Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2002MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 20, 2002, 8:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 6, 2002 5. Public Hearing a. Dearborn Meadow (,Castle Avenue) 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (M-1 to R-3(M)) 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 3. Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. Home Occupation License (Sewing Business) - 2492 Highwood Avenue b. Lexus Dealership Conditional Use Permit Revision - 3000 Maplewood Drive c. Easement Vacation (Tillges Medical Office Building) - Hazelwood Street 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. May 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. May 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. June 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations Annual Tour ' July 29? Upcoming Items 1. Hmong Alliance Church Expansion - McMenemy Street 2. Sinclair Station Remodeling - Larpenteur Avenue 11. Adjournment WELCO__.M_E_ TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 6. 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. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. 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, MAY 6, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Rossbach called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Staff Present: Mary Dierich Present Lorraine Fischer Absent Matt Ledvina Present Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Paul Mueller Absent Gary Pearson Present from 7:08 - 8:30 p.m. William Rossbach Present Dale Trippler Absent Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Eisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVALOF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -Dierich, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach IV. The motion is passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Monahan-Junek had a change on page 29, in the sixth paragraph. Please change the first sentence to read Ms. Monahan-Junek wants people to understand her heart hurts too when she sees a nice piece of property being developed. Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 15, 2002. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the minutes with changes for April 15, 2002. Commissioner Monahan-Junek seconded. Ayes -Dierich, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach Abstention - Pearson The motion is passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 2003 - 2007 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan Mr. Roberts presented the report for 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. There was a 25-minute video shown indicating the improvements that staff believes are needed in Maplewood over the next five years. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach The motion is passed. VI. This item goes to the city council on May 13, 2002. NEW BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit- Over-sized Accessory Building (Schlomka)- 1481 Henry Lane Ms. Finwall said Gary Schlomka is proposing to construct at 48-foot by 66-foot (3,168 square foot), 18.5-foot high metal pole barn on his property at 1481 Henry Lane. The pole barn will be used to store hay and agricultural-related equipment used to harvest hay. He also would store his personal vehicles in the proposed pole barn. Ms. Finwall said 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 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. Ms. Finwall said 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. If the city council approves the CUP, Mr. Schlomka will obtain his building permit and proceed. If denied, Mr. Schlomka must remove the pole barn. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -3- Ms. Finwall said Mr. Schlomka repairs and sells farm equipment, boats, and recreational vehicles from this site. He also sells wood. His father started these activities there 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. Ms. Finwall said 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. Mr. Schlomka's property is zoned Farm Residence, as are the 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. Ms. Finwall said 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 states that "a nonconforming use existing and 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. Ms. Finwall said the proposed pole barn would be smaller than two recently approved pole barns. It will be located on a 30-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 nearer cleaner property. Also, all of the neighbors that responded to the city's survey were in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Dierich asked staff about the clean up of the propertY. She said there are a lot of old oil drums on the property that seem to her to be hazardous because they are rusted. She wonders how the city proposes these items be cleaned up and where it will all go? And will there be some type of supervision of the clean up as well? Ms. Finwall said the supervision of the clean up has not been examined closely. The city hopes Mr. Schlomka takes all needed measures to remove all the materials. Commissioner Ledvina asked if Mr. Schlomka would be able to store boats in the new pole barn? Ms. Finwall said the pole barn shall not be used for the boat business, only personal boats. The conditions of the CUP state Mr. Schlomka cannot operate a business in the pole barn. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -4- Commissioner Dierich said she knows the repairing of the boats is a nonconforming use but she asked if the sale of the boats was considered a nonconforming use at this point or does that require a separate permit to be selling boats in a residential neighborhood like that? Ms. Finwall said it has been going on for the last 45 years so it is considered a nonconforming use and is grandfathered in. The applicant, Larry Schlomka at 1481 Henry Lane, son of Gary Schlomka, addressed the planning commission. Mr. Schlomka said the pole barn would be 48' X 66' and 3,072 square feet. The staff records indicate that Gary Schlomka sells boats at 1481 Henry Lane and it should be 1461 Henry Large. Gary Schlomka owns approximately 40 acres, verses the 30 acres staff noted. Staff also states in the staff report that there is junk dumped on Ramsey County Open Space Fish Creek property. That junk existed on the property when it was bought by Ramsey County. No new junk has been dumped on the property. This is a dead end street with only one property that can see this area and it is Gary Schlomka's niece. In the last 20 years a bunkhouse, cattle barn, machine shed, and a railroad car that was used for a storage shed were removed from the property. The property is slowly getting cleaned up. He said he just moved into the home at 1481 Henry Lane in September 2001. Commissioner Pearson asked the applicant what would be a reason'able time period to clean up all the junk on the property? Mr. Schlomka said there are three generations of junk on the property. He is going to get a few dumpsters on the property and take the stuff to a scrap yard and recycle place. In the past they have hauled junk into South St. Paul to different scrap yards. As far as a time frame, he said that one-year would not be enough time. Commissioner Pearson said the staff is looking at a one-year renewal for the conditional use permit and should the staff be looking at a longer time period than one year? Ms. Finwall said the standard condition is that a conditional use permit should be reviewed in one year. However, upon that review it can be extended an additional year or more. Commissioner Pearson asked if that would be conditioned upon visible progress? Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Rossbach asked if the 30 or 40 acres that are owned are one parcel or a couple of parcels of land? Mr. Schlomka said the area that is being discussed contains a couple of different parcels. He would assume that is where the 30 acres verses the 40 acres is coming from. The Ramsey County Open Space and Fish Creek divide it. Chairperson Rossbach asked the applicant if the address of 1481 Henry Lane is incorrect for 30 acres? He asked if the applicant were selling the property would it be for 30 or 40 acres? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -5- Mr. Schlomka said if he was going to be selling the property at 1481 Henry Lane it would be approximately 10 acres. There also is a separate 12-acre parcel next to Fish Creek and approximately less than 10 acres adjoining the 1481 Henry Lane. How it is sold could go a lot of different ways. Chairperson Rossbach said it may not be a large issue, but if staff is saying that this is the property the city is giving the conditional use permit for, and part of it has to deal with the size of the property, he just wants to make clear how large the property is that staff is talking about. Mr. Schlomka said the property that Gary Schlomka owns is approximately 40 acres. The property has been bought in different parcels over the years. The Schlomka family has always owned 1481 Henry Lane. The other property belonged to his grandmother's family the Polski family. 1481 Henry Lane adjoined the Polski property and that is why there are different parcels right now. Chairperson Rossbach said he would like to see a time frame set so when the city council reviews this in one year they can see that something has happened. Just so everyone involved has something in mind when talking about cleanup process. Mr. Schlomka said if this is approved the first thing to come down is the equipment from the shed that is broken down and moved into the new shed. Then the next process is taking the broken sheds down. That will be a summer project just for that to be done. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if number 3 of the recommendations applies only to 1481 Henry Lane or to both 1461 and 1481 Henry Lane? Ms. Finwall said the conditional use permit pertains only to 1481 Henry Lane; however, Mr. Schlomka is planning on removing the old automobiles that have been dumped in the Fisk Creek area over 45 years ago, back when his father owned the land. Commissioner Pearson said there is an awful lot of stuff lying on 1481 Henry Lane. Gary Schlomka at 1461 Henry Lane, addressed the planning commission. He said the cars in the Fisk Creek area have been there since the Korean War and there are trees growing through some of them. That is going to be a major job cutting through the cars to get them out of there. Commissioner Pearson asked if the junk at 1461 Henry Lane will also be removed? Gary Schlomka said that is correct. Commissioner Dierich said she is not clear regarding the selling of boats on the property. It is happening at 1461 Henry Lane, but the repair of the boats is happening at 1481 Henry Lane? The boats are lined up along the freeway at 1461 Henry Lane. Gary Schlomka said the repairs go on in his garage at 1461 Henry Lane. Commissioner Dierich asked if the CUP is for 1481 Henry Lane? ! I T · -r- ..... 1' Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -6- Ms. Finwall said that is correct. The repair and sale of boats has been ongoing at both properties for many years. Gary Schlomka said he parks the boats along the freeway to sell and brings the boats to the garage at 1461 and 1481 Henry Lane to work on them. Commissioner Dierich said her understanding is that a CUP goes with the land and she wants to be clear on this. Ms. Finwall said the nonconforming use is grand fathered in until such time as it is expanded. It is staff's concern that it may expand into the pole barn. Commissioner Ledvina recommended approval of the resolution on pages 13 and 14 of the staff report. This recommendation is for a conditional use permit for the construction of a 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. The changes in this recommendation are in bold. This permit shall be 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 applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to resuming construction of the pole barn. Within two years of the issuance of the CUP, 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 dumped in the Ramsey County Open Space Fish Creek area to the north as well as old vehicles. 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. 5. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach The motion is passed. Mr. Roberts said this goes to the city council Tuesday, May 28, 2002. Chairperson Rossbach stated that Commissioner Pearson just told him he had to leave the meeting at 8:30 a.m. and this puts the planning commission in a position of having no quorum. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 05-06-02 Mr. Roberts said this means the commission can move items forward with discussion but without an official recommendation to the city council. This will be noted in the minutes to follow. Because of the time limits and the 60-day rule, the items will be moved along without an official recommendation from the planning commission. b. House Moving Request (Crockett) - Sylvan Street Mr. Roberts said 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. The house is one story with a white stucco exterior. 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. Mr. Roberts said 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. Mr. Roberts said Nick Carver, the Assistant Building Official, inspected the house. His 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 the current code standards and repairing and painting the exterior of the house. ' 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. 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. Staff surveyed 22 property owners within 350 feet of the site. There were eight replies, five were opposed to the request and three had comments that were included in the staff report. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if this building will have to meet all new construction standards? Mr. Roberts said that is correct. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if a detached garage is acceptable for new construction? Mr. Roberts said yes, there is no code requirement for a detached or attached garage. ......... -r ! T Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -8- Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the windows will be up to code and will the windows be egress windows? Mr. Roberts said the current windows do not meet the egress standards and they would have to be changed to meet the standards. The applicant, Bart Crockett of 5887 Red Pine Boulevard in White Bear Lake, addressed the commission. Mr. Crockett said he has spoken to staff a number of times to see if this is a feasible project not and how much work would be involved. He believes this is a worthwhile project and he would like to ease the neighbors concerns. He has a mother-in-law who lives up north who recently put her husband into a nursing home and she has expressed interest in living in the home. If she does not, he will have to see how the market is doing to determine if it will be a rental property of if he will sell the property. Chairperson Rossbach asked the applicant if he has read and understood the conditions in the staff report? He asked if the applicant had any problems with the recommendations that staff has made? Mr. Crockett said he understood the report and has no problems with the conditions. Commissioner Ledvina asked which direction the front door will face? Mr. Crockett said the front door will face south. Commissioner Ledvina said the applicant is showing the house being placed 10 feet from the north property line and he noticed the front door on the house to the north is very close to that property line. Is there any possibility of moving the house further to the south to give more separation between the existing home to the north? Mr. Crockett said he is sure there is a way. He contacted Xcel Energy and got the setback requirements for power lines. He said there is a power line that runs east west. He believes it is 7.8 feet for the setback. As the house is shoWn the setback is 15 feet. Chairperson Rossbach said there were a number of comments from the neighborhood survey that staff sent out regarding the appearance of the house. Did the photos generate the comments or did the neighbors actually go out and look at the house? Mr. Roberts said the photos in the neighborhood survey generated most of the comments and one neighbor called and said he drove out and saw the house in the storage facility. Commissioner Ledvina unofficially recommended the approval to move a one-story stucco house and a detached garage for Bart Crockett to the lot south of 1754 Sylvan Street. This approval shall be subject to the applicant doing the following: Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 05-06-02 1. Submit the following to the city for approval before the city issues a building permit: a. An irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow for 11/2 times the estimated cost of completing the construction, including all yard work and exterior remodeling. The applicant shall complete the work within 90 days of the city issuing the permit. The Director of Community Development may extend this deadline for sixty-(60)-days if there 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 and erosion control plan to the city engineer. This plan shall show that the proposed house location and grades will not cause any adverse effects or cause any drainage problems for nearby properties. The city shall not issue a moving permit until the city engineer approves these plans and the construction shall follow these 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 agreement 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 permit. This agreement would allow the city the right to complete the construction required by code or demolish and remove the structure. The city attorney shall prepare this agreement. (Code requirement). 3. The applicant shall complete and redash the stucco, reshingle the roof, replace and paint the trim and remove or replace the awnings. The applicant also shall meet all the requirements of the city's building inspection department. 4. Move the house 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). 5. Place the house ten feet from the north property line. The applicant shall place the house to the furthest extent from the north property line that is allowable based on restrictions for the easement for the power line located on the property. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes - only for items 1-4 are Dierich, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach Ayes - only for item 5 are Ledvina, Rossbach Nays - only for item 5 are Dierich, Monahan-Junek Commissioner Dierich was not comfortable telling the landowner where he has to place his house on the lot. And as it was mentioned earlier if it were new construction he could put the house anywhere on the lot he wanted to. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -10- Commissioner Ledvina said this house is coming into this neighborhood. There is a separate approval process and he thinks there is input that the planning commission is able to have to make sure that the house is appropriate for this site. He can see Ms. Dierich's point, but given the scenario he thinks it is important to review it and do what the commission can for the existing neighbors. Commissioner Dierich said she agrees with Mr. Ledvina and hopefully the landowner will make that choice but she can understand his wish not to put the house near the power lines. Chairperson Rossbach said due to lack of a quorum the voting was unofficial but this information will be passed onto the city council. Mr. Roberts said this request goes to the city council on Tuesday, May 28, 2002. c, Kline Nissan Vehicle Dealership - 3100 Maplewood Drive Ms. Finwall said Rick Kline, of Kline Auto World, 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 is located at the southeast corner 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. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A 75-foot wetland buffer variance. The Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed District has classified the wetland on the site as a Class 1 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). (This will be reviewed by the Community Design Review Board on May 14, 2002). The wetland on the proposed Nissan site, which is a Class 1 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 Karl 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 buckthorn. 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 1 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -11- 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. On April 4, 2002, the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District 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. 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. They 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 alternative, 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). The council granted 75-foot buffer variances for the neighboring auto dealerships. It does not seem warranted, however, to grant such a large variance 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, but 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. 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 for 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. 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). Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -12- 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. 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. 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. Commissioner Ledvina said the plans show a delineation of the wetland but he did not find anything that described who had completed the delineation and when it was done. Ms. Finwall said Sunde Engineering conducted the wetland delineation as well as the Watershed District confirming the engineering firm's delineation. Commissioner Ledvina asked if it is indicated on Sunde's site plan dated August of 2001 ? Ms. Finwall said she would have to verify that information. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if they had any information on the fluctuation of the water level in the pond adjacent to the wetland? It appears that it is 871 feet but it is hard to tell in terms of what the existing water level is. The reason for his question is he is concerned about the effect of ground water on the seepage design for the storm water plan. Chuck Ahl, city engineer, said based on the information on this plan, staff has relied on the Watershed District for a lot of the technical expertise. Mr. Ledvina brings up a point with infiltration types of devices. Staff's review, in coordination with the Watershed District, indicated that the water levels in this area are at 871 feet. However, if you look at the overall specifics of the infiltration types of devices, they are extremely wide at points up to 20-feet wide and only 5 feet of depth. The bottom being down at 876 feet so staff is talking about some shallow area infiltration devices that will be using probably only 3 or 4 feet in there but with the extra width the infiltration will occur. Commissioner Ledvina said looking at the drawings he sees 869.5 feet as the base elevation of the infiltration zones and they are 4~ feet by 20 feet as indicated. Mr. Ahl said one of the conditions of the Watershed District as well was that the bottom elevation of the infiltration trench should be no lower than two feet above the water level of nearby wetlands. Staff feels the extra width and the extensive length of those infiltration trenches creates a very solidly engineered plan and it is reasonable to assume it will function well. Chairperson Rossbach asked what were the wetland buffers before the current buffers were put in place? Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 05-06-02 Mr. Roberts said he believed either 10 or 20 feet. Commissioner Ledvina said in the engineering memorandum on page 28 of the staff report there is reference to the Lexus Dealership. He thinks it should be the Volvo Dealership with the similar type of infiltration system. Is this correct? Ms. Finwall said correct, the Volvo Dealership has the infiltration system. Jeff Stearns, who is the Vice President and C.E.O. of Kline Volvo and resides at 2052 Boulder Road in Chanhassen, addressed the commission. Four years ago when he came to Maplewood to build the Volvo dealership, they dealt with the setbacks and the parking issues of the dealership, so he is familiar with how the process works. Everything is fine with him except for the recommended increased setbacks. He has lived up to his word over the last four years by putting in an award winning infiltration system in the Volvo building. He is concerned as the commission is about the wetlands. He is also concerned about some issues that came up four years ago. One is the size of the dealership and how they were operating back then, i.e. parking on the grass. Mr. Stearns said they have now improved on the parking situation. They have had one violation that was only a warning and they have not had a violation on the parking for the past four years. He would like to mention that the current facility is on the same acreage that he is moving this dealership to. For the amount of money he spent for that property he needs every bit of square footage that he can get. As far as the setbacks, another issue that came up a few years ago is unloading cars off the trucks and keeping them off of Highway 61. He is just as upset about the unloading of vehicles as everyone else because he lives and breathes next to Lexus and he knows what congestion that can cause when those trucks unload there. Number one, they go flying by his dealership and don't stop. The way the current plans of the new building are they need those setbacks to be at 25 feet to the wetland because those trucks are going to come in on the front side. They have set it up so the trucks can pull around so they would never have to unload on Highway 61. Part of the issue for him at this meeting is the setback issue. As far as the other issues with the car dealership, he has gotten Nissan to approve two beautiful entryways into the facility. One will face Highway 61 and there will be another one that will face Highway 694 or County Road D. With a car dealership, display is very important and that gets him back to the setbacks. The frontage of the building will be off of Highway 61 and County Road D and the setback is very concerning to him. Mr. Stearns said he noticed that the Watershed District approved the 25-foot setback. They are the experts so he is going by what they said, no offense to staff. He knows there has been some comparison with the Lexus dealership and with Volvo as far as the size of the building. It is a two- story building so that does add square footage, but Nissan is a higher volume franchise than Lexus or Volvo. They sell twice as many Nissan cars as those two dealerships. He wishes he could afford all the property that the Toyota dealership has. He wants to live up to his promise that he gave four years ago. He does not want to park cars on the grass, he wants to be a good neighbor so he just asks that the commission take a look at the setback. He agrees with Ms. Finwall with the appearance of the south side of the building. He has discussed possibly putting windows on that side of the building above the service area. This would bring more light into the service area and it would be a better working environment for the techs inside. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -14- Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Stearns if they have had any issues with maintaining the storm water management system at the Volvo dealership? He is interested in how that has worked out. Mr. Stearns said the system has worked fabulous. The requirements that were made by the city to have the dealership maintain and clean the system have worked out fine. They have been checked once and it has been cleaned twice. It is an award winning system and a number of other cities have looked at this system. It is fabulous at protecting the wetlands and the property. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they could comment on Lieutenant Banick's report? Ms. Finwall said Lieutenant Banick had some concerns about the design of the parking lot. He believes that the location of this development and the proximity to the freeway will promote vehicle theft. The automobile dealerships generate a fair amount of police activity for the police department. Commissioner Dierich asked if staff made any changes or suggestions with this plan based on his report? Ms. Finwall said staff did not require any changes. The memo is intended to inform the planning commission of the police concerns. Commissioner Dierich said she wanted to thank the staff for the excellent job they did on this report. To date it is the most complete and thorough job she has seen on a planning commission report. Commissioner Ledvina stated he has strong concerns about the wetland delineation. In his experience he has found that wetland delineations usually follow contours, this map shows a wetland elevation as high as 876 feet in the southwest corner of the project. On the northeast side of the site it shows an elevation that is 871 feet and is not delineated as a wetland. He is having a hard time understanding how this was delineated in understands that the process also involves determination of vegetation and that this way. He is a significant element. He would suggest that a major part of the eastern part of the site, essentially the wetland delineation, is the property line. From what he sees, the wetland goes well into the property along the east side. He is having a hard time rectifying what he sees on the ground and the map and what he sees as the edge of the delineated wetland. He says he will be skeptical until he can see a professional report that shows him the level of expertise that was involved in it. Jack Grotkin, Vice President of RJ Ryan Construction at 1100 Mendota Heights Road in Mendota Heights, addressed the commission. Mr. Grotkin said the actual delineation was performed by Advanced Soils and Engineering. The survey is done after the delineation is marked and is done by a soils company along with a geologist. They go out and look at the soils and grasses and not just the elevations. Once a registered engineer marks them, the flags are put onto the survey, which was done by Sunde Engineering. It is actually two different companies that performed the wetland delineation and his company has the report. Chairperson Rossbach asked staff what the Watershed District does? Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 05-06-02 Mr. Ahl said the Watershed District's role in the city's area is to review and monitor those reports. They send technicians out. Because of the quality of the wetland they will confirm that and take spot checks. Rather than have a duplicate service, city staff relies on the Watershed District for that wetland analysis. The city does not have that type of expertise on staff. Mr. Ahl said the Watershed District has hydrologists on staff and they do delineations. They enforce the wetland conservation act laws, which govern wetlands in our area. In this case the city is relying on their expertise to say this is the edge of the delineated wetland and that this buffer is appropriate. Chairperson Rossbach asked staff if this is something that has already happened or it would happen after this gets approved? Mr. Ahl said staff's understanding is that they have issued preliminary approval of this site plan pending the special conditions that are in the watershed district permit. They include the confirmation of the delineation and he assumes that report is currently being reviewed at the Watershed District. Chairperson Rossbach asked staff what happens when they go out to do their final delineation and they determine it is different than the plan submitted. Do we then bump our buffer to follow whatever they have determined to be the new delineated wetland? Mr. Roberts said if the Watershed District makes a determination that they do not agree with the wetland as delineated by the applicantJstaff, they would require a change to the setback. If it shifts five or ten feet and the city requires a 25-foot buffer, the 25-foot buffer will have to remain, whether it shifts one way or the other. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks knowing that it was recently surveyed as of last fall helps him. It also helps that there is a correction process if indeed there is a disagreement on the actual placement of the wetland line. Chairperson Rossbach said that Mr. Stearns commented earlier when the two of them were talking before the meeting that he recognized Mr. Rossbach from four years ago. What he may or may not remember is that Mr. Rossbach was not happy with the proposal back then. He voted against it because he felt the city would be giving away too much of the wetland buffer. There has been a lot of discussion with staff and the commission since then having to do with the buffers. The commission will be glad when they get done with this stretch of Highway 61 because of the wetland buffer decisions. For the record, he commented that he has no problem with staff's recommendation. He is going to vote for it, but he would not be in favor of reducing the buffer for this project. He still feels very strongly that the city needs to do as much as possible to protect the wetlands. He has modified his opinion over the years in accepting more of the Watershed District's thoughts that there is not a very good buffer there now and the city will get a better buffer out of the deal. The wetland to the north is the highest class of wetlands and he is not willing to allow any more of a buffer area be removed than they have to. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -16- Chairperson Rossbach unofficially moved that the city council adopt the wetland buffer setback variance resolution on pages 31 and 32 of the staff report, approving a 50-foot wetland buffer variance 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 Drive. Approval is based on the following findings: a. Strict 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 variance would be in keeping with the spirit 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. Co The city council previously approved similar wetland developments near this proposal. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: ac buffer variances for three 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 district. 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. eo 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/Washington 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. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 05-06-02 Chairperson Rossbach unofficially moved that the city council adopt the resolution on pages 33 and 34 of the staff report, 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: a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. b. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. c. The 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 shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Dierich unofficially seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Monahan-Junek, Rossbach Nays- Ledvina Commissioner Ledvina said the reason he voted nay is that he has a concern about the wetland delineation. That could be alleviated by more information, but at this point he can't vote for it. He feels that this is the highest quality wetland that the city has and the city has to do whatever they can to protect it. The site plan actually shows activities within the buffer, like the displaying of cars. Although he realizes that staff would prevent the applicant from building those display areas in the buffer area. Commissioner Ledvina said he recognizes that the Watershed District has placed a condition on the construction of the features but he does not know what happens to the site plan if they have to increase the elevation by two feet perhaps to maintain the separation between the ground water and the base of those seepage structures. He would commend the applicant for going the extra mile and making the proposal for the infiltration system, and he thinks it is very appropriate that they do so. More information is necessary for him to make a more informed decision in this regard. Chairperson Rossbach said this is an unofficial vote and this is strictly for information for the city council. They will make the decision at their meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 2002. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-06-02 -18- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS April 22, 2002, Mr. Ledvina was unable to represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. The street vacation of Reaney Avenue proposed by Cardinal Realty passed ayes all. The second item was the code amendment BC(M) the second reading for the Chili's and the Outback Restaurant. b. May 13, 2002, Mr. Ledvina will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. The Gladstone Park Development on English Street will be discussed. c. Tuesday, May 28, 2002, Mr. Rossbach will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour - July 29, 2002 Mr. Roberts said the annual tour is tentatively scheduled for Monday, July 29, 2002. Members should think about how many stops they want to make, areas they would like to visit, and who should be included on the tour. Mr. Roberts will reserve the bus for this date but other ideas will be discussed again at a later date. Commissioner Ledvina said he feels it is a good idea to have other commissions there in a social setting. It is a good opportunity to have everybody together for the tour. b. May 20, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting Start time change from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Roberts stated the city council would be holding a meeting until 8:00 p.m. Therefore, the planning commission meeting will start at 8:00 p.m., which is an hour later than usual. 2. Tentative Items to be discussed will be: a. Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue). b. Home Occupation License (Sewing Business) - 2492 Highwood Avenue. c. Lexus Dealership Expansion - 3000 Maplewood Drive (may be an item). d. Hmong Alliance Church Expansion - McMenemy Street (may be an item). XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Dearbom Meadow Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue May 15, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to develop nine townhouses (in four twinhomes and one single unit) in a development called Dearborn Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 15-22. A homeowners' assoCiation would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. (See the elevations on page 24 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve: A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 17 and 18.) 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 16. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a private driveway. 4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units. (See the map on page 19.) 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. City staff also is proposing to change the zoning and land use plan designations for two areas next to the proposed development. These changes would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). BACKGROUND On July 22, 1985, the city approved a plan amendment and a rezoning for the property between Castle and Cope Avenues, east of the property at 1930 Castle AVenue. The land use plan change was from RL (Iow-density residential) to BW (business warehouse) and RM (medium- density residential). The zoning map change was from R-1 (single dwellings) and BC (business commercial) to M-1 (light manufacturing) and P,-2 (single and double dwellings). These changes were required by the distdct court after Hillcrest Development sued the .city to overturn a zoning map change from BC to R-1 that the council made on September 12, 1983. The court decision is the basis for the current land use and zoning designations in the area. On April 17, 2000, the planning commission considered Mr. Ackerman's requests for a 10-unit townhouse development. The commission tabled action on the proposed plans to allow the developer's engineer to review the drainage patterns in the area. This was to insure that the proposed development would not increase storm water runoff onto adjacent properties. On May 15, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan and zoning map changes and the lot-area and lot-width variances for the 10-unit proposal. For the preliminary plat, the commission split their vote four to four. On May 23, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council deny the 10-unit proposal. The board felt that the site was too dense based on the configuration of the buildings. They felt that 15 feet between structures was too little and that the southerly buildings should be reoriented to face north with their backyards butting up to the backyards to the south. After much discussion and the recommendation from these meetings, Mr. Ackerman withdrew his development requests before staff sent the 10-unit proposal to the city council. DISCUSSION Land use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed plat, Mr. Ackerman wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. These changes would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). (See the existing land use plan map on page 17 and the proposed land use plan map on page 18.) The city intends R-2 areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings. For M-1 areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, day care centers, retail businesses, warehousing and light manufacturing operations. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. They include: · Provide for ordedy development. · Minimize conflicts between land uses. · Provide a wide vadety of housing types. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. · Include a variety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. · Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · 'The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. · Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 2 An advantage of this proposal is that an area that the city once thought would be good for commercial or light industrial development would become residential. This is especially beneficial to the existing nearby residential properties. Having twinhomes near existing residences should be better neighbors than a commercial or a manufacturing use that the existing land use and zoning designations would allow. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be near Highway 36 and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Cardage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Density As proposed, the nine units on the 2.11-acre site means there would be 4.27 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development. In addition, the proposed change would expand the residential uses on a street that is now primarily used by the existing homes in this area. Thus, the proposal meets the goals in the comprehensive plan by having similar uses fronting on the same street. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 36-438(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments 'provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. o The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the nine-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because of the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. ^ homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. In this case, the proposal would have nine townhouse units in five buildings. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $200,000. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the nine units on the 2.11-acre site means there would be 4.27 units per acre (an average of 10,212 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Maplewood has zoned the properties on the north side of Cope Avenue R-2 (single and double dwellings). This is the zoning proposed with this request for undeveloped land between Cope and Castle Avenues. The city requires each single dwelling lot in this zoning district to have at least 60 feet of frontage and be at least 7,500 square feet in area. Double dwellings in this district are to have 120 feet of street frontage and be at least 12,000 square feet in area. The existing lots on the north side of Cope Avenue meet or exceed these standards. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Castle and Cope Avenues to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the city designed and built the storm sewer in Cope Avenue to accommodate drainage from a large area north of Cope Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading. For this 2.11-acre site, the ordinance requires that at least 21 large trees remain. The plans show the removal of 29 large trees (ash, oak and elm), but they would preserve eight existing trees. The proposed landscape plan (page 22) shows the developer planting 11 spruce trees and 10 maple trees. (As a point of clarification, the developer would remove more than 29 trees. Other than the 29 "quality" trees, the applicant would remove many box elder and cottonwoods.) Wetland Ordinance The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the current development proposal and has issued Mr. Ackerman a permit. (See their comments in the memo on page 34.) They have classified the wetland on proposed Outlot A as a Class Five Wetland. These are the wetlands that humans have impacted the most and have the least diverse types of vegetation and the least community resource significance. This wetland classification does not require a buffer area. However, the building foundations must be at least ten feet from the edge of the wetland. The proposed grading plan (on page 20) meets these requirements. 4 Drainage Concerns Several neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. The neighbors also have told staff that there has been an on going drainage problem for the area between Cope and Castle Avenues for several years. Specifically, there are properties that have Iow areas that tend to collect storm water and this water does not drain off quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm- water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from the Assistant City Engineer starting on page 32.) Since the planning commission last reviewed this proposal in 2000, the developer has revised the grading plan. He is now proposing to expand the wetland to form a larger area for the collection of storm water. As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the pdvate driveways, and the drainage from the undeveloped area east of the site, going into the expanded ponding area. The developer is proposing that the overflow from the pond go into new and existing storm sewer pipes that connect to the city drainage system in Cope Avenue. Based on the latest plans, the developer's engineer provided the City Engineer with information and calculations about the storm water. These show that this project will actually reduce the amount of storm water running off the site. Building Design The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with brick veneer on the fronts, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the drawings on page 24.) Landscaping The proposed plans keep many of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site and near the wetland. As proposed, the developer would plant 21 trees on the site. These include a row of black-hills spruce along the south property line and 10 maple trees on the site, primarily at the front comer of each unit near the driveway. The landscape plan (page 23) also shows the proposed plantings around each unit that will include a spirea, junipers, dogwoods and arborvitaes. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. The maple trees must be at least 2 1/~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant John Banick of the Maplewood Police Department had two concerns with this proposal. They include that this development would add traffic in the neighborhood and to the intersection of White Bear and Cope Avenues. He also questioned if emergency vehicles (including fire trucks) would have the necessary room to turn around or back out after a call. 5 Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the road is back far enough for proper snow removal to maintain proper turning radius. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 35. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Approve the resolution on page 36. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. Approve the resolution starting on page 38. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Dearborn Meadow development on the south side of Castle Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide. 6 (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated May 14, 2002. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the townhouses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. 6. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Dearborn Meadow preliminary plat (received by the city on April 24, 2002). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. f. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineers approval. 7 g. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated May '14, 2002 and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and ddveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development runoff. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) (3) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. Design of the sanitary sewer allowing for the unrestricted access to the sanitary sewer in the development from the undeveloped properties adjacent to the site (primarily to the east). 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the pdvate street as Castle Place and label Castle Street as Castle Avenue on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. e. Provide easements to allow for unrestricted access to the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main in the development from the undeveloped parcel to the east. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct for grading. 8. 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. 9.* Submitting 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 pdvate utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the plans date-stamped April 24, 2002 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and ddveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1)The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2)The grading plan shall: (3)* (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) 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. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (2) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of people mowing into the pond, (3) The maple trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 24, 2002 shall remain on the plan. 10 (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the wetland easement). (6) No landscaping shall take place in the Castle Avenue boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. d. Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. 3. Complete the follow ng before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all intedor driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debds or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. f. Provide ddveway turn arounds for Lots 1 and 2 on Castle Avenue. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 11 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 44 properties within 350 feet of this site. was for the proposal, one was against and one had comments. Of the three replies, one For Please see the letter from Pat Kinney on page 31. Objections No - please see in your files about drainage problems and building over a natural holding pond - you have all previous maps and letters - also please see your topo maps. (Themnes - Castle Avenue) Comments Because of the nursing home next to us, we are at the bottom of a dam, so to speak. The run-off water from the property in question has nowhere else to go. Therefore, in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, we feel that single dwelling homes would be the most appropriate and cause the least problems as far as drainage is concerned. We also hope that whatever is built on this property be of equal (or greater) value as the existing homes in this area and not be public (government) assisted housing. (Gehrke- 1917 Cope Avenue) 12 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.11 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Home Depot across Highway 36 Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Existing Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the citY council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on Apdl 24, 2002. State law requires the city to take action on this request by June 24, 2002, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 13 p:sec 1 l~dearborn 2002 (9).mem Attachments: !. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan (Existing) 4. Land Use Plan (Proposed) 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Typical Unit Landscape Plan 10. Proposed Building Elevations 11. Applicant's Plan Amendment Statement 12. Applicant's PUD Statement 13. Proposed Preliminary Plat (2000) 14. Site Photos 15. Letter from Pat Kinney date-stamped May 8, 2002 16. Comments from Chris Cavett 17. Watershed District Comments 18. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (M-1 to R-2) 19. Rezoning Resolution (M-1 to R-2) 20. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 21. Project Plans (separate attachments) 14 Attachment 1 A~.. NORTH SAINT PAUL O' 1700' 3400' RI:~k'WOOD AVF.. ./ 2'~ SCALE R~=I. EYA~ NORTH SAINT ~ PAUL LOCATION MAP 15 I ! T--' .......... ---F .............. --!- .... T Attachment 2 -!~ ~--~-~-I- COPE AVENUE 7.~ ~ 5 · AVE _m ...... ~-~1 5 KEY ' Ri: SINGLE DWELLINGS R2: SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL M_I = LIGHT MANUFAC' ~ (~) ~.~7.3~-' LAURIE R t3E t a,I, SZ I$,Z.38 16 Attachment 3 E R-3' e E :~rchan~e ,y 36 . rincipal 1 ~1'"1 m~'terill -~rest~ I I-2 ~ KEY = Ri = SINGLE DWELLINGS ~ R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS ~ R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL , R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL Mi = LIGHT MANUFACTURING W = WATER (EXISTING) Attachment 4 .High y'36 '~rchan rinCipal M-1 kjor Frest __ arterial ~ KEY .----_ Ri = SINGLE DWELLINGS ~ R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS I~l R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL · R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL M1 -- LIGHT MANUFACTURING , W = WATER Attachment 5 HIGHWAY 36 CASTLE AVENUE I :! :', I ALLEY I I [ 1949 I-- C 0 P E A V~.Ell~,'~tj E Attachment 6 Attachment 7 HIGHWAY 36 CASTLE AVENUE ...... I 24 I 25 If-.'~' ~-J--~ ~ ~ ~ ,m~ ~ 18 I 19 I I ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '~ .~1 I ~ ~ . - I ~ ~. ~,,~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~.o ~ ~. - ~-~ _ ~_ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ .... _ _ _ _l _ _ _ -I- - - T - - -I .... 7 I ~ - - ~ ~-- ,, ~ .... 1- - - 24 I 25 I I I ~ , ~ I / ~ I ~ ] I I I I I ~ , 1~1953z~= ~ i i i ~o , :: , ~N co~ ~, PROPOSED UTILITY 21 PLAN ~.2d-oz Attachment 8 Attachment 9 ............... Attachm, ~i 10 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 24 Attachment 11 COMPREHENSWE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION What is the intended use of the property should the City approve the request to change the land use classification of this site from M-1 (light' commercial & manufacturing) to R3-M (medium density residential)? The intended use of the subject property, ifa change to a residential land use classification is approved, is to construct a town home community of 9 dwelling units consisting of 4 twins and 1 individual structure. The units would be large single level units with basements and attached two car garages. Each homeowner would own their individual unit and only a small strip of land around its perimeter. The remainder of the land, including all of the roads and drainage areas, would be owned and maintained by an owners association. The intended target consumers for these units are people who desire independent living with very little outside maintenance in a location that is close to varied retail services and easily accessible to major public transportation systems such as freeways and bus routes. Why should the City approve the request to change the land use classification of this site from M-1 (light commercial & manufacturing) to R3-M (medium density residential)? The primary reason why the City should approve a change to a residential land use for the subject property is because the land surrounding the site is already being used for residential purposes. Minimizing conflicts between land uses and providing for orderly development are two goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Changing the land use designation to provide for a residential use would be in agreement with these goals. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the provision ora variety of housing types for all residents including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, and single-family housing. While the intended use of this site is not the exact same residential use as the adjoining property, a transition fi'om one residential use to another residential use would have a much smaller economic and social impact on existing properties than developing the site in accordance with the current land use designation which allows for offices, clinics, day care centers, retail businesses, warehousing, and light manufacturing. APR 2 2OO2 RECEIVED 25 Attachment 12 P.U.D. APPLICATION What is the intended use of the property should the City approve this P.U.D.? See Comprehensive Plan amendment application. Why should the City approve the request for this P.U.D.? · Developing this site in accordance with the PUD plan would provide a similar land use to adjoining properties. It would not negatively affect the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Approving this PUD would allow for the construction of a type of housing that the City's Comprehensive Plan strives to provide. Also, this PUD is in line with the initiatives of the Metropolitan Council encouraging urban in-fill housing developments. · The unit density of 4.3 units per acre for the site would be well below the maximum city code of 7.3 units per acre for medium density residential development. Due to the fact that each homeowner will own their individual unit and only a small strip of land around its perimeter, the actual square footage of each individual lot does not meet the city square footage code requirements for single and double dwellings. No current zoning designation exists in Maplewood for the classification of similar developments where an owners association owns and maintains all of the common areas. It is for this reason that the development is being proposed as a PUD. The city should approve this request because the deviation from city code is not being used to increase unit density of the site above acceptable standards nor is the deviation required for financial reasons. Grading of the site in accordance with the PUD development plans will minimally affect adjoining properties. In fact, storm water runoff to most surrounding properties will actually be reduced and all storm water will be filtered utilizing an existing wetland area before it enters the city's storm sewer system. The Ramsey County Watershed District has already approved the preliminary plans. This PUD would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The road servicing the town home units would actually be owned and maintained by an owners association - not the City of Maplewood. In addition, all of the extensions of the utility service infrastructure necessary for the construction of the project will be paid for by the developer, including the provision of utility service for future development on property to the east of this site. The increased traffic on Castle Avenue as a result of constructing this PUD would be only minimal and would not create traffic congestion. The street is now primarily used by the existing homes in the area. Therefore, the existence of this PUD would meet the goal in the City's Comprehensive Plan of having similar uses fronting on the same street. APR 2 2002 RECEIVED 26 Attachment 1 3 I I GRAPHIC SCALE i PROPOSED PRELIMINARY 27 PLAT I 1 T I ........ r ......... Attachment 14 28 30 Attachment 15 Mr. Ken Roberts CityofMaplewood 651-770-4560 Mr. Ken Roberts, I met recently with Mike Ackerman and discussed the planning for his Town Home site, Dearborn Meadows, behind two properties I currently own and 1949 and 1953 Cope. I am pleased with the plan and especially the rezoning from commercial to residential housing. I walked the site and am in agreement with the site plan and I do prefer the layout how it's currently designed, I think it compliments my properties in it's present state. Thanks, PatrickJ. Kinney 1949and 1953 Cope Ave. 651-773-2569 31 MAY 0 ~ 2002 Attachment 16 Engineering Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: Date: DEARBORN MEADOWS 00-02 Chris Cavett and Erin Schacht, Maplewood Engineering Department May 14, 2002 DRAINAGE SUMMARY There have been some drainage concerns expressed from residents in the area about this development. We have included a drainage map of the area. The existing conditions allow 9.5 acres of runoff to flow to the west. The proposed development will intercept and redirect 5.7 acres of that runoff into the proposed storm sewer and pond. The applicant is proposing to enhance and enlarge the existing wetland to provide storm water treatment and detention. The watershed district as approved this proposal. The owner of the property at 1937 Cope Avenue has expressed concems about this development. The development as now proposed would have virtually no impact on the property at 1937 Cope Avenue. There currently is 1.1 acres of area that drain to a Iow point at 1937 Cope Avenue. The proposed development will not contribute any additional runoff to that property. However, there are several design elements that the developer can include to reduce what impact there is. These include: Part of the 1.1 acres that does drain to 1937 Cope Avenue is included in the proposed development and is shaded on the drainage map. It is recommended that the applicant construct drainage swales and a rain garden with storm sewer near the southwest comer of the development to capture that runoff that would normally flow south. · The city engineer proposes to have an independent engineering consultant evaluate the conditions that are of concern to the residents in that area. There is nothing as part of this proposal that should be considered to contribute to the problems experienced in this area. In fact, for most properties directly west of the site, there should be an improvement to the existing condition. This is because this development will intercept and control 5.7 acres of tributary drainage area. An independent review should identify any isolated drainage issues and should identify ways to mitigate any such problems. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN REVIEW 1) Reverse the location of the sanitary sewer main and the storm sewer to provide easier access for future connection to sanitary sewer. 2) Provide plans and profiles for all utilities. 3) Add a manhole structure with open grate near flared end section to provide a redundant outlet and emergency outlet for high water in pond. 4) Realign the storm sewer under the street past Unit 9. 5) Stub the storm sewer to the east property line for future connection. 6) Verify sanitary sewer depth for future connection. 32 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 1) Add swales on the west and east sides of the site and add a rainwater garden at the southwest corner of the site. These are to capture any runoff that would flow off the property to the southwest. Provide an overflow pipe from the rainwater garden to the proposed storm sewer. 2) Provide a detail of the garden basin, including a detailed landscaping plan. Rock Infiltration Sumps can be installed below the bottom of the basin to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Rock infiltration sumps should 1%" clean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabdc, (felt). The plans shall show the top of the rock infiltration sump being placed about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. Provide details and a description on the plan of how the contractor will prepare the basin. 3) A landscape plan for the rainwater garden is required as part of final plan approval. More information on bioretention basins/rainwater gardens can be found on the Metropolitan Council web site and viewed in their BMP Manual at http://www, metrocouncil.or.q/environmentNVatershed/bmp/manual, htm MISC: 1) All mainline storm, sanitary and water systems on this development will be required to be public utilities, as these utilities are planned to provide to service to other properties. 2) Final plans shall meet the requirements of the Maplewood Engineering Standards. 3) The city engineer will require plans and profiles for all utilities. 4) The developer must sign a developer's agreement before the city will approve a final plat. 5) The applicant shall provide easements for all public utilities as well as a drainage and utility easement over the ponding area. 33 Ramsey-Washington Metro District Attachment 17 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 emaih office@rwmwd.org 5/8/02 Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 HAY ! O 2~2 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Roberts, This letter is in response to your request for a review on the Dearborn Meadows Project. The Watershed District has issued an amended permit for this project and have no comments or concerns. The amended permit gives permission to excavate the wetland on site to create a larger detention pond. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Karl Hammers District Technician 34 Attachment 18 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mike Ackerman and Maplewood city staff proposed a change to the city's land use plan from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-10 of the proposed Dearborn Meadow) 2. Lots 18 through 22, Block 6, Lots 9 through 13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, MN. 3. Lot 4 and the east half of Lot 5, Block 7, all in Dearbom Park, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On May 20, 2002, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a headng notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council __ the plan amendment. 2. On ,2002, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow-density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 35 I I r I' T-- T .............. Attachment 19 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Mike Ackerman proposed a change to the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff proposed a change to the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for two undeveloped parcels adjacent to the proposed development. WHEREAS, these changes apply to the undeveloped property on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Dearborn Meadow) 2. Lots 18 through 22, Block 6, Lots 9 through 13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, RamseY County. 3. Lot 4 and the east half of Lot 5, Block 7, all in Dearborn Park, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 20, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council change. this 2. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. 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 change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 36 5. The owner plans to develop this property for single and double dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 37 [ I T i Attachment 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Mike Ackerman, representing Ackerman Construction Company, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Dearborn Meadow residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Dearborn Meadow development plan the city received on April 24, 2002. The legal description is: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-9 of the proposed Dearborn Meadow) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 20, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On June ,2002, 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 hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 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. 38 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of Castle Place, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. 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 meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated May 14, 2002. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 35 feet c. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the townhouses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. 6. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002. 39 '] I T · '-r-------r MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Home Occupation License Jerianne Cullen and Doua Lee 2492 Highwood Avenue May 14, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jerianne Cullen and Doua Lee are requesting a home occupation license to operate a sewing shop business from their residential property at 2492 Highwood Avenue (see the maps on pages 8 through 12). Ms. Cullen and Ms. Lee have been conducting their business (Home Based Industries, Inc.) from 990 Payne Avenue in St. Paul for the last three years. They now propose to relocate their business to an existing barn located on their property. Requests To operate the sewing shop business from their residential property, Ms. Cullen and Ms. Lee are requesting that the city approve a home occupation license (see the applicants' home occupation explanation on pages 13 and 14). DISCUSSION Sewing Shop Business The applicants' business includes sewing products such as clothing and bags that are ordered by various companies. According to the city's home occupation ordinance the applicants' business requires a home occupation license due to the fact that they process a product from the premises for more than 30.days a year (see attached home occupation ordinance on pages 15 through 18). The equipment used in the home occupation will include eight industrial sewing machines (two regular machines and four specialty machines, i.e., tacking, open arm, etc.). These sewing machines are slightly larger than residential-use sewing machines, they run off of 110 to 120 volts of current, and they do not emit loud noises. Ms. Cullen and Ms. Lee both live on the premises and will be the only employees in the home occupation. The applicants state that they may receive customer visits about once a week between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, UPS delivery will come to the business about three times a week during their peak season (April through October). Barn Renovation The applicants' property is zoned Farm Residence and all surrounding properties are zoned Single Dwelling Residential. The property is the location of an old farmstead that includes 3.95 acres of land and a barn estimated to be over 100 years old. Since the applicants purchased the property three years ago they have made improvements to the barn including residing, reroofing, and putting in a new second floor. The applicants are working with a group called Barn Again out of Denver Colorado to help find financial resources to further renovate their barn as well as work with federal and local historical societies to ensure that the barn renovation follows the original architecture. One financial resource that may be available to the applicants is a federal tax break on improvement costs if the barn is used as an income generator. If the home occupation license is approved, therefore, the applicants will have a greater source of funding for the barn renovation. Future barn improvements proposed by the applicants include exterior painting, adding 12 windows, electrical upgrades, and interior finish. The applicants are working with the city's building official and fire marshal to ensure that the renovations meet all building and fire codes. Neighborhood Comments A majority of the neighbors who responded to a survey are in favor of the home occupation or had general comments. The neighbors opposed had concerns over the possibility of the home occupation expanding once approved. If the sewing shop business is approved, the city's home occupation ordinance allows only residents of the home, plus one outside employee, to be employed within the business. Also, conditions can be placed on the business to ensure that surrounding residential properties are not negatively impacted. Staff has mapped the location of the neighbors in favor of the proposal on page 19 and the neighbors that are opposed on page 20. Of the 16 neighbors in favor or who had comments, six are adjacent to the applicants' property. In comparison, of the eight neighbors opposed, only two are located near the applicants' property. The neighbors most affected by the proposed home occupation live to the south of the property at 1016 Sterling Street (Mr. and Mrs. Sauka). These neighbors are not opposed to the home occupation itself, however, they have some concerns over the existing condition of the barn and yard and the possible noise and traffic impacts a home occupation might have on their property. The applicants currently store items on the south side of the barn and park a truck with a snowplow attachment toward the rear of the barn, all in plain site of the Sauka's deck and back yard. In addition, the barn is currently two-tone in color. (See attached pictures on pages 21 and 22). To alleviate the Sauka's concerns, the applicants have agreed to remove all stored items from the south side of the barn, to install six, 6-foot high evergreen trees along the south property line to help screen any personal vehicles which may be parked behind the barn, and to paint the entire barn. With the addition of windows on the south side of the barn, the Saukas are also concerned that noise from the business may carry onto their property. In addition, there is a garage door located on the rear of the barn, visible from the Sauka's deck. They are concerned that the trucks will use this door for deliveries. As a condition of approval of the home occupation license, staff recommends that all customer pick-ups and other deliveries be restricted to the garage door located on the west side of the barn. Also, the renovation of the barn should not include any additional windows on the south side of the barn, unless the applicants can prove that no noise associated with the home occupation will be generated through the windows onto the adjacent residential properties. Cullen/Lee Home Occupation 2 May 14, 2002 RECOMMENDATION Approve the home occupation license for Jerianne Cullen and Doua Lee of 2492 Highwood Avenue to conduct a sewing shop business from the barn on their residential property. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. 2. Deliveries and customer hours are limited from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. All customer pick-ups and other deliveries are restricted to the garage door located on the west side of the barn. 4. The applicants must obtain all necessary building permits for the renovation of the barn. o At a minimum, the renovation of the barn should to include painting the entire barn one solid color. The renovation of the barn cannot include any additional windows on the south side of the barn, unless the applicants can prove that no noise associated with the home occupation will be generated through the windows onto the adjacent residential properties. 7.. The applicants must remove all exterior storage from the south side of the barn. To help screen the barn from the residential property to the south (1016 Sterling Street South) the applicants must install six, 6-foot high, evergreen trees between the barn and the east property line. Any garbage container associated with the business must be stored in the barn or screened from view of the adjacent residential properties. 10. The city council will review this home occupation license in one year. Cullen/Lee Home Occupation May 14,2002 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of 59 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 24 replies received, ten were in favor of the proposal, six had general comments, and eight were opposed: FOR: 1. 10. Phillip and Sandra Johnson, 2451 Mamie Avenue East: "Go for it! It doesn't sound like it will be a problem in our neighborhood." Brian and Luann Eager, 1017 Marnie Street South: "We have no problem with our neighbors relocating their small business to their barn." Orville Sether, 962 Marnie Street South: "1 have lived at the above address for 32 years and for 29 of those years the vacant lot behind me has been an eyesore and a weed patch, 3-foot high weeds that were never mowed, also causing my yard to have weeds. Then the above-named residents moved in and started cleaning the place up. Maplewood needs more residents like this who care about their neighbors and take pride in their property. I commend them for relocating their business to this location." Timothy Bredahl, Mary Rowe, 1035 O'Day Street: "Tim Bredahl and Mary Rowe support the proposal to relocate the sewing shop." Richard and Kathleen Arnebeck, 1038 Marnie Street South: "Have no objection as long as it remains a home business and number of employees does not increase. Also, as long as type of business does not change." David and Virginia Hacker, 1011 O'Day Street South: "The proposal is OK with us. P.S. Ask them to get rid of the goat or sheep. Thanks." Timothy and Lori Stafki, 931 Sterling Street South: "1 think this would be fine. It sounds like a quiet business that they will enjoy. Not disturbing our neighborhood." Arthur and Margaret Engstrom, 2525 Highwood Avenue East: "1 favor the proposal to relocate said sewing shop to 2492 Highwood." Jeffrey and Kathleen Nielsen, 2475 Highwood Avenue East: "Kathy and I would have no problem with this if it follows the spirit of the proposal - thanks for the correspondence." William and Sandra Beaudry, 2500 Valley View Avenue East: "No problem." COMMENTS: Thomas and Michelle Sauka, 1016 Sterling Street South: "We are very ambivalent about this proposal. We currently reside right next to the barn on the property mentioned, and from our deck we are constantly looking at old parked cars, trucks and other nuisance "eyesore" items. Our concern is the stuff in the barn will now be stored outside the barn by our property. I am als© concerned about the increase in traffic on our side, along with noise from the machines. Our daughter's bedroom is right next to the barn - what about the noise level? We are not trying to be difficult neighbors, but Jeri has not been a very Cullen/Lee Home Occupation 4 May 14, 2002 considerate neighbor in the past with parking old racecars, tires, trucks and other · equipment and machinery in close proximity of our deck and property. Our concern is that this problem will only now get worse. We work very hard to keep our house and yard well maintained. The way it looks now, Jeri's property is a detriment to our property value. What happens when a business moves in? If Jeri and her partner would guarantee that we wouldn't notice an increase in traffic, noise or other activity, that she would clean the property up and make it more visually appealing, we would give our recommendation to ok her business." Richard and Robyn Berling, 979 O'Day Street South: "No comment other than I would not wish to see any signs being displayed." Stanley and Leila Allison, 978 O'Day Street South: "My only concern is along Highwood Avenue. There seems to be a lot of trash (most of it drive-bys). (Some is the residents, however.) Once or twice a month when I am out for a walk, I take a bag and pick up. Of course, litter is a general problem. Thank you." Michael and Terry Kovanda, 2461 Nemitz Avenue East: "My husband and I do not have any concerns about this particular resident's request to run a business from their home. The landscaping and other property improvements they have already made are visible in the neighborhood, and no current activity is intrusive. I believe their request to be truthful and valid and see no negative effect on our neighborhood." Charles Cleveland, 995 O'Day Street South: "1 live on O'Day Street directly behind this property. They have been here for several years and have caused me no problems except for howling dogs. I understand they have five of them, and when they all get to howling at once, it is hard to take. As far as this kind of business, I have no objections." Gary Mortensen, Susan Chrysler, 1021 Sterling Street South: "We will be moving out of state this summer, and will not be affected by this matter." AGAINST: 1. Scott and Theresa Thury, 994 O'Day Street South: "That property was zoned residential for a reason. Opening it up to accommodate business is a huge mistake. My vote, as well as my wife's vote, are definite NOs!" 2. Michael and Shelly Stadt, 2523 Nemitz Avenue East: "We strongly disapprove. We moved into the neighborhood because it is a residential area only - no major businesses or big truck traffic." 3. Joseph and Charleen Drevnick, 1016 Marnie Street: "We are definitely against any business operating out of that location. We bought in a residential area and would like it to stay that way. Traffic has increased substantially with all the development that has taken place on Highwood and Century. We feel in time that the business will turn into a bigger operation than they're stating. We do not want extra traffic coming from that location." 4. Leigh and Donald Waldbillig, Jr., 2524 Valley View Avenue East: "No thank you - this would start other people requesting the same thing. We don't need all kinds of commercial traffic, noise, etc. in this neighborhood." Cullen/Lee Home Occupation May 14,2002 David and Shannon Hafner, 1037 Marnie Street South: "We oppose the approval of a home occupation license to conduct a business out of a residential property and/or rezoning the property for business. The whole reason for being attracted and moving into this neighborhood was because it was off the beaten path and quiet. This is quickly changing in our neighborhood. Street improvements on Highwood Avenue have brought fast-moving traffic, noise and a decreased level of safety. Do not sell us out to increase your tax base. This is the most significant reason for moving out of the inner city. We bought a property that was in a semi-rural area. This was highly attractive, and we wish for it to remain so, as much as is reasonably and humanly possible. Urban sprawl is affecting our quality of life in a negative manner. P.S. We do not believe that only one customer or employee vehicle would be parked on the premises at any one time. Nor is it reasonable to expect only two customer visits per week. Do you?" Dean and Lorraine Wohlhuter, 1024 Marnie Street South: "1. We are against this manufacturing business moving into this neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood and we purchased our home here with that understanding. 2. Highwood Avenue is a narrow two-lane street that is or will be taxed to its limit with traffic from the new additional Maplewood residential devel.opments and increased Woodbury traffic. Currently with cars parked on both sides of Highwood Avenue, two cars cannot pass, much less trucks. It is dangerous now and to increase traffic with additional commercial traffic is courting a disaster. 3. It is obvious that the owners of this manufacturing business are planning to grow and expand their manufacturing business. Why do they need a large barn for two workers? If they get a variance and sell the property, who can say what business will be next." Michael and Cheryl Thalhuber, 1029 Sterling Street South: "1 have been a resident in south Maplewood since October of 1986. From 1986 - 92, 1260 Dorland Road, and as of 92, 1029 Sterling Street So. It has been a quiet neighborhood. I would like to stay. Also since they have moved in three years ago, the noise has increased with barking dogs. I am not in favor of a business, and I'm sure my neighbors are thinking the same." Dave Bjork, 2511 Highwood Avenue: "1 am strongly opposed to allowing light manufacturing to gain a foothold in a residential neighborhood. While the owners propose a small start, the operation could expand many times over in the space available in the barn. I knew one of the previous owners and I am very familiar with the property and buildings. I can appreciate the temptation the owners have to save money by combining their home and business. But I am afraid that once allowed in, things could grow to be quite large. Then it would be a very expensive and difficult process to have it removed. And it would cause a lot of hard feelings among the neighbors. A business that is large enough to have an employee and to use subcontractors has no place in a residential area. What the owners are asking for seems very modest now. But with city council approval the operation could quickly get out of hand and be very hard to deal with. I would hate to have to start making complaints to the city and I'm sure you people don't enjoy receiving them. Isn't the whole purpose of zoning to keep businesses and residences separate?" Cullen/Lee Home Occupation 6 May 14, 2002 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 3.95 Acres Single-Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES Single-family homes to the north, south, east and west PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential Farm Residence CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Article II, Section 17-21 (b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. These requirements are attached as pages 16 and 17. Application Date We received the complete application for the Cullen/Lee home occupation license on April 1, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The applicants have agreed in writing to a 60-day extension to the 60-day requirement, therefore city action is required on this proposal by July 30, 2002. P/sec13-28/cullen Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map · 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan 5. Floor Plans 6. Home Occupation Explanation 7. Home Occupation Ordinance 8. Map of Neighbors in Favor 9. Map of Neighbors Opposed 10. Pictures Cullen/Lee Home Occupation May 14,2002 Attachment 1 2511 971 987 995 1003 1011 1019 979 i021 1016 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles Location Map 8 Attachment 2 Higl'Fwoo~i Avenue 2492 Highwood Ave. 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles ZONING Single Dwelling Residentia Farm Zoning Map 9 Attachment 3 0.06 Single Dwelling Residential 2492 Highwood Ave. j ................... 0 0.06 0.12 Miles LAND USE Single Dwelling Residential N S Land Use Map 10 onuo,xV poo~q~.q-I Attachment 4 2492 Highwood Avenue (Property outlined in bold) plo[I u~lo osnoH N Location of Home Occupation Site Plan S 11 storage ii Z Garage Door X X Z Z Z Z Z Garage Door I 2nd Floor of Barn Approx 2,200 sq feet X X X existing Stairway X = New Windows X X X 1st Floor of Barn Approx 2,200 sq feet Attachment 5 existing Stairway X = New Windows Floor Plans 12 Attachment 6 We are requesting a Home Occupation License for the purpose of relocating our sewing shop from the East Side of Saint Paul to our home residence. Specifically the barn located on this property. (See attachments) We have been in business since 1991 when we started our sewing shop in the basement of our home on the East Side. We then purchased our home at 2492 Highwood three years ago and relocated our business to Payne Avenue. We are a sewing shop that sews a variety of different products, mostly clothing and bags. We do on occasion use sub-contractors to help us with larger orders that we can not handle ourselves. All sub-contracting is done in the homes of the sub-contractor. When we use sub-contractors we deliver the work to them or on some occasions they pick the work up. During our busiest time of year we may get a sub-contractor pick up of about three times a week. During our off season there would be no sub-contractors coming to the business. The only employee of the business is Jeri Cullen who works full time in the shop and owns and resides at the property on Highwood Ave. Doua Lee who is the other owner and resident of the property, works full time for St. Paul Public Schools and part-time in the shop on evenings and some weekends. There are no other employees of the business. Doua Lee has two sons whom attend college and live at home who sometimes help out in the business. The equipment that is used for our business is normal industrial sewing machines. These machines do not emit loud noises, or hazards of any kind. All of our machines operate on 110 to 120 volts of current. We do not have nor need any special vehicles for our business. Other than our personal vehicles no other vehicles would be parked on our property except for occasional visits from our customers. All parking is off street parking as we have more than enough parking space on our property located by the house and barn. Our driveWay is a drive through so you can enter from the west entrance and exit from the east. Normally we get customer visits of about once a week or less during our peak season from April through October. During the winter months and early spring, we sometimes have no more than 2 customers a month. All customers come between our normal business hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm Monday through Friday only. During our peak season we ship on a weekly to bi-weekly basis. The trucks that pick up or drop off'are normally dock size trucks. We also have LIPS pick up and delivery of about 3 times a week during this time. During our off season, November through March we have maybe one dock delivery a month. Again, deliveries are scheduled during our normal business hours as stated above. The percentage of gross sales coming from the sale of products produced off-site runs an average of 10 to 15%. Home Occupation Explanation Our property located on Highwood Avenue is zoned Farm Residential at this time. It is about 4 acres and very secluded due to mature tree growth surrounding the property on three sides. The fourth side of the property borders on Highwood Avenue, and the house and Barn both sit back on the South East corner of the property. As Homeowners we take great pride in our home, and have made many improvements to the home and surrounding prope .rty through landscaping and upkeep. At this time the Barn is used only for storage. The 2n° floor of the barn is totally empty and not being used. When we purchased the property it had been vacant for 4 years prior. The barn had not been kept up and we re-sided one whole side, re-roofed, put in new flooring on the 2na floor and did major clean up. Due to the location of our property, its size and lay out, we do not believe our neighbors will even notice the day to day operation of our business. We do not generate or use any hazardous materials or chemicals of any kind. We do not intend on changing the outside of the barn except the addition of windows as noted on the attachments. We also intend on the barn conforming to city code in reference to any electrical updates and any other specifics deemed necessary by the city building inspector. A plicanys signature 14 Attachment 7 LICENSES § 17-21 license will be automatically suspended or revoked five (5) days ai%er date of hearing. (Ord. No. 324, § 8, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-5. Same--Period of suspension. When a license is suspended under section 17-4 of this article, the period of suspension shall be not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one (1) year, such period being determined by the city council. (Ord. No. 324, § 9, 6-22-72) Sec. 17-6. Same-Mandatory revocation for certain Code · violations. When any person, partnership, firm or corporation holding a license issued under this Code has been convicted for the second time by a court of competent jurisdiction for violation of any of the provisions of this Code relating to the subject matter of such license, the city council shall revoke the license of the person, partnership, firm or corporation so convicted. Such person, part- nership, firm or corporation may not make application for a new license for a period of one (1) year. (Ord. No. 324, § 10, 6-22-72) Secs. 17-7--17-20. Reserved. ARTICI,F, H. HOME OCCUPATIONS* Sec. 17-21. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license approved by the city council ff any of the following circumstances would occur more than thirty (30) days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. *Editor's note--Section 8 of Ord. No. 627, adopted June 27, 1988, amended Art. II in it~ entirely to read as set out herein. Formerly, Art. II comprised §§ 17-21--17-25, pertaining to licenses for home occupations and deriving from Ord. No. 521, § 1, adopted Aug. 23, 1982. Cross reference-Fee for home occupation permit, § 36-26. Supp. No. 11 1045 § 17-21 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. (3) Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or mate- rials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. (5) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. .~ (6) If the home occupation produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. (b) Home occupations requiring a license shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No' more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the prem- ises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on-site, one (1) off-site employee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one (1) sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code. Supp. No. ll 1046 LICENSES § 17-22 (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detect- able to the normal senses offthe lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, machine shops, welding, ammunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knives or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Ma- chine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that operate on more than one hundred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) Any noncompliance with these requirements shall consti- tute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The city. may waive any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential lot line. (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88; Ord. No. 729, § 1, 11-14-94) Sec. 17-22. Original license approval procedure. An application for home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development shall prepare a recommendation to the planniug commission. The planning commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city Supp. No. 11 1047 § 17-22 MAPLEWOOD CODE council for a public hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the owners of all properties located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the home occupation at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall also be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-23. Renewal. Each license holder shall apply to the city clerk each January for renewal. Prior to issuance of a license renewal, the city shall determine that all licensing conditions and city ordinances are being met. The city clerk shall revoke the license where compli- ance with the licensing conditions or city ordinances cannot be obtained or where the home occupation has been discontinued. Revocation may occur at any time that compliance with license conditions or city ordinance cannot be obtained. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-24. Appeal. The owner or his assign of a home occupation whose license has been revoked by the city clerk may appeal the decision to the city council. To request an appeal, a written letter or request must be submitted to the city clerk within thirty (30) days of the license revocation. The city council may revoke,- approve or add addi- tional conditions to the license. The city council shall hold a public hearing, using the notification procedures in section 17-22, before deciding on the appeal. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Sec. 17-25. Transfer of license. No license granted for a home occupation shall be transferable from person to person or place to place. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88) Supp. No. 11 1048 [The next page, is 1057] Attachment 8 (..) SCHALLER DRIVE ' VALLEY VIEW AVE m uJ HIGHWOOD AVE Neighbors in Favor or With Comments of Proposed Home Occupation 19 Attachment 9 ~ SCHALLER DRIVE ~ ILl HIGHWOOD AVE Neighbors Opposed to Proposed Home s Occupation 2O Attachment 10 21 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Approval Ryan Companies Lexus Automobile Dealership (3000 Highway 61) May 14, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bdan Teeters, representing Ryan Companies and Lexus, is proposing a revision to the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Lexus Dealership at 3000 Highway 61. This revision includes three additions to the existing building and changes to the parking lot and ddveway layout to accommodate the building additions. Refer to the maps on pages 8-11 and the applicant's statement on page 13. The proposed building additions would be rock-face concrete block, EIFS (exterior insulation finish system), a stucco-look material and glass and would match the existing building. (Please see the proposed building elevations on page 12 and the proposed project plans.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A revision to the existing conditional use permit (CUP) for a maintenance garage. The city code permits the sale of new and used vehicles from this location. The code, however, requires a CUP for service and maintenance of cars. 2. The revised architectural, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND On February 26, 1996, the city council approved the design plans, a conditional use permit and a wetland setback vadance for Lexus. (See the minutes starting on page 14.) On April 8, 1996, the city council reconsidered the conditional use permit and the design approval for the project. This was to allow the applicant to start construction after they sign a developers agreement and provide a letter of credit for the extension of a water main to the site. (See the minutes on pages 18 and 19.) On September 10, 2001, city staff approved plans for a minor construction project for Lexus. This was to allow Lexus to expand their parking lot by 59 spaces. This expansion was onto the vacant part of their site north of their building. Except for some minor site restoration, they have finished this parking lot. (See the existing site plan on page 9.) On January 14, 2002, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for this site and agreed to review it again in one year. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve the CUP revision as the proposal would meet the necessary findings. The owners have operated the existing dealership without problem since the contractor finished the construction. The applicant had originally proposed to store all refuse and parts in the building. Since then, they have started keeping their trash dumpsters and other debris on the back (east) side of the building. As such, the applicant is now proposing to add an enclosure for the dumpsters on the east side of the building. (See the plans on pages 10 and 11.) This enclosure would be a welcome addition to the site as it would allow Lexus to keep the dumpsters more out of site. Lexus should correct some minor issues as pai't of this building project. These include removing the old silt fence along the bottom of the slope near the wetland and the old fence sections that Lexus has put in a pile near the south property line. Design Considerations The proposed exterior building materials (rock-face concrete block and EIFS) would match the existing building materials. The proposed building would be attractive after the construction is complete. As I noted above, the applicant is proposing to add a dumpster enclosure on the east side of the building. Staff has not yet received plan details for the enclosure. The city should approve these plans as part of the approval process. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the parking requirements for an automobile dealership, i.e., parking spaces for automobile inventory. The code, however, does list parking requirements for a vadety of other land uses. The code would require Lexus to have 160 parking spaces if one uses 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 applicant's plans show 190 parking spaces before the construction and 176 parking spaces after the construction. Staff feels that there should be sufficient parking for the needs of Lexus. Other Comments The Maplewood Police Department and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District both had no comment about the proposed expansion. The Fire Marshal noted that Lexus needs to maintain clear access around all Sides of the building, especially on the east side. RECOMMENDATION Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 23-24. This resolution approves a revision for an existing conditional use permit for a maintenance garage at the Lexus dealership at 3000 Highway 61. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (I have underlined the additions and crossed-out the deletions): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. ........................................ ~ ....... prior ..........~ ..... =xpanc:cn. Thc ~''' .... The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. The owner shall do such maintenance at least once a year and provide city staff with written documentation about the maintenance tasks that are performed. 5. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the buildin,q, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 6. Vehicle transports shall not load or unload vehicles on the public ri,qht-of-way of Hi,qhway 61. 7. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces. Approve the plans (stamped April 26, 2002) for proposed additions to the Lexus dealership at 3000 Highway 61. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide staff with detailed plans for the dumpster enclosure. These plans shall show the enclosure with .rnatedals matching the materials of the building and shall be subject to staff approval. 3 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building additions: a. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) b. Construct the trash dumpster enclosure, subject to staff approval. (code requirement) c. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the changed parking lot islands. d. Post any driveways that are less than 28 feet wide for "no-parking." This includes the driveway on the east side of the building. e. The contractor or property owner shall clean up the site including the removal of the unused silt fence and privacy fence sections. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. Staff will review any sign changes through the sign permit process. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.63 acres Existing land use: Lexus dealership SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Kline Volvo dealership South: Venberg Tire West: Highway 61 East: Vacant property (wetland) PAST ACTION On July 22, 1996, the council considered a sign variance request for Lexus. They were asking the city to allow them a second freestanding sign for the dealership. The council denied Lexus' request for an additional freestanding sign. On September 24, 1996, the community design review board waived the requirement to screen the roof equipment for the Lexus dealership. On July 28, 1997, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for this project. The council renewed the permit for one year and directed staff to set up an inspection schedule to coincide with the conditional use permit reviews. On October 12, 1998, the city council reviewed Lexus' conditional use permit and required another review in one year. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(9)(c) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. I I T i 1-- ....T 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. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit 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 23-24.) Application Date We received this application on Apdl 26, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by June 25, 2002. p:sec3¥exus CUP revision.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Existing Site Plan 4. Proposed Site Plan (dated 4-26-02) 5. Proposed Grading Plan 6. Proposed Building Elevations 7. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Statement dated April 25, 2002 8. February 26, 1996 City Council minutes 9. April 8, 1996 City Council minutes 10. Site photos 11. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 12. Plans Date-stamped April 26, 2002 (separate attachment) VADNAIS HEIGHTS COUNTY WHITE Attachment 1 BEAR LAKE COUNT~ Z BEAM AVE. 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW 3. DULUTH CT. COUNTY .& ST. JOHN'S BLVD. North 0 [] ® RA~SEY COUNTY COURT KOHLMAN cD RVAIS AVE. GRANDV1EW VIKING SHERREN AVE. AVE. AVE. __! LAURIE j, RD. DEMONT [HILL RD. Lake ~AVE. LARK COPE SPARKLE AUTO SALES 1'~4 .20 3110 O90 .q A ~o.\5 Attachment 2 INT~ ROAD Dl·· I ·· VENBERG TIRE SURV~¥ F' L../:x~D NO. PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 8 'Attachment 3 EXISTING I~UIL.DING 11,400 (EXlSTIN~G) Attachment 4 TOTAb WITH Nb-"W APDITION / Attachment 5 7 / / I t / I / TOTAL WITH NEW ADDITION 14,074 SQ, FT. EXISllNG LEXUS BUILDIN~ 11,4,00 SQ, FT. OF W~TLAND EDGE WE'lL.AND )> Z gO I Attachment 6 ~ 'v~T C-Lc-W, TtC~ Attachment 7 WWW. RYANCOM PAN 1 ES.COM RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012 612-492-4000 tel 612-492-3000 [ax BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS April 25, 2002 Tom Ekstrand Assistant Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: LEXUS OF MAPLEWOOD ADDITION CUP WRITTEN STATEMENT Dear Tom: This letter is in response to the City of Maplewood's requirement of a written statement for the Conditional Use Permit application for the Maplewood Imports Addition. The project consists of a 14,000SF addition and remodel to the existing Lexus of Maplewood facility. Included in this addition are a new car delivery area, an expanded show floor, added service stalls, a carwash, and office space. The new addition faCade will be cohesive with the appearance of the existing facility as it relates to color, texture, and overall design. The addition is being constructed over an existing bituminous surface. The site drainage area will not be effected nor will the area of impervious surface. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the new addition and determined that the site will not be altered enough to require a Watershed District permit. We feel that this project is in accordance with the City of Maplewood's CUP guidelines and will cause no adverse effects on any nearby residences and businesses. Please contact me with any questions you may have at (612) 492-4397. -Brian Teeters i Project Manager encl. Ramsey-Washington Watershed District Letter 13 G:kDEPT~PROJ-NEWM 200\1239-000 LEXUS OF MAPLEWOOD ADDITION~LETTERS\CUPCRITERIALETTER. DOC/RE Attachment 8 The City' CounCil held a public hearing on February 12, 1996. 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: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The lO0-foot-wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The difficulty was created by the new ordinance. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would improve the quality of the wetland buffer substantially over its present state. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Submitting a grading and landscaping plan subject to the requirements of the City staff and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for the wetland buffer. o Dedicating a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the City will issue a building permit. 3. Accepting responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes Nays Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson, Koppen Councilmember Rossbach f. Mayor Bastian adoption: introduced the followinq Resolution and moved its 96 - 02 - 26 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan Construction .Company of Minnesota, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a new Lexus automobile dealership; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property on the east side of Highway 61 between Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is: Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this permit. 14 2-26-9( On February 12, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The City 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. 2. 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, smoke. dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run- off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. o 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. o The use would be served by ade~ugte public facilities and services, including streets, po)ice and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. 15 2-26-96 o Befor6 {he ~ssuance of a building permit, the City must have a signed construction contract for the extension of the water main to the Lexus site. The water system must be operational before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The future expansion is not allowed with this permit. The applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the conditional use permit before building this expansion. The future expansion must be at least 100 feet from the billboard. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. The applicant shall submit the plans for the sump catch basins and discharge rip rap to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their approVal before the City will issue a building permit. Mayor Bastian moved to approve the site plans (stamped December 7, 1995 and the site plan stamped February 1, 1996) for proposed Lexus dealership on Hiqhway 61 based on the findinqs required by the code. Approval is subject to the followinq conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the City has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: Bo Dedicate and record a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. o Submit a revised landscape plan providing for any planting and ground reshaping or restoration of the wetland buffer as may be required by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Replace the seed on the Highway 61 right-of-way with sod if allowed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The right-of-way shall have an in-ground lawn irrigation system unless prohibited by MnDOT. Before the issuance of a building permit, the City must have a signed construction contract for the extension of the water main to the Lexus site. The water system must be operational before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. be Install reflectorized stop signs at both exits, a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space and an address on the building. c. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code nequirement) 16 2-26-9~ d. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure, subject to staff approval, if there would be outside trash storage. (code requirement) em 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 right-of.way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. f. Post signs designating at least 55 customer and employee parking spaces. g. Post one-way traffic signs for the narrow driveway beneath the canopy on the south side of the building. The future expansion is not allowed. The applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the conditional use permit prior to building this expansion. The future expansion must be at )east 100 feet from the billboard. ' 6. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary occupancy if : a. The City determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150~ of the cost of the unfinished work. 7. This approval does not include the signs. Signage will be reviewed by staff through the sign permit process. 8. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 9. Traffic flow in and out of the Lexus dealership shall be reviewed by MnDOT. Any site plan change is subject to staff approval. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson. Koppen Nays - Councilmember Rossbach 17 Co do ~'c':ac mmen-c Mayor Bastian asked if anyone wished to speak before the Council regarding this matter. The following was heard: Steve Bloomer, Owner Lexus of Wayzata Councilmember Carlson moved to amend the conditions of the Lexus Conditional Use Permit in order to allow construction of the buildinN to beqin prior to the siqninq of the water system construction documents, with the requirements that there be no combustible material on site and the Lexus Company provide the City with a letter of credit. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes Nays - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson, Koppen Councilmember Rossbach Councilmember Carlson introdUced the followinq Resolution and moved its adoption: 96 - 04 - 53 AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLLFTION - LEXUS WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a new Lexus automobile dealership: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property on the east side of Highway 61 between Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is: Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this permit. 2. On February 12, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, lt~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve 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. 18 4-8-96 The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous. hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,. dust, odor, fumes, Water or air pollution, drainage, water run- off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and. fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 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. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. ¸4. Before the issuance of a building permit, the Citymust'have a development agreement and letter of credit guaranteeing the extension of the water main to the Lexus site. The water system must be operational before the presence of substantial amounts of combustible materials, as required by the Fire Chief. The future expansion is not allowed with this permit. The applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the conditional use permit before building this expansion. The future expansion must be at least 100 feet from the billboard. 6. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. The applicant shall submit the plans for the sump catch basins and discharge rip rap to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their approval before the City will issue a building permit. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes - Mayor Bastian. Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson. Koppen Nays - Councilmember Rossbach 19 4-8-96 Attachment 10 20 22 Attachment ll CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. applied for a revision to a conditional use permit to expand an existing motor vehicle maintenance garage. WHEREAS, this permit revision applies to property at 3000 Highway 61. The legal description is: Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On May 20, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit revision. On June 10, 2002, 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 approve the above-described conditional use permit revision 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. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 23 i I F ........... ----[ ...... T Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. 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 city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. The owner shall do such maintenance at least once a year and provide city staff with written documentation about the maintenance tasks that are performed. 5. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 6. Vehicle transports shall not load or unload vehicles on the public right-of-way of Highway 61. 7. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June ,2002. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Tillges Medical Office Building - Vacation of Sewer Easement Robert Tillges South of Beam Avenue and East of Hazelwood Street May 14, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Robert Tillges is proposing to develop a 3.57-acre lot located south of Beam Avenue and east of Hazelwood Street. The proposal includes two phases of development. The first phase is a 23,094 square foot office building that will house Mr. Tillges' existing prosthetics and orthotics practice currently located at 1983 SIoan Place, Maplewood, as well as other medical-type tenants. The second phase, to be constructed in the future, is an 11,778 square foot office building that will house medical-type tenants as well. Refer to the maps on pages 3 through 8. Requests To build this development the applicant is requesting that the city vacate an unused sewer easement. Refer to the map on page 9. DISCUSSION The property is zoned Business Commercial-Modified (BC-M). Within this zoning district a commercial office building, such as Mr. Tillges' proposed medical office building, is a permitted use. The proposed development also meets the required setbacks and building requirements. However, in order to construct the building five feet from the south property line as proposed, the city must vacate a 10-foot wide unused sewer easement that runs along the south property line of the site. The sewer easement was never used or developed for its original purpose and is not required for this or any other development. The planning commission should make a recommendation on the vacation of the sewer easement. The design elements will be reviewed by the community design review board at their May 28, 2002, meeting. The development will then be presented to the city council for final approval at their June 10, 2002, meeting. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the resolution on page 10. This resolution is for the vacation of a 10- foot wide unused sewer easement located along the south property line of the Tillges Medical Office Building site. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: It is in the public interest. The sewer easement is unused. The sewer easement is not needed for the proposed Tillges Medical Office Building development. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 3.57 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: PLANNING Maplewood Cancer Center and Maplewood Professional Building (Zoned Business Commercial- Modified (BC-M)) City of Maplewood Property (Zoned Farm and Planned Park) Maplewood Office Park (Zoned Business Commercial- Modified (BC-M)) City of Maplewood Property Across Hazelwood Street (Zoned Single Dwelling Residential and Planned Open Space) Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Business Commercial- Modified (BC-M) Business Commercial- Modified (BC-M) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Public Sewer Easement Vacation There are not formal criteria for approval of a sewer easement vacation. of the easement should be in the best interest of the public at large. Application Date However, the vacation The city received complete applications and plans for this development on April 15, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by June 14, 2002. P:\sec3\tillges Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan 5. Elevations 6. Floor Plan 7. Existing Conditions Map 8. Vacation Resolution Tillges Medical Office Building 2 May 14, 2002 Attachment Hazelwood Park Neighborhood Preserve st. John's Hospital Beam Avenue IMaplewood Prof. Bldg. Maplewood Cancer Center ~_~ Proposed Tillges Medical Office Building Location Map S 3 Attachment 2 Beam Avenue BC-M Proposed Ti.llges Medical Office Bldg. N ZONING ~ Light Manufacturing (M-i) Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) IllllllJJllJJJJJJJJJJlJJlJJJl a us in ess C o m m e rcial (a C) ~ Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) ~ Farm (F) 4 Zoning Map Attachment 3 111 ii,,iliiil Ii!iii Beam Avenue P r Proposed Tillges Medical Office Building LAND USE ~ Light Manufacturing (M-l) Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) IIIIIII~UU~It Business Commercial (ac) ~ Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) ......... Park (P) ~ Open Space (OS) Land Use Map Attachment 4 PHA~E ,, ,I ,. :o,,~, 1-STORY BULDING 1 23,0~4 sJ=. Site Plan S Attachment 5 Elevations Attachment 6 Floor Plan / 1 / Attachment 7 / I / / / / / / I / /I /!/ ~,1/ I /1' / / / / / / / Existing Conditions Map ! Attachment 8 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Robert Tillges applied for the vacation of the following: A portion of a 10-foot wide unused sewer easement (Ramsey County, MN, Document No. 1584263) located along the south property line of the property located south of Beam Avenue and east of Hazelwood Street, Maplewood (Property Identification Number: 03-29-22-42-0009) and described as follows: SEE ATTACHED SEWER EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On May 20, 2002, the planning cOmmission recommended that the city council approve the public vacation. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to Robert Tillges for the above-mentioned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The sewer easement is unused. The sewer easement is not needed for the proposed Tillges Medical Office Building development. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 10 SEWER EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ That part of the 10 foot sewer easement as defined in Document No. 1584263 which lies within the fo/lowing described property: (as per schedule a of commitment to title from land title inc. Commitment no. Tc-107927 dated july 9~, 2001) The northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 3, township 29, range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Except the south 75. O0 feet of the west 83. 20 feet thereof, And except that part of the north 492. O0 feet of said northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter lying easterly of the west 395.00 feet thereof; And except that part of the north 492. O0 feet of the west 395.00 feet of said northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter lying norhterly, northeasterly, and southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest comer of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 3, thence south O0 degrees 28 minutes 21 seconds east, assumed bearing, along the west line of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter a distance of 239.62 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence south 80 degrees 01 minutes 09 seconds east 52.95 feet; thence south 84 degrees 16 minutes 09 seconds east a distance of 111. O0 feet; thence easterly a distance of 39. 02 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 72.12 feet and a central angle of 31 degrees O0 minutes O0 seconds; thence south 53 degrees 16 minutes 09 seconds east tangent to said curve a distance of 90. O0 feet; thence southeasterly and southerly a distance of 44.92 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 51.47 feet and a central angle of 50 degrees O0 minutes O0 seconds; thence south 03 degrees 16 minutes 09 seconds east tangent to said curve a distance of 37.89 feet thence south 31 degrees 46 minutes O0 seconds west a distance of 107.76 feet to the south line of the north 492.00 feet of said northwest quarter of, the southeast quarter and said line there terminating.' 11 Together We Can March 27, 2002 Sarah Hoikka Office Manager Choice Auto Rental 2923 Highway 61, Suite 2 Maplewood, MN 55109 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW - CHOICE AUTO RENTAL The Maplewood CitY Council considered the above at its meeting on March 11,2002. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes from the meeting that confirms the action taken. Please review the motion passed by the council. If you have any q ue~ay contact me at 770-4562. THOMAS EKSTRAND - ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR il Enclosure OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-770-4560 CITY Of MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 ................................... __[ ........ -i- .... r .... MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, March 11, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02-05 Conditional Use Permit Review - Choice Auto Rental (2923 Highway 61 North) Accepted staffs recommendation to review the conditional use permit for the motor vehicle rental business at 2923 Highway 61 North again in one year. Together We Can March 6, 2002 Sarah Hoikka Office Manager Choice Auto Rental 2923 Highway 61, Suite 2 Maplewood, MN 55109 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW - CHOICE AUTO RENTAL The Maplewood City Council will cOnsider the above at its meeting on March 11,2002. The council Convenes its meeting at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 1830 East County Road B. The council may table your item if you or a representative are not present at the meeting. A ..copy of the staff report is enclosed for your information. Please call me if you wish to discuss the re__or if you have any questions. THOMAS EKSTRAND- ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR jl Enclosure OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-770-4560 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 r ................. q ........ T- ............