposed Building For KLINE NISSAN Maplewood, Minnesota, 19 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANS Attachment 9 Proposed Building For KLINE NISSAN Maplewood, Minnesota 20 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANS Ramsey-Was h ington Metro District Attachment 10 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 emaih office@rwmwd.org 4/26/02 Shann Finwall City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Shann, I am including the documentation you requested regarding the reasons the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District granted a buffer variance for the Kline Auto World project on Highway 61. The Kline Auto World project has a Protect category wetland (City of Maplewood class 1) on the east and south side of the project. The Watershed District requires a 75-foot no- disturb buffer on protect category wetland. The owner of Kline Auto Word requested a variance from this requirement. The variance was granted for the same reasons as those for the Kline Nissan project. The buffer was highly degraded and offered little benefit for wildlife or buffer and the owner was willing to install a very effective storm water infiltration system that will treat storm water from the site before it is discharged to the wetland. The owner will also plant a high-quality wetland buffer consisting of native species that will be more beneficial to the wetland than the degraded buffer that is currently adjacent to the wetland. The Watershed Board is concerned about protecting the wetland during construction of the project and instructed me to include additional provisions that will need to be completed before a grading permit is issued. I have enclosed a copy of those provisions. I would appreciates the City's cooperation in not allowing any grading to begin on this project until you have verified that these provisions have been met. Please call me if you have any questions or comments. Karl Hammers District Technician 21 R a ms e y-Wa s h i ngton Metro District 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 email: office@rwmwd.org Date: 3/19/02 Applicant: 'Rick Kline Re: Kline Nissan Permit No. 02-17 Dear Applicant: Thank you for submitting your grading and erosion control plan to the District for review. The Watershed District staff has reviewed the plans for consistency with the policies and goals of the Watershed District. The following are changes to your plans which the staff feels are necessary for your project. The staff will be recommending these changes to the Watershed Board in the form of special provisions to your permit. If approved by the Board, these changes will be required. Special Provision 1 A wetland delineation report shall be submitted to the District for review. Special Provision 2 The owner shall submit a signed maintenance agreement for the subsurface storm water infiltration system. Special Provision 3 An average 75-foot wide no-disturb buffer shall be maintained between the surrounding wetland and the proposed site. Special Provision 4 The Silt fence along the wetland edge shall be monofilament. Special Provision 5 The bottom elevation of the infiltration trenches shall be no lower than two feet above the water level of the nearby wetland. The water level for this provision shall be considered the highest elevation of the along the delineated wetland edge surrounding the site. A survey shall be conducted to determine this elevation. zD 200- 22 Attachment 11 KLINE AUTO WORLD OLDSMOBILE MITSUBISHI SUZUKI NISSAN VOLVO (651)484-3901 March 5, 2002 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Attn: Mr. Tom Ekstrand City Planner Re: Proposed New Location of Kline Nissan Dear Mr. Ekstrand' Please consider our request for setback variance from the wetlands for our proposed new location on Highway 61 for our Nissan franchise. Due to the limited amount of available visible land in Maplewood and its proximity to our existing facility and its proximity to our competitors we have chosen this site, although it is not ideal. This site is unique because of the wetland on two plus sides of the property. We have hired R.J. Ryan Construction, Inc., and Sunde Engineering to work with the Ramsey Washington Watershed District to design a state-of-the-art dealership for this site, with keeping in mind the best utilization of the property and still maintaining the regulation of the Watershed District for ponding and runoff. Without this variance, this site would be deemed unusable for our intentions of constructing our new facility. Please consider our variance request for this site. We look forward to working with the City of Maplewood and the Ramsey Washington County Watershed District on our attempt to develop this property. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Rick Kline Kline Nissan Kline Nissan-let01 city of maplewood 23 Attachment 12 C O U N T y R O A D 'D' L-12.72 A-O'15'4g' ~UTICR 24 WETLAND SETBACKS FROM :R.J. RYAN FAX NO. :651-681-0235 2002 08:24AM P2 Attachment 13 Construction, Inc. 1100 Mendota Heights Road · Mendota Heights. MN 55120 · (651) 681-0200 · Fax (651) 681-0235 March 5, 2002 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood Associate Planner 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 53709 Site plan submittal Conditional Use Permit Kline Nissan Dealership State Highway 61 Dear Tom: On behalf-of R.J. Ryan Construction, Inc., & Kline Nissan, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a Car Dealership and maintenance garage in association with the site plar~ approval, variance, and watershed permit approval. The following responses to the criteria for a conditional use permit are based upon the Site plan package, submitted:to the City of. Maplewoodon March4~ 2002, and on the grading permit plan set submitted to the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District on March 4, 2002. The use would belocated, designed~ maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. The Existing zoning is M, 1 manufacturing which allows as an outright use car dealerships and display lots. The majodty of car dealerships on · Highway 61 have as a service to their customers a maintenance facility specifically integrated into the car dealership operation. The properties to the south, K[ine Volvo, Lexus of Maplewood, currently have operational maintenance garages as does the Toyota Dealership located across Highway 61. The proposed maintenance garage will occupy approximately tO,000 sq. ffofthe proposed 19,000 sq. ft facility. All maintenance on the vehicles will occur within the structure as required by Code. The exterior of the maintenance area will be constructed of the An Equal Opportunily Employer 25 FROM :R.$. RYAN FAX NO. :651-681-023S Apr. 26 2002 08:25AM P3 3 same rock-faced concrete masonry units as the showroom and customer service area, similar to the Volvo Dealership. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The proposed use would improve the existing land use from a sub standard residential home to a permanent structure compatible with all applicable Design Re~ziew Committee criteria and building codes. The use would not depreciate property values. The improvement to the slope adjacent to the wet land will eliminate the erodabte slope conditions and undesirable ground cover. The proposed grading plan will improve the water quality, re-vegetate the slope with native and appropriate grass species, conducive to an improved wetland and wildlife habitat. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, g/are, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water run- off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The proposed will not involve any of the above activities due to its location in an M-1 district andtack of residential properties nearby. The exterior lights are down cast cut off fixture at a 25' height and will illuminate the parking lot and display areas. The use would generate only rnir~nat vehicular traffic'on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed street. The proposed site plan will only have access from the northbound lanes of State Highway 6t. Southbound trafficon State Highway 61 will not have access to the site. The entrance to the site will be coordinated with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and will require a driveway access permit. The-location of the Nissan dealership was selected based upon the traffic already on Highway 61 and the surrounding land uses. The car dealership wilt not adversely affectthe existing traffic on Highway 61 or any l~cel stmeL 26 FROM :R.$. RYAN FAX NO. :651-681-02~5 Apr. 26 2002 08:25AM P4 The use would be served by adequate public fecitities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.. The MWCC has been contacted ~ wilt allow connection to the sanitary sewer. Storm drainage from the site has been discussed with the City and Watershed. A grading permit' and plan set has been submitted to the watershed for approval. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.. No expansion of existing public facilities will be required. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the' development design. The proposed use has-been designed to enhance the-wetland edge and provide a buffer yard area between the development and the wetland. The erodabte stopes wU be eli~minated and a buffer yard at a 3:1 slope will' be created along the entire wetland boundary. The buffer yard improved at no cost to the watershed district. The use would cause mirdrnal adverse environmenla[ effect~. As stated, all- stormwater wilt~ be controlled and channeled through outlet structures with appropriate rip rap and erosional/sedimentation controls in place. Secondty, the maintenance garage operations will be located within the proposed structure. All maintenance operations regarding recycling waste Products/oils of the vehicles will be performed to state building codes and MPCA regulations. Thank you for the opportunity you have given us to present this- proposal to you.. We look forward to working with the City of Maplewood on this facility. If you have any questions-please don't hesitate to call: Sincerely, JackGrotkin Vice President Jg-sg KlJne Nissan-let11 use'pefrmt 27 Attachment 14 Kline Nissan- Engineering Plan Review Maplewood Engineering Department Chris Cavett, April 29, 2002 Storm Water Management/Storm Water Treatment: Summary: The storm water management plan is very similar to the system at the nearby Lexus dealer. The system is designed as an innovative system of"hidden" subsurface storage and infiltration basins. The applicant has worked extensively with the watershed in the development of the storm water management system. In fact this is an example of alternatives that fully developed sites can use in the future. The concepts and intent of the storm water management design are good and because the applicant has worked closely with the watershed, we do not intend to comment or review the plan in extensive detail. Below are the requirements the City of Maplewood has: 1. Applicant shall submit runoff calculations to the Maplewood Engineering department before final approval of the site plan. The applicant, their contractor and their engineer shall ensure that the erosion and sediment control practices are being strictly used and maintained during construction as failure to do so will risk the integrity of the design and the applicant's investment in this type of system. Applicant shall submit an "Annual" maintenance record of the system, as part of their annual CIP review process. The "Trap" catch basins and manholes will require regular cleaning and sediment removal to maintain the integrity of the drainage system. Again failure to properly maintain the system will jeopardize the integrity of the design and applicant's investment in this type of system. Grading and Erosion Control: Summary: There is grading being proposed within the required wetland buffer, (as defined by ordinance). It is left up to opinion whether the intent of the wetland buffer is being met. From an engineering standpoint, a variance to the buffer requirement is justifiable, but to what extent is the question to be answered. The drainage system design as proposed will have less impact on the wetland than a conventional drainage design. A properly restored native upland buffer should be planted in the remaining buffer area. The applicant shall submit a detailed "Native" landscaping plan for all areas within the wetland buffer area. The plan shall be approved by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. All buffer work shall be completed within 14-days of final 28 grading. Final grading shall not be approved by the city until all buffer plaming and landscaping work is completed and approved by the watershed. Utilities: 1. Coordinate all water main work with the St. Paul Regional Water Services. Obtain permit from the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services for sewer service connection to the, existing MCES Interceptor. The City of Maplewood also requires a sewer service permit. The City of Maplewood permit will not be issued until the applicant has Obtained a permit from MCES. Driveways and Streets: 1. The applicant will be required to obtain an approval and an access permit from Mn/DOT 29 Attachment 15 MEMO To: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner'~ From: Lieutenant John Banick~ Subject: PROJECT REVIEW - Kline Nissan Car Dealership Date: April 25, 2002 I have reviewed the attached project proposal. It should be noted that I am extremely concern about the design and location of the parking lots in this proposal. I believe that the location of this development within our City, the design / layout of the parking lots, and proximity to a major freeway will promote vehicle theft and theft from vehicle calls. Currently, our automobile dealerships generate a fair amount of police activity for our department. However, it is not only the increase in calls for service that concerns me. It is also the inability to effectively police this proposed location. The parking lot areas in this proposal would also be hidden from normal traffic on Highway 61. Therefore, removing citizens as an effective crime prevention tool. I showed these plans to a veteran police sergeant, police officer, and dispatcher who have many years of law enforcement experience. They all concurred that this location and design encouraged criminal activity. The plan seems to include an excellent lighting plan that should help to reduce the amount of criminal activity, however, based on the above concerns I recommend that this design be denied. cc: Chief Winger Deputy Chief Thomalla Lieutenant Rabbett 3O Attachment 16 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rick Kline, of Kline Auto Wodd, applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to properties at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive. The property identification numbers are 03-29-22-22-0002 and 03-29-22-22-0003. The legal description is: Tract UA", Registered Land Survey No. 15, on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles within and for said County, except that part lying easterly of a line beginning at a point on the north line of said Tract 1494.91 feet west of the northeast comer of said Tract; thence southeasterly at an angle of 56 degrees, 43 minutes with said north line 445.39 feet; thence at an angle of 79 degrees 39 minutes to the right 188.7 feet to a point on the south line of said Tract 1303.88 feet west from the southeast comer of said Tract, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Torrens Certificate Number: 171003. WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 100-foot- wide wetland buffer. WHEREAS, the applicant proposed a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer. WHEREAS, the city council approved a wetland buffer variance ranging from a 50-foot-wide buffer on the northeast side of the property to a 75-foot-wide buffer on the south and southeast sides of the site. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On May 6, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. The city council held a public headng on . City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city. staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: a. Stdct enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 100-foot-wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. b. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would improve a portion of the wetland buffer substantially over its present state and will treat storm water from the site with a subsurface storm water infiltration system. c. The city council previously approved similar wetland buffer variances for three developments near this proposal. 33. Kiine Nissan May 1, 2002 Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 50-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the northeast lot line and a 25-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the remaining wetland edge. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer ' and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a building permit. bo Submitting a revised grading plan showing compliance with the required wetland dedications. The grading plan shall include grading to within 10 feet of the wetland edge on the side where the 50-foot buffer is required, with restoration of the remaining 40 feet of wetland buffer consisting of native plantings to be approved by staff and the watershed distdct (see landscape requirement below). Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the wetland- protection buffer on the northeast side of the site and for the 25-foot buffer in the other ' wetland buffer areas. This plan shall be subject to staff and watershed district approval. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped areas, excluding the wetland protection buffer. d. Installing signs at the edge of the wetland-protection buffer which prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Submitting a signed maintenance agreement to the Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed Distdct and the city for maintenance of the subsurface storm water infiltration system that accepts responsibility for any necessary maintenance and upkeep of the system. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 32 Kline Nissan May 1, 2002 Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rick Kline, of Kline Auto Wodd, applied for a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a new Nissan dealership; WHEREAS, this permit applies to properties at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Ddve. The property identification numbers are 03-29-22-22-0002 and 03-29-22-22-0003. The legal description is: Tract UA", Registered Land Survey No. 15, on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles within and for said County, except that part lying easterly of a line beginning at a point on the north line of said Tract 1494.91 feet west of the northeast comer of said Tract; thence southeasterly at an angle of 56 degrees, 43 minutes with said north line 445.39 feet; thence at an angle of 79 degrees 39 minutes to the dght 188.7 feet to a point on the south line of said Tract 1303.88 feet west from the southeast comer of said Tract, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Torrens Certificate Number: 171003. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 6, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On , the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. Kiine Nissan 33 May 1, 2002 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The applicant shall not load or unload vehicles on public right-of-way. 4. Cars can only be parked on designated paved surfaces. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 34 Kline Nissan May 1, 2002