The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/18/2000BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 18, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. December 6, 2000 Unfinished Business None New Business a. Independent Estates preliminary plat (Lakewood Ddve, north of Maryland Avenue) b. Mounds Park Academy Conditional Use Permit (2051 Larpenteur Avenue and 1801 Beebe Road) c. Comfort Coaches Conditional Use Permit (1870 Rice Street) d. Resolution of Appreciation - Milo Thompson 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. December 11 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer b. December 25 Council Meeting: No meeting c. January 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost d. January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness? Staff Presentations a. Reschedule January I and January 15, 2001 Meetings (holidays) Tuesday January 2, 2001, and Tuesday or Wednesday January 16 or 17, 2001 b. Announce City Council planning commission appointments 10. c. Review expiring terms of members Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: o o The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. o The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jwlpc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000 I1. III. IV. Vo CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Staff Present: Present Absent Absent Present (Arrived at 7:10) Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 2000: Commissioner Trippler noted on page 10, paragraph 4, it should be changed to if. Page 10, paragraph 5, out should be changed to have. Page 11, fourth paragraph from the bottom int he should read i[~ the. Commission Pearson moved approval of the minutes of November 20, 2000, as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. Ayes-All The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 12-06-2000 VI. A. NEW BUSINESS APT Monopole--Conditional Use Permit--(English Street and Gervais Avenue). Mr. Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, gave the report for the city. American Portable Telecom (APT), Inc., is proposing to install a 175-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They would like to install this monopole next to the existing monopole on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue, just north of Highway 36. APT would remove the existing monopole after they have finished the installation of the new monopole. There also would be prefabricated equipment cabinets and equipment buildings near the base of the monopole. APT would expand their lease area from 80' x 80' to an area 80' x 181', and would build a new driveway to the site from Gervais Avenue. The applicant also would enclose the new lease area with an 8-foot-high chain link fence. The primary reason for the request is so the new monopole can accommodate three additional users. The current pole has three sets of antennas including the applicants, the new one will include six sets including the applicants. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal subject to the eight conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Rossbach clarified the height of the current monopole is 165-feet tall and the proposed pole 175-feet tall. The applicant was not in the audience. Staff was not aware why the applicant was not present, but informed the commission if they are comfortable, they may forward the proposal to the city council. If they had further questions they needed answered from the applicant they may chose to table the proposal. Mr. Trippler felt if their was nothing they could do about the monopole anyway, they may as well go ahead and pass it. He did want on the record his dissatisfaction with the letter that was included in the proposal from the law firm representing APT. He felt the letter was very condescending to the commission. He felt it was bogus and stupid and added nothing to their argument to having the pole. He felt the statement that they would strive to incorporate existing vegetation at the site to maximize screening was a ridiculous statement since the existing vegetation was cattails. The cattails are about four-feet tall and would obscure less than one percent of the tower. Placing the pole at that location will preserve denigrating other parts of the city, was ATP's justification for maximizing the preservation of and incorporating the natural and scenic features of the site. They also state that you will not be able to see the tower base from English because their is a building there, or view it from Gervais because their is a wooded area and they are planning to add trees. "It just makes me boil", stated Mr. Trippler. The monopole will be 175-feet tall, to suggest a couple of 30 foot trees is going to cover it up so you can not see it is more than Mr. Trippler could accept. He is glad, though, that this one will be replacing another one so the city is not adding a monopole. Mr. Rossbach reiterated what a plus it was that they are replacing a pole not adding a new one. Mr. Mueller appreciated that Sprint and APT have communicated so they will be co-locating their monopoles. He hoped this project would become an example of future communication between wireless companies. Mr. Rossbach and Mr. Pearson felt it may have been the commissions mistake in the past for not requiring all towers to be the maximum code allows of 175 feet. They feel that when they first started the process the frame of mind was they don't want them at all so the shorter the better. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 12-06-2000 Mr. Pearson moved the commission to adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit to allow a 175-foot-tall telecommunications monop°ie and related equipment. This approval is for the property on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue (1300 Gervais Avenue). Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction of the new monopole must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 5. The applicant shall remove the existing monopole and antennas within 30 days of the completion of the new monopole and antennas. 6. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. 7. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. 8. The applicant or APT shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicantJdeveloper may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This motion goes to the city council on January 8, 2000. B. p, esidential Parking Issues and Code Changes. Mr. Ken Roberts gave the report for the city. On September 25, 2000, the city council again discussed the issue of residential parking. Because of strong support and interest in this issue, the city council directed staff to prepare city ordinance revisions about parking in residential areas. The council is choosing to take small steps versus jumping in head first. The council, at their meeting on September 25, 2000, suggested that city staff include the following items in a code change about residential parking: 1. The city will consider crushed rock or gravel as a hard surface for parking and storage purposes. 2. The city should not require a paved driveway with other home improvements. 3. The city may allow exceptions to the rules, subject to the input of the neighbors, city staff and city council. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 12-06-2000 The ordinance amendment clarified what the violation is for an abandoned motor vehicle to make it clear that is a code violation and can be prosecuted accordingly. The purpose, findings and goals sections of the report are included to show the legislative intent and why the ordinance is being created. The proposed ordinance would apply to all property less than one acre in size, and for the residential zoning district except the RE-40. There was question at the staff level if this should include all residential properties no matter the acreage. The ordinance does not apply to side yards or rear yards which may be another important discussion point to consider. Mr. Roberts informed the commission that Mr. Trippler has distributed language that Mr. Trippler is requesting be added to the proposed ordinance as item I. Mr. Thompson felt item D was not clear. He questioned that if he paved his driveway could he park a car next to the curbing in the front yard? Mr. Roberts responded saying there is a public boulevard along every street that is 10 to 15 feet wide that is public property. You can not be on the public boulevard at all, and if you do want to make a paved parking spot in your front yard, it has to be in to your private property at least 10 feet. Mr. Thompson felt it was indiscriminatory to commercial property. Chairperson Fischer pointed out a residents property line could be very close to the curb, or they might have a twenty foot set back. Mr. Roberts pointed out item H in the ordinance covers unique situations or where normal rules don't apply, somewhat similar to a variance. The reasoning for item D is due to snowplowing and sanding issues. Item D asks for no parking at least 10 feet back from the street right of way, Ms. Fischer questioned whether engineering felt that was really necessary. Mr. Roberts responded in saying they didn't specifically have engineering's input on that issue. He also did not see a problem with the commission asking him to reduce that to a smaller number. Mr. Trippler had two concerns with the proposed ordinance. One included what the difference was between items A and C in the proposed ordinance. He also did not understand why the ordinance applied only to properties less than one acre in size. Staff felt larger properties may not have problems with the parking issue. Past history has proven the problem lies with the smaller lot, residential areas which are those less than one acre. Staffs thought was if it is a 10 acre lot and a neighbor can not see it, why would they care if their neighbor parked next to the garage on grass or in his front yard on grass. Ms. Fischer pointed out what if it is on a 10 acre lot and you can see it? Mr. Trippler felt setting the property size for the ordinance to less than 5 acres seemed more appropriate. Staff also felt A and C in the ordinance had a lot of the same language and could be combined. Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance should include some type of language to address screening. He If there was proper screening to obscure the vehicle so it was not a nuisance there should be proper language in the ordinance to allow for that. "What the ordinance is trying to accomplish is to not have an unsightly situation for neighbors, or for people driving down the street. Just by having a large lot does not necessarily accomplish this" stated Mr. Rossbach. He would also like to see the type of language used in the ordinance be addressed. Using "the front set back area" would only make sense to planners and suggested further definition was needed. Mr. Rossbach also didn't feel it was reasonable that an owner would have to go 10 feet into their property to park a car. Mr. Mueller was disappointed the ordinance did not address recreational vehicles or campers. Mr. Roberts responded in saying the council did not want to address those issues at this time. Mr. Thompson pointed out Ms. Coleman straightened out his thinking regarding townhomes having more than 50 percent hard service in their front yard. She pointed out townhomes would be excluded from this ordinance due to their zoning classification. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 12-06-2000 Darlene Laube, 134 Downs Avenue, Maplewb°d, Was present with questions. Her main concern was people and how they maintain their property. She doesn't feel they screen their boats or junk vehicles as they should and feels it runs down the neighborhood. She thought the ten foot from the property line proposal was ridiculous and viewed parking to the side of property in a "mud pile" also a problem. Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance was addressing this issue by requiring some type of solid surface that has been prepared for parking. Ms. Fisher added that in many families when they have the young adult drivers, the families will add a crushed rock temporary driveway, and when the vehicles are gone, they resod or landscape. Ms. Laube did not feel the ordinance covers vehicles parked in backyards in view of their neighbors backyard. Mr. Rossbach reiterated the ordinance is not trying to dictate how people landscape, but to gain control on what people are putting into their yards as far as vehicles go. Personally Mr. Rossbach would also like to see back and side yards addressed in the ordinance. His understanding is the city is starting with the front, see what happens, and then go beyond possibly to the back yard or side yards. Mr. Roberts has found their are some people who just don't make good neighbors no matter how many rules are written. They simply don't care. Their is only so much the city can do. Mr. Thompson questioned the petitions that were submitted from what appeared to be one neighborhood. He drove over to the neighborhood expecting to find a serious offense, only to find one driveway with five cars. It was a Sunday afternoon where they could be visiting at the residence to watch the football game. Mr. Trippler shared that one member of his car pool was one of the petitioners. He thought maybe he sparked their interest about the parking issue. Mr. Thompson wanted to commend the neighborhood for taking the time to register their feelings. Mr. Trippler presented a motion to add an item I in the ordinance that would state: Four or more adult residents each living at a different address and within one block of the residents having the offending vehicle may petition the city of Maplewood to have their neighbor remove or relocate an offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle will be required, within 30 days of receiving a copy of the petition, to do one of the following actions: 1. Remove the offending vehicle from the property. 2. Relocate the offending vehicle to another location or area of their property which is agreeable to all of the signers of the petition. 3. Request from the Maplewood City Council a special variance to retain the offending vehicle on their property. The intent of the motion is that the ordinance proposed by the staff does not address: 1. The number of vehicles parked at a residence. 2. The type of vehicles parked at a residence. 3. Vehicles parked on either side or backyards of a residence. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 12-06-2000 Trying to address any or all of these issues, and the infinite number of possibilities scenarios which might occur is almost impossible. This proposals allows any or all of the above situations to be addressed and allows for the diversity of lot sizes and neighborhoods which exist throughout the city of Maplewood. Staff felt Mr. Tripplers proposal may inspire vigilantes to pick on neighbors they simply don't like and would suggest that the city attorney needs to review the proposal. Mr. Rossbach felt the proposal was taking law into your own hands; a form of vigilante justice. Ms, Fischer questioned if their was an avenue of appeal if the person who is looking for a variance did not agree with the staff recommendation in the proposed ordinance. Staff responded in saying that process would fall under item H. Mr. Thompson seconded Mr. Tripplers motion to add his amendment to the proposal. Staff agreed with Mr. Rossbach that the nuisance ordinance would cover junk cars or expired tabs, but would not cover esthetic opinions. Mr. Pearson did not feel he could support the amendment because it may put power in the hands of people who simply just may not like another person. Mr. Mueller felt their should be a vote on whether everyone was in agreement of calling to question Mr. Tripplers amendment. Chairperson Fischer established there was no disagreement. Ayes-2 (Trippler, Thompson) Nays-4 (Fischer, Pearson, Mueller, Rossbach) Motion failed. Mr. Roberts was flexible with the less than one acre stipulation and felt items A and C could be combined since there was a lot of overlap. Item D (the 10-foot requirement) was a starting point, stated Mr. Roberts and could be adjusted to what the commission deemed appropriate. The ordinance at this point was an attempt to follow the city councils direction. If the commission felt strongly about addressing RV's, motor homes, screening, or parking on the boulevards, the staff will work on language to present at the next meeting. The majority felt the ordinance should apply to everyone regardless of lot size. A suggestion was made to also add some type of verbiage regarding screening, possibly under item H. Mr. Roberts also noted there is no suggested deadline at this point. Ms. Fisher noted the suggested changes/additions to the proposed ordinance: 1. Page 12, sixth line from the bottom should read "relative to the establishment". 2. Page 13, under item 4, the size of the lots should be eliminated. 3. Four A and C seemed redundant and should be combined. Item B, the second line would have a period after surface, and the rest of the sentence would be stricken. Item D, the 10 foot setback could be reduced if agreed to by engineering. The consensus was 0 feet (adjacent to the lot line). 6. It was established that item H included an appeal process. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 12-06-2000 Include in parenthesis what a front set-back is. (The distance between any part of a structure and a street right of Way line). o Staff will check will other cities to find out what, if any, verbiage they use on screening, and work on creating verbiage about screening. The issue of grandfathering was brought up by Mr. Thompson. Staff responded in saying the city has the right to require a resident to improve their parking areas as required to meet the current ordinance. Staff will have the city attorney review the grand father application to the authority of the ordinance. Mr. Pearson moved the commission to table the proposed ordinance for staff to make revisions. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carried. Co VII. VIII. IX. Xo Planning Commission--Vacancy Interview Mr. Roberts noted Mr. Richard DeVries was verbally informed about the meeting and mailed information. Staff was not sure why Mr. DeVries was not present. He recommended the commission uses the decision they made at the last commission meeting. All the commission members agreed. The city council was to interview planning commission applicants on December 11, 2000. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS 1. November 27th Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts said there was nothing to report that directly affected the commission. December 11th Council Meeting: The Affordable Auto proposal will be on the agenda, as will Emerald Estates. The planning commission vacancy interviews will be held at 5:30 and the workshop at 6:00. 3. There will be no council meeting Monday, December 25th. 4. January 8th Council Meeting: Jack Frost will be attending. There is a meeting on affordable housing and transportation investments on Monday, December 18th at 4:00 p.m. at Metro Transit in Minneapolis. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There will be a second December planning commission meeting on the 18th. The 1st and the 15th of January are both holidays. The commission will need to find alternative dates to meet which can be finalized at the December 18th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Independent Estates Preliminary Plat west of Lakewood Drive, north of Maryland Avenue December 12, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Michael Kolodjski, representing Independent Realty, Inc., is proposing to develop a seven-lot plat for single dwellings called Independent Estates. It would be on a 3.26-acre site on the west side of Lakewood Drive, north of Maryland Avenue. (Please see.the maps on pages 8-11 .) Request 'To build this project, Mr. Kolodjski is requesting city approval ora preliminary plat to create the new street and seven lots in the development. (See the maps on pages 12 and 13 and the enclosed project plans.) BACKGROUND On June 13, 1983, the city COuncil changed the zoning map for about 68 acres north of Maryland Avenue and east of McKnight Road. These changes were frOrm M-2 (heavy manufacturing) and R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). It also included rezoning the Beaver Lake Estates Manufactured Home Park from M-2 to R-3 (multiple dwellings). The final change added the NC zoning designation to the property northeast comer of Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive. (The city recently accepted this vacant property as a charitable donation for open space). These are the existing zoning designations in the area. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 15,920 square feet to 19,110 square feet with an average lot size of about 17,500 square feet. The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-2 (single and double dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of frontage and have at least 10,000 square feet. All of the proposed single dwelling lots would meet or exceed the city's R-1 and R-2 zoning standards. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water in Lakewood Drive to serve the proposed development. The developer will extend the water main from the west side of Lakewood Drive into and through the site. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the water plan. Trees As proposed, the contractor for Mr. Kolodjski would grade almost the entire site to create the street right-of-way, the proposed ponding area and the house pads. This grading would remove eight trees and leave two trees on the 3.2-acre site. However, city ordinances do not consider any of the eight trees that the project would remove as large or desirable, and as such, the developer is not required to replace them. Drainage - Watershed District Most of the site drains to the north and west toward an existing wetland area between McKnight Road and Lakewood Drive. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed and existing ponds as storm water detention facilities, the development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. The RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District has been working with the developer on the proposed project plans. Mr. Kolodjski or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Independent Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on December 8, 2000). The developer shall complete the following before the .city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Co Have NSP install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at street intersections and street curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements. f. Demolish or remove the existing pole barn from the east side of the 1262 McKnight Road, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. Complete all the curb and gutter on Lakewood Drive on the east side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Lakewood Drive, repair the trail pavement and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall be revised to follow the site plan and preliminary plat dated December 8, 2000, and shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and trail grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed Slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans; specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than ~3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepere and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water elevation (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Additional information for the property north of the project site. This shall include elevations of the existing ditch, culverts and catch basins and enough information about the storm water flow path from the proposed pond. (11) Emergency overflows between Lots 2 and 3 (into and out of the pond). The ovqrflow swales shall be protected with permanent soil stabilization blankets. Co The street, trail and utility plans shall show: (1) The public streets shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) All the streets with continuous concrete curb and gutter. (3) All public street right-of-ways shall be at least 60-feet-wide. (4) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on the east side of Lakewood Drive, the repair or replacement of the trail pavement and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavations located within the proposed right, of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (8) A detail of the pond and the pond outlet, The outlet shall be protected to prevent erosion. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. These shall include: (1) A 20-foot-wide easement (10 feet on each lot) for the storm sewer between Lots 2 and 3. (2) An easement over all the area below the overflow elevation of the storm sewer. 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. Show all public Street right-of-ways at 60 feet wide. 4. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond at the northwest corner of the plat. 5. 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. 4 6. Record a covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits the driveways on Lots 1 and 7, Block 1 from going onto Lakewood Drive. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 7. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. This approval shall constitute the end of the city's approval of the trucking business that the owner of 1262 McKnight Road has been operating from the site. There shall no longer be any Commercial trucks, trailers or equipment parked Or stored on this site or on the property at 1262 McKnight Road North. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 50 properties within 350 feet of this site and received six written replies. The following are the comments we received: 1. I have two acres adjoining this plat that I plan to develop in the future. My concerns are that it not drain on my land and that I will not be landlocked. (Neizgocki - 2313 Maryland Avenue) 2. We don't object to the development but don't think it should be Tilsen Avenue. There already are enough problems with mail deliveries with the Tilsen already on the west side. Perhaps Tilsen Circle or Drive would be more appropriate and less confusing if it needs to be called Tilsen. (Degraw - 2322 Tilsen Avenue) 3. Maybe we could get some street lights and/or a sign that says blind driveways ahead. Could I get some information on how much the lots are'and who the builders would be? (Occupant - ~ ' 1225 Lakewood Drive) r . 4. I think the speed limit on Lakewood Drive should be reduced to at least 35 MPH. Where the r~ewmsidents will be entering Lakewood, the vehicles coming over the bridge cannot see the cars entering nor can the cars entering see the vehicles on -the bridge. At 45 MPH, by the time they see each other, it could be too late. (Occupant - 1235 Lakewood Drive) 5. I think the idea is a bad one. I bought this house last year because of the fact it wasn't surrounded by roads and other houses. I am going to now have a road traveled by seven homeowners all around my yard. Do we have to develop every piece of land around us? If the land was for sale, why weren't all of the homeowners allowed to purchase and make sure we wouldn't have a loud neighborhood in our backyard. I totally dislike the idea and would hope that everyone else does too. Who owns the land that .is in question, the city or an individual? If I had known a seven-home cul-de-sac would be in my backyard, I would have never purchased this house. (Thunstrom - 1253 Lakewood Drive) Also see the letter from John Fallin of FPS on page 14. 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.26 acres Existing land use: Accessory buildings from the former property owner. SURROUNDING LANDUSES North: South: West: East: Vacant property owned by Feed Products and Service (formerly Bulk Storage) Houses on the north side of Maryland Avenue Houses at 1250 and 1262 McKnight Road Houses across Lakewood Drive on Tilsen Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan and Zoning designations: R-2 (single and double dwellings) APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete, revised project plans for this proposal on December 8, 2000. The city must take action on the proposal by February 7, 2001, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. krlp:lsec24-291independ.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Area Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat date-stamped December 8, 2000 6. Proposed Grading Plan dated December 8, 2000 7. 11-28-00 letter from John Fallin of FPS 8. Project Plans (separate attachments - including 11x17s and full-size) 7 ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH SAINT PAUL LOCATION MAP / BULK STORAGE i · · · 1250 :¸ R3 1240 ATTACHMENT 3 ~}~ : ::: ..... . ..... :..~ :- ...:....::~ ~.~: ~.:. .,..-.... ': . :. · .~.: : . . ::..: ::: . : .......... . :::..: :: ::~ :~:~:~:~ ' ................... MARY~ND AVENUE . _ ........ '~ :::: : .....~. ~ ~ :::~:~:: · '': : :~'~:~:~::~ :'::~:. ~ : · : ~:~::~: : .i~i~ · . · : :' :::~":~!::' · . .. . :': ~ ~ . · ,:~i~i ~::~::¢::~ 't ~ ~ ~f~[~ recorded map or su~ey and is not intended to be ~[:: WA~R96 HALFSECL k a ~A' PARade' 10 ATTACHMENT 4 ~ ~ ~' ~ -- ,. I ~' ~' ... ' ':;:L: ~ ~: * . ] :: : : :::. . ~ ~ ~:~ ( :. .:::::. :~ ::~:~::-: ::[:~[:~'::'~ [ . ~'.~; ~ : : :: : ~~' % ~ : ': '. ::.::::::'. ..' '~iT~: : : : ..:.::':::::::.:.: ::... :~:~ ' '"': :"::::' ' ....... .~'~:~.i~.:: ' '': .,............ ........ ~ ................ ) .................... ........'...'....... .................................. '....'......'._ .' ' :: ' :.' ': .:1 ' :.'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lim, t o, Liabih'¢. This document is not a legal¢ ~}~ Cu~t ~m; STRm; ADDm; ROADS~; r / , i S~U~URES~ WA~R96 HALFSE~ L M TSA PARREG L M TSP ::~:~: '~ :~ - ~:~:J:~:~: records & ~d intonation from variou state 11 ATTACHMENT 5 DEC 0 8 2000 RECEIVED ~. '% '/ / / / 1 I I PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT ATTACHMENT 6 F PROPOSED GRADING PLAN FEED PRODUCTS & SERVICE CO. ATTACHMENT 7 November 28, 2000 Mr. Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner City Of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 N OV 2 9 2OO0 Dear Mr. Roberts: I understand that Mr. Michael. Kolodjski, of Independent Realty, Inc. is requesting approval to develop the west side of Lakewood Drive adjacent to the South West side of our pmperty..Currently FP&S has an approved site plan to commercially develop the West end of our parcel that is adjacent to this site plan. Under title search when we purchased our propeffy it was, found that.an .easement exist on the South West side of our property, which provided access from OM.Mc, Knight. Roadto the other side of LakewoOd. Access to our property is provided by thiseasement. This proposal overlies that easement, Currently we are experiencing encroachment from our residential neighbors.along the south side of our property .line. Our, intent is to be a good neighbor but ,we will need' license 'agreements from these neighbors or they will have to remove their property within .30 days of notice. If this pmpesal is to be approved, we recommend trying to avoid these issues'by providing: A condition that the developer indicate in its purchase agreements, that the adjacent land is - zoned commercial, already has an approved site plan for an office building and/or the owner intends to commercially develop. · A means of creating separation by providing trees and a fence that will provide permanent boundary lines. We would also like it to be known that the development provides us with no benefit and quite possible dis-benef'R. Special assessments for the development should be charged to plan sites. Thank you for this opportunity to respond. Please feel free to contact me at 651-777-3132 if you have any questions. Best reg~ds, C Fallin President FP&S 14 1300 NORTH MCKNIGHT ROAD · MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 551 19 · 8OO-625-6079 · FAX 651-777-8939 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review- Mounds Park Academy 2051 Larpenteur Avenue and 1801 Beebo Road December 11, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mound's Park Academy is proposing to build an addition between their school and the former school district building to the north. Refer to pages 8-12. Mounds Park Academy now owns the northerly building which will be used as an education center. This center would house councilors offices and a preschool facility. The proposed addition would have seven classrooms, a student commons room and a senior lounge. Refer to the letter on page 13. The proposed addition would be 12,600 square feet in area. It would be predominantly a one- story structure with a 1Y~.-story-tall roof line over the senior lounge. The addition would have an exterior of brick and windows. The brick, window glazing and window frames would match the existing buildings. The shingled roof over the lounge would match the blue shingles on the existing school. Mounds Park Academy does not plan an increase in enrollment or faculty due to these changes. Requests The applicant is requesting: 1. Revision of their conditional use permit (CUP) for the school expansion. The city code requires a CUP for schools. 2. Approval of building design and site plans. BACKGROUND April 27, 1992: The city council approved a CUP for Mounds Park Academy to build two additions and expand their recreation areas. Refer to pages 15-17. Condition 5 stated that "the city council may require that the academy build a driveway to Beebo Road through the school district's property if the academy buys the school district building." October 11, 1993: The city council required that there be no parking along both sides of Price Street east of Ruth Street. November 14, 1994: The city council reviewed the CUP for the academy. The council required their review again six months after Independent School District 622 completes their proposed roadway to Beebo Road or in three years, whichever is first. June 12, 1995: The city council approved a CUP revision and the plans for Independent School District 622 who at that time owned the northerly building. This was so the school district could expand their parking lot and reroute their driveway to Beebe Road. March 25, 1996: The city council moved that they would not review this CUP for Mounds Park Academy again unless a problem develops or if the school proposes any changes. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed addition would meet the requirements for CUP approval. It would be attractive and would not impact any neighbors. The addition would be virtually hidden from the neighbors to the east because of a tall hill covered with a thick stand mature evergreens. The proposed addition would also be hidden from the neighbors to the west by mature trees in the summer. During the winter months, the addition would be far enough away (550 feet) to not cause any negative impact. The replies from the neighbors were largely supportive. Those who objected, as well as some of those in support, expressed concerns/complaints about the traffic congestion on Larpenteur Avenue at drop-off and pick-up times. This has been an ongoing concern for some of the neighbors. In addition to the traffic on Ruth Street and Larpenteur Avenue, some neighbors at Ruth Street and Price Avenue would like the city to require that the school permanently close the parking lot opening at Pdce Avenue with fencing. Presently, this driveway is barricaded and can only be used by emergency vehicles and pedestrians. One last traffic concern is that the northerly site (the old school district building) is separated from the southerly site (the school) by a chain to prevent cross traffic flow. As mentioned above, the city council stated by motion in 1992 that "the city council may require that the academy build a driveway to Beebe Road through, the school district's property if the academy buys the school district building." Street Traffic (_Ruth Street and Larpenteur Avenue) Staff observed the "schools out" traffic at 3 to 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5. There was no increase in traffic due to the school on Ruth Street that staff could tell. There was no vehicle activity either at the Price Street entrance to the school's west parking lot. As mentioned this driveway entrance is barricaded to prevent vehicular use. I spoke to Lieutenant John Banick of the Maplewood Police Department about the traffic concern at Price Avenue and Ruth Street. Lieutenant Banick felt that the Price Avenue entrance to the school's parking lot is already sufficiently blocked off--cam cannot access the site at this point. Complete fencing of this opening is unwarranted. It is beneficial for police officers to be able to see into the school property and to have access if needed for emergencies. The Larpenteur Avenue traffic was much heavier. The traffic due to school start and end times creates a mini "rush hour" for 20 minutes twice a day. I spoke to Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, about the Larpenteur Avenue traffic concerns. Mr. Solar felt that it is true that school-generated traffic is busy for a short time twice 2 a day. Larpenteur Avenue traffic is still moving though. There are going to be cars and busses at the school the during drop-off and pick-up times. Other than these two short periods of increased traffic congestion, Larpenteur Avenue functions propedy in moving traffic. Internal Traffic Flow Keeping the two sites open for cross traffic flow would be beneficial for emergency access. Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, said that he would prefer that the school remove the chained barricade which separates the northerly site from the main school property. The applicant would like to prevent the traffic flow between the two sites for child safety. They feel preventing the flow of traffic between the north and south parts of the site is safer for pedestrians. They also feel that the connecting driveway is too narrow for safe two-way traffic and the flow through the abutting northerly parking lot is cumbersome. These two points are true. The Larpenteur Avenue residents would like the school to use the Beebe Road Access to alleviate the Larpenteur Avenue traffic. Staff feels that puffing bus traffic on Beebe Road would not benefit the traffic situation. It would be introducing traffic into a residential neighborhood and to a roadway that is not designed for heavier traffic use. The Larpenteur Avenue residents would likely disagree, but Larpenteur is designed for higher traffic use compared to Beebe Road. All schools generate increased traffic twice a day. There is no way to avoid that. Staff recommends that the chained barricade remain. The northerly parking lot is currently being used by the school nearly to its capacity. Putting bus traffic on Beebe Road would worsen the internal traffic fiow of this property. The city's public safety personnel can cut the chain if emergency access is needed. Landscaping and Screening Fence Repair The applicant has not proposed any new landscaping. Staff does not feel any is wan'anted for the proposed addition. There are a few areas in the existing screening fence that need repair. The school has been doing so as needed. The remaining damaged areas on the fence should be repaired or replaced. Lot Combination The applicant should combine their two sites as one legally-described parcel since they own both pieces and would cross the lot line with the proposed addition. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 18-19 for the Mounds Park Academy conditional use permit revision. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): All construction must comply with the site plan, date-stamped J=~,.'-'--ry ,-,, .... November 17. 2000. The city council may approve major changes~.-~--,~. ,," ........... ,-- ~ .... ,. ........ , ...., ...... , .... L -' The directoror ity d "-'- .... ~ .............. commun evelopment may approve minor changes ..... ~,.,~,, .... 3 The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval, city based on the procedure in the code. Th~ The school shall tum the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the tennis court lights. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot line as a track or route for running dudng fall and spdng cross-country meets. ....... ,,,o ...... ~,, ,,~,~, ,~ ,f th~o,,=,,,,,,~ ,,,,~o ,,,~ o,,,,,,,,, d,ot, ,~'o,,,,,,,,,, ,~. e city_ council may reconsider the need for the school tO build a driveway to Beebe Road from time to time. The city ncil rosy cou thor if '~--- ~ .......... '-- requires that the school keep the westedv a~ss at PH~ Avenue bs~ded, ex~t for ememen~-vehicle a~ss. 7. The wooden screening fence shall be ke_ot in good re.oair. Bo Approve the plans date-stamped November 17, 2000 for the proposed addition to Mounds Park Academy, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before obtaining a building permit for the addition, the property owner shall provide staff with evidence that their two properties have been combined into one legally-described lot. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition: a. Repair or replace any broken or missing parts of the wooden screening fence. b. Restore all ground that is disturbed by the proposed construction. 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. bo The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 1% times the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the 120 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this property for their comment about this proposal. Of the 35 replies, eight had no comment, four objected and the remaining 23 were in favor or gave miscellaneous comments. In Favor/Misoellaneous Comments 1. It's OK with me. (Fitch, 1689 Beebe Road) 2. Sounds OK to us. (Heller, 2117 Southwind Drive) I have no problem with this addition as long as in the future they have no plans to reopen Price Avenue. Actually a permanent closure would be much appreciated. Something nicer looking. (Dzwonkowski, 1727 Ruth Street) 4. This will have little if any affect on us. (Kemal, 2102 Larpenteur Avenue) 5. OK to build. (Southwind Home Association of Maplewood, 2117 Southwind Drive) 6. Let them build the structure as requested. They have been good neighbors. Lets to what is reasonable to keep them that way. (Gustafson, 1714 Stanich Place) The kids already are using my backyard as an extension of their playground. With the addition would my problems increase? I would highly recommend a fence being installed between our properties. (Rogers, 1743 Beebe Road) Remove the barricades and extend the wooden fence across the old Price Street entrance to the school property. This entrance is barricaded presently, but is still used for pedestrian traffic. (homeowner at comer of Price Avenue and Ruth Street) 9. No objection so long as fir trees along east property line behind 1757 Beebe Road are not disturbed. (Pfaff, 1757 Beebe Road) 10. A very good neighbor. Should be allowed to expand. (Harling, 1980 Price Avenue) 11. We would like to have the Price Avenue entrance to Mounds Park Academy parking lot closed completely. It now has barricades in place. This would eliminate foot traffic from the school and parking in a posted no parking zone. I have no comments on the addition. (Moeckel, 1722 Ruth Street) 12. I am writing in response to the survey on Mounds Park Academy. My answer is "GO FOR IT." They are excellent neighbors in every way. Our property values have gone up in this neighborhood. A few years ago this neighborhood was invited up there for open house. I was impressed. Thank you very much. (Tauer, 1700 Stanich Place) 13. After the first improvements the school made the traffic was still terrible. If they expand, there just has to be another entrance to the school the way it is now at 3 p.m., people can't even get out of their driveways. Cars are lined all the way to Beebe Road. Please demand that they make a better flow of traffic. (Adams, 2052 Larpenteur Avenue) 14. The only concern I have is the level of cars gets very busy on Larpenteur at end of school day. Now would this add much more traffic to our already very congested area at certain times of the day? (Gonia, 631 Wilkens, Stillwater, MN) 15. We don't see any problem with this request, but our townhome is facing North St. Paul Road so we are a distance from the addition. (Sundberg, 2036 Holloway Avenue) 16. They seem to have done a good job with everything through their own resources and are good neighbors. (VanLaningham, 1700 Ruth Street) 17. MPA has been a good neighbor, we have no objections to them improving their property. I would like them to revisit the original CUP in which landscaping, including trees were to be planted in parking islands. Foot tall weeds just don't do itl (Ewald, 1744 Ruth Street) 18. I have no objections to this expansion as long as it does not interfere with the nearby residents. (Handrahan, 1722 Stanich Place) 19. Great Idea! We think MPA makes a good neighbor. And thanks for asking. (Flister, 1763 Beebe Road) 20. I think that it would be great! (Rauch, 2027 California Avenue) 21. We have no reason to not go along with their request. (Minehan, 2068 Holloway Avenue) 22. This proposed building plan at Mounds Park Academy would be fine with me. (Ikier, 1713 Ruth Street) 23. I have a concern regarding the traffic on Beebe, Holloway and Larpenteur. We already have cars, police cars and trucks going thru the stop signs on Beebe & Holloway. (Kasprzak, 1904 Beebe Road) Objections I would like to see more information on this addition. What I need to know more about is the height of this addition. Also how far being extended to the north. The lighting of the new building and lot. The one level building with no height increase would be the best scenario as per my concern. I would like to see the sun light in the morning. Also, don't need to look out at more buildings. The tree line covers the existing building right now. Building to north ok if keep only one floor building. (Palony, 1758 Ruth Street) We are very much against any enlargement to the school. The traffic in the morning and afternoon is already awful. It would seem that there should be some consideration to the already heavy traffic congestion. (Oehme, 2065 California Avenue) 3. Refer to the letter on page 14 from Steve and Sheila Schell. Traffic is a severe problem and has been for some time. That is the traffic on Larpenteur Avenue. Another entrance and exit should be considered or a form of traffic control. Without either option, I would object to this request to enlarge the facility. (Sailor, 100 Oakmont Lane) 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 30,000 square feet (construction-site area) Existing land use: Mounds Park Academy SURROUNDING LAND USES The proposed addition would be bordered by two existing school buildings and the school grounds. There are single dwellings to the east. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R1 (single dwelling residential) Zoning: S (school) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for schools. Section 36-448(b) requires that the city council review any proposed revisions to an approved CUP. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 18-19. Application Date We received the applications for these requests on November 17, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving proposals. City council action is required on these requests by January 17, 2001. p:sec14~noundpk, cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une I Zoning Map 3. Full Site Plan 4. Partial Site Plan 5. Building Elevation Reductions 6. Applicant's letter dated November 7, 2000 7. Letter from Steve and Sheila Schell dated December 1, 2000 8. 4-27-92 council minutes 9. CUP Resolution 10. Plans date-stamped November 17, 2000 (separate attachment) 7 MARKH M ATTACHMENT NOR TH SA IN T PA UL o CO "C" rANT NG JRST RIE RD NORTH SAINT PAUL ~.ARPENTEUR LOCATION 8 MAP (:s) m m Ii ii Ii ii m m II m m,,, m Imm .I!_ m, I 0% .,~/~, ' ;'"':".~, · 'q (~..o ~ --..) . ff o ARCHER HEIGHTS F Z R1 APARTMENTS ~ q- -.X ~ , \ -- ,e DD~.£43?J',S -.. ,.- ..... ,~ ~- :~...~.:::::: ~11 :-.:: ~ ij 140)$ S'i- ~~ $OL~INDS :'Of ' 2NDiA[ MAPLEW~ AVE / AVE. ,,~ ,~ . ~.~'~ ::", ,.., : · 1714: ~'~"~' * 1700, STATION · ' 16g' " .'r · '~ ? 't686~ 2025 2095 "'-LARPENTEUR AVE.! '~-" I ! I ! ATTACHMENT 3 LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONNECTING LINK AV~NU~= FULL SITE PLAN FORMER SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDING ATTACHMENT 4 om EXISTING MOUNDS PARK ACADEMY iL PROPOSED CONNECTING LINK ATTACHMENT 5 12 ATTACHMENT 6 Date: Project Re: To C¢: November 7, 2000 ,, Mounds Park Academy Addition City Approvals City of Maplewood File. Dear Sirs, The Mounds Park Academy, in its pursuit of excellence has developed an opportunity to improve its facilities, and better serve its student population by acquiring the St. Paul District Building adjacent to Mounds Park Academy. The academy would like permission to build an "Upper School Extension" between the existing school building and the newly acquired "District Building". The Upper School Extension would serve as a link between the existing school building and what would become the new "Education Center" (formerly the St. Paul District Building). The Upper School Extension Addition would also house seven classrooms, and a student commons room, and senior lounge. The newly remodeled building, to be known as the "Education Center" would house councilors offices, and a preschool facility to serve the special needs of the academy. It has been my good fortune and unique opportunity to have had this opportunity to assist Mounds Park Academy develop its plans for expansion and improvement. Mounds Park Academy is unique in the Twin Cities. Its programs represent the best in today's practices of primary and secondary education. It is my sincere hope that the City of Maplewood will approve this application, and in so doing help to further the success of this wonderful institution. Michael E. Hale Project Architect $. Buxell Architecture, Ltd. Minneapolis, Minnesota 13 ATTACHMENT December l, 2000 Thomas Ekstrand Associate Planner City Of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Please don't let M.P.A. add on to their school. Our street (Ruth Street) can not handle the extra traffic from the parents of M.P.A. students who don't care about the small children in our neighborhood as they race up and down Ruth Street in their fancy cars. There is already too much congestion on Ruth and Larpenteur when school is starting and ending. We pay a lot of money in property taxes, yet our street is in bad shape, maybe from all the extra traffic. If they have only 20 students in a classroom, adding seven more classrooms would mean 140 more students and 140 more cars using our streets. We don't think we need to be subjected to that much more traffic in our neighborhood. Perhaps M.P.A. should look for a place to build that doesn't have residents trying to live peacefully in small neighborhoods like ours. If this was in Shoreview, White Bear or North Oaks (where these students come from) you can bet it wouldn't fly! Sincerely, ~ ~t/ Steve & S~h~Ia Schell 1694 Ruth Street Maplewood, MN 55109 14 4,' ATTACHHENT 8 Conditional Use PerlJt: 2051 E. Larpenteur Ave. (Hounds Park Academy) ~) a. Hanager HcGutre presented the staff report. b. Dtrector of Publlc Works Hatder presented the specifics of the report. c. Hayor Basttan asked tf anyone wtshed to speak before the Counctl regarding thts matter. The followtn9 were heard: Jacob Buxe11, Architect Kathleen Mtnd, Assistant Superintendent of Dtstrtct 622 Counctlmember Zappa .Introduced the followtna Resolution and moved 1ts ~dontton: 92 - O4 - 39 CONDZTZONAL USE PERMZT WHEREAS, Hounds Park Academy applied for a revtston of the conditional use permtt for a school. k~IEREAS, they applied for thts revtston to allow them to expand the extsttng school. WHEREAS, thts permtt appltes to 2051 E. Larpenteur Avenue. The legal description · Tracts D, E and H of Registered Land Survey No. 396 as recorded tn the offtce of the Ramsey County Registrar of Tttles and a parcel of land described as follows: Commencing at a potnt dtstant 33 feet West of the Northeast corner of the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Sectton 14, To~nshtp 29, Range 22; thence runntng West 26 rods; thence South 22 rods; thence East 26 rods; thence North 22 rods to the potnt of the beginning, which 11es wtthtn the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of satd Sectton 14, Ramsey County, MN. ~EREAS, the htstory of thts conditional use permit ts as follows: The Planning Commission discussed thts application on February 18, 1992. They recommended that the City Counct1 approve satd .permt_t.. " The City Council held a publlc hearing on Apr11 13, 1992. City staff published a notice tn the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Counct1 gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recomendattons of the Ctty staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described conditional use permit for the following reasons: 15 4-27-92 The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 0 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. 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 must comply with the site plan, date-stamped January 14, lgg2. The City Council may approve major changes, after a public hearing and recommendation from the Community Design Review Board. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The Academy may phase the development plan. The City Council shall review this permit one year from the date of approval, based on the procedures in City Code. The City may, at that time, direct the closure of the Price entrance if traffic problems continue. 3. The school shall turn the tennis court ltghts off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the tennis court lights. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot line as a track or route for running during fall and spring cross-country meets. The City Council may require that the Academy build a driveway to Be,be Road through the School District's property if the Academy buys the School District's building. 16 4-27-92 6. The Ctty counct1 may requtre that the school chatn the westerly access for eventng events tf they become a problem. Seconded by Counctlmember Rossbach Ayes - Counctlmembers Carlson, Ouker, .. Rossbach, Zappa h Nays - Hayor Basttan e. orlze all-way stoa stans at Prtce ~nd Seconded I~ ¢°unc~lmeml:)e~ CarlsonAyes-counc~lmembers Carlson, 3uker, Rossbach, Zappa Nays - H~yo~ B8st~an 17 Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mounds Park Academy requested a revision of their conditional use permit. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2051 Larpenteur Avenue East and 1801 Beebe Road. The legal description is: Tracts A, D, E, F, G and H of Registered Land Survey No. 396, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. The planning commission discussed the conditional use permit revision on December 18, 2000. They recommended that the city council approve the revision. The city council held a public hearing on January 8, 2000. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the heating a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit revision for the following reasons: 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. o 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. 18 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction must comply with the site plan, date-stamped November 17, 2000. The city council may approve major changes The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval, based on the procedure in the city code. 3. The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the tennis court lights. 4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot line as a track or route for running during fall and spring cross-country meets. 5. The city council may reconsider the need for the school to build a driveway to Beebe Road from time to time. 6. The city council requires that the school keep the westerly access at Price Avenue barricaded, except for emergency-vehicle access. 7. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on January 8, 2000. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit - Comfort Bus Company Conditional Use Permit Termination - Amusement City 1870 Rice Street December 12, 2000 INTRODUCTION Craig and Lee Rossow, of Comfort Bus Company, are proposing to move their Little Canada bus terminal to the Amusement City site at 1870 Rice Street. Refer to the maps on pages 6-8. They propose to operate their school bus and charter bus business from this location. They would remove all existing construction from this site and build a two-story office building, a shop, a dispatch building and a fueling dock. The applicants would submit a community design review board application with architectural plans if the city council approves their conditional use permit (CUP). They have shown their vision for their proposed dispatch/maintenance building and office building in the enclosed booklet. Requests 1. The applicants are requesting a CUP for the bus-maintenance portion of their business. The city code requires a CUP for mechanical repair and maintenance garages in a BC (business commercial) district. The city code allows the bus parking and office portions of this facility as a permitted use. Refer to the applicants' letter on pages 10-11. 2. Staff is requesting the termination of the Amusement City CUP in the event the city council approves the Comfort Bus CUP. BACKGROUND Refer to the Amusement City Past Actions on pages 4-5. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit This proposal meets the requirements., for a CUP for mechanical repair. Staff does not believe that the activities associated with this business will cause harm or nuisances that will impact the surrounding area. Two neighbors commented about the potential-for paint fumes. Mr. Rossow told me that it is possible that they may touch up a vehicle with aerosol spray paint at this site. Larger vehicle-body repairs and painting would occur on their current site in Little Canada where they have body-work equipment. The proposed bus-repair garage would be an accessory use to Comfort Bus's operation. It is much like the City of Maplewood's vehicle repair garage and mechanic operations for city trucks and cars. Site Considerations The site plan is conceptual. The applicant should provide details later when they apply for design review that includes items such as: · Dimensions for all site-related elements (parking lots, ddve aisles, setbacks, buildings) · Landscaping plan · Site lighting proposal · Grading and drainage plan (contact the Maplewood City Engineer while designing this plan) Wetland Mr. Betts' recent expansion proposal for Amusement City was to incorporate the St. Paul Water Utility property southwest of this site. See page 9. Mr. Rossow said that they may wish to incorporate this property into their site in the future. Staff would like it noted that there is a Class 5 wetland on the adjacent parcel that may limit the use or development of that property. The applicant should discuss these issues with staff. Conditional Use Permit Termination If the council approves the applicant's proposal, they should also terminate the CUP for Amusement City. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 12 terminating the conditional use permit for an amusement center at 1870 Rice Street. Termination of this permit is because the site is to be sold for a bus terminal and is will longer be used as an amusement center. This permit shall stay in effect if the owners of the Comfort Bus Company decide not to purchase this site and move their facility to this location. Staff will record this resolution of CUP termination with Ramsey County once the owners of Comfort Bus Company apply for demolition permits. B. Adopt the resolution on pages 13-14 approving a conditional use permit for motor-vehicle repair as part of a proposed bus terminal at 1870 Rice Street. The city bases approval on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 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. 4. The applicant shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements as it relates to all applicable aspects of their vehicle repair operation. 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the 38 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this property for their comment about this proposal. Of the nine replies, one had no comment, two objected and the remaining six were in favor or gave miscellaneous comments. In Favor or had Comments 1. No objections. (Soo Line Railroad Company) My only comment is how will cars exit onto Roselawn. There is a steep grade. Will cause congestion for morning traffic so traffic lights on Rice and Roselawn will have to be adjusted to comply with this. (Owner, 1935 Rice Street) 3. Sounds like a project that benefits the area. (Owner, 1911 Rice Street) 4. Sounds like a positive business. (Hess, 1913 Shady Beach Avenue) o My only concern would be the level of bus fumes and any paint or other toxic smells during bus repair. I appreciate your including Roseville neighbors in your feedback. Overall, I do think it would be a welcome change from the amusement park. (Zehr, 1874 Shady Beach Avenue) I see no real problems with the proposal. However, I will be sad to see the amusement park leave. It has brought me, my family and friends children many hours of enjoyment. (Grubar, 1872 Shady Beach Avenue) There are three letters of support included in the attached booklet provided by the applicants. These are from the City of Little Canada, Roseville Area Schools District 623 and St. Paul Public Schools. Refer to the enclosed booklet. Object Our community already suffers the air pollution that the LZ Company (comer of Rice and Center across from Amusement City) creates when the fumes from painting vehicles wafts into our household. To add a convoy of diesel engines into the neighborhood daily, surely will not help this problem. I know we are a very small neighborhood, but don't discount us. I am against this company taking over this spot. Thank you. (Moore, 1878 Shady Beach Avenue) I would be opposed to this company occupying the Amusement City location. Traffic on Rice Street is backed up from Larpenteur to Highway 36 every day during rush hours. We don't need any more traffic. The bus company is very unaesthetic. We don't need to look at rows of busses unless there is a tall privacy fence facing Rice Street. We don't need any more toxic fumes from diesel fuel. We already get fumes from LZ Company and have to look at their junk yard when we drive by. (Bergenheier, 1870 Shady Beach Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 9.92 acres Existing land use: Amusement City SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Rice and Roselawn Used Cars and Roselawn Avenue Chalet Lounge and undeveloped St. Paul Water Utility property Railroad tracks and St. Paul Water Utility property Rice Street and businesses in the City of Roseville PAST ACTIONS (Amusement City) November 17, 1977: The city council approved the CUP for the amusement facility. October 22, 1981: Staff approved a racetrack addition. March 9, 1982: The design board approved the bumper boats, mini-golf and batting cages. Apdl 25, 1994: The council revised the CUP to include the ddving range. October 11, 1994: Staff approved a siding change for the equipment building. May 22, 1995: The council extended the CUP for one year. May 20, 1996: The council extended the CUP for another year. October 29, 1996: Ms. Carolyn Wilkerson submitted a petition, signed by 128 people, requesting that the city council close Amusement City's driving range. November 25, 1996: The city council "moved to set a public headng to formally review the CUP to determine whether there are valid safety issues which should result in amending or revoking the permit." March 10, 1997: The city council held a public hearing to review Ms. Wilkerson's request. The council renewed the CUP, but required the owners of the driving range to do the following: .1. Increase the height of the netting to 65 feet along the north side of the driving range. 2. Aim the tee boxes, where practical, toward the soUtheast comer of the driving range. 3. Cease storing vehicles on the driving range. 4. Provide verification that the business is using only Iow trajectory golf balls. 5. Submit a statement indicating how they will process claims for damages. The council also moved to review this permit again in one year. June 23, 1997: The city council amended the CUP to suspend the operation of the driving range portion of this amusement facility because of complaints about golf ball damage, the storing of vehicles on the site without the proper approvals and violation of CUP requirements that pertained to the driving range. The CUP for the rest of the amusement facility is still in effect. March 30, 1998: The city council reviewed the CUP and authorized review again in one year. July 10, 2000: The city council amended the CUP for Amusement City to expand their facility into the abutting St. Paul Water Utility property to the southwest. They also allowed the conversion of one of the applicant's buildings into a pizza restaurant. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(9) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. Section 36-446(a) provides that the city council may terminate a CUP if the use is no longer in effect. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 13-14. Application Date We received the applications for these requests on November 29, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving proposals. City council action is required on these requests by January 29, 2001. p:sec18\comfort, bus Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une/Zoning Map 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Amusement City Site Plan 5. Applicant's Letter of Request dated November 21, 2000 6. CUP Termination Resolution 7. CUP Approval Resolution Attachment 1 e% PAUL LOCATION MAP 1930 BC PROPOSED ~* ' e ',: COMFORT BUS " ,; SITE (EXISTING AMU~-'I;I~I'EI~I~ "',i CITY PROPERTY) -": : Attachment 2 ROSELAWN AVENUE }~ 'il P U lvl P I N.G PROPERTY LINE I ZONING* MAP ~'~,':ac nmen ~ o s ROSELA',¥N I PROPOSED COMFORT BUS SITE PLAN SITE PLAN Attachment I' RICE S i RE~-r CHALET LOUNGE PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA AMUSEMENT CITY 9 I' I I I I I ! I I I ! ! Attachment 5 · COMFORT BUS COMPANY, INC. · 3101 SPRUCE STREET · LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA 55117 · (612) 482-1524 Tuesday, November 21, 2000 Tom Ekstrand - Associate Planner Melinda Coleman - Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B. Maplewood, MN 55109 Regarding the property located at 1870 Rice Street Comfort Bus Company, Inc. and Centerline Charter Corp. are in the business of transporting students back and forth to schools located in the Roseville and St. Paul School Districts. We also transport adults with special needs to sites in Maplewoodi White Bear Lake and Shoreview. We employ 130 drivers and staff. We train and test our own drivers. We hold five safety meetings throughout the school year and we are constantly testing and re-certifing our employees. To operate safely and efficiently it is necessary to have a facility to maintain our equipment. All of our busses are inspected by the State Patrol annually and we are very proud of our safety record. We are proposing an 18,000 square foot building to be used as a maintenance facility and dispatch office. The terminal would house the necessary equipment and manpower to maintain, wash, lubricate and overhaul our fleet. The bus parking area will be equipped with adequate lighting and block heater receptacles for every bus. Contrary to popular beliet~ we never let our busses idle over night. The fuel dock would be located south of the dispatch office. This fuel dock would be lighted and covered. The dimensions of the dock would be 60 feet by 100 feet. Our corporate offices would be a 10,000 square foot, two-story concrete building, located west of the maintenance facility. There would be a 40 foot wide courtyard between the main offices and the dispatch area, serving as a buffer between the activity of the dispatchers and the activity of the office. We intend to provide a comfortable, outdoor gathering area in the courtyard and equip it with picnic tables and a play area. The parking area to the west of the offices would be asphalt with concrete curb and gutter. The existing double entrance offofRice Street would be used by both the busses and the employees. We propose allowing the busses to exit and enter onto Roselawn via an existing curb cut. Traffic should flow with little disturbance by turning east toward 1 35E, west toward the traffic lite on Rice Street or north and south onto Rice Street through the main entrance. 10 *COMFORT BUS COMPANY, INC. · 3101 SPRUCE STREET · LITFLE CANADA, MINNESOTA 55117 · (612) 482-1524 As agreed, please use the adjacent property owners list, provided to you by Dan Betts, earlier this year. It is our opinion that besides the .effects of enhancing the existing property with a positive business operation, this proposed use would create very little impact to the City of MapleWOod: 1. During the summer months when the area is busy with beach people, our business activity is significantly lower. 2. In the 15 years ofdoing business in the area, we have had two police calls and no fire calls. 3. The land is marginal, lending itself perfectly toward a bus terminal. The neighborhood is entirely commercial. The property is located in the center of our work area. '~ 4. We 'are an excellent employer. Our drivers are very well paid according to industry 5. We are a two generation family business. 6. We take a lot ofpride in what we do. We purchase well-equipped, "fancier than average", vehicles that represent our high standards of business. 7. We provide a very important public service - "WE DELIVER THE FUTURE" Respectfully submitted, Enclosures 11 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TERMINATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council approved a conditional use permit for an amusement center at 1870 Rice Street. WHEREAS, the owner of this property has closed the amusement center and sold the land. WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council has approved a conditional use permit to the new owner of this property for the operation of a bus terminal. WHEREAS, this permit termination applies to the following described property: EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO ST AND AVE AND VAC STS AND ALLEYS ACCRUING, THE FOL A TRACT LYING NWLY OF SO0 LINE RY R/W OF THE FOL; LOTS 4 THRU 10 BLK 1, LOT 7 BLK2, LOTS 5 THRU 32 BLK 4, LOTS 12 THRU 25 BLK 6 AND ALL OF BLK 3. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO HWY THE FOL VAC ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 33 THRU LOT 39 BLK 4. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN. VAC ST AND ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 1 THRU 4 BLK 4. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. The city council approved this permit on November 17, 1977. They subsequently reviewed this permit many times and considered several changes to this business. The city council's most recent revision of this permit was on July 10, 2000. On December 18, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council terminate this permit. The city council held a public heating on January 8, 2001. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the 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 terminate the above-described conditional use permit because the site has been sold for use as a bus terminal and is no longer needed as an amusement center. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on January 8, 2001. 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION Attachment 7 WHEREAS, Lee and Craig Rossow, of the Comfort Bus Company, applied for a conditional use permit to operate a motor-vehicle maintenance garage as part of their bus terminal operation. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1870 Rice Street. The legal description is: EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO ST AND AVE AND VAC STS AND ALLEYS ACCRUING, THE FOL A TRACT LYING NWLY OF SOO LINE RY R/W OF THE FOL; LOTS 4 THRU 10 BLK 1, LOT 7 BLK 2, LOTS 5 THRU 32 BLK 4, LOTS 12 THRU 25 BLK 6 AND ALL OF BLK 3. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO HWY THE FOL VAC ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 33 THRU LOT 39 BLK 4. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN. VAC ST AND ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 1 THRU 4 BLK 4. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On December 18, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on January 8, 2001. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the 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 revise the above-described conditional use permit revision, based on the following reasons: 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. 13 The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adeqUate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements as it relates to all applicable aspects of their vehicle repair operation. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on January 8, 2001. 14 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: . City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Resignation December 11, 2000 INTRODUCTION Milo Thompson has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution of appreciation. kr/p:miscell/pcresig.mem Attachments: 1. October 31, 2000 letter 2. Resolution Attachment 1 Milo Thompson 1794 Onacrest Curve Maplewood, MN $$117 31 October, 2000 Mrs. Melinda Coleman Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN, 55109 Dear Mrs. Coleraa% Believing my Planning Commission appointment expires 12-31-2000, I ask to not be considered for reappointment. This has been a real learning experience. Hopefully the community is a bit better place, for having made the effort. Sincerely, copy- Lorraine Fisher Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIA TION WHEREAS, Milo Thompson has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since October 10, 1994 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewoo& and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREB Y RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens, that Milo Thompson is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on Robert Cardinal, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commision on December 18, 2000 Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Attest: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: · City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Resignation December 11, 2000 INTRODUCTION Milo Thompson has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution of appreciation. kr/p:miscell/pcresig.mem Attachments: 1. October 31, 2000 letter 2. Resolution Attachment 1 Milo Thompson 1794 Omcrest Curve Maplewood, MN $$117 31 October, 2000 Mrs. Melinda Coleman Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN, 55109 Believing my planning Commission appointment expires 12-31-2000, I ask to not be considered for re, appointment. This has been a real learning experience. Hopefully the community is a bit better place, for having made the effort. copy - Lorraine Fisher Sincerely, 2 Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Milo Thompson has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since October 10, 1994 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewoo& and WHEREAS, he has shown s&cere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens, that Milo Thompson is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on Robert Cardinal, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commision on December 18, 2000 Attest: Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Karen Cruilfoile, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: . City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission Resignation December 11, 2000 INTRODUCTION Milo Thompson has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution of appreciation. kr/p:miscell/pcresig.mem Attachments: 1. October 31, 2000 letter 2. Resolution Attachment I Milo Thompson 1794 Onacrest Curve Maplewood, MN 55117 31 October, 2000 Mrs. Melinda Coleman Community Development Director City of lVlaplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN, 55109 Believing my Planning Commission appointment expires 12-31-2000, I ask to not be considered for reappointment. This has been a real learning experience. Hopefully the community is a bit better place, for having made the effort. copy- Lorraine Fisher Sincerely, 2 Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIA TION WHEREAS, Milo Thompson has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since October 10, 1994 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewoo& and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREB Y RESOL VED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens, that Milo Thompson is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on Robert Cardinal, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commision on December 18, 2000 Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Attest: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk 3