Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2001BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION ~flAdJ~ January 17, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda o Approval of Minutes a. January2, 2001 o Unfinished Business a. None New Business ao Conditional Use Permit -Lot Division (1101 County Road C) b. Rice/Roselawn Auto Sales (1908 Rice Street) Conditional Use Permit Setback Variances 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness b. February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prePared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jwlpc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JANUARY 02, 2001 II. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLLCALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Mary Dierich Staff Present: Present Present Absent Present Present Absent Present Present Absent Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Acting City Engineer Recording 'Secretary: Lori Hansen III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-All IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 18, 2001: Chairperson Fischer noted under the December 11th Council Meeting, staff updated the commission on the sign condition with Affordable Auto. Staff also announced the city council election after Ms. Fischer discussed the current status of the public safety dispatching. Ms. Fischer also asked that Mr. Thompson be added to item C under staff presentations. His term also expired on the 31st of December. Commission Frost moved approval of the revised minutes of December 18, 2000 as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes-All The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-02-2001 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING A. Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall--Conditional Use Permit--(925 Century Avenue North). Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Gil Shipshock, of the Mounds Park/Oakdale Jehovah's kingdom Hall, is proposing an expansion of the Kingdom Hall at 925 Century Avenue North. They will be building a 1,120-square-foot addition onto the west end of the existing building. They would also be building a 24 x 24 foot two-car garage to replace the small shed on the property, enlarge the parking lot by adding 17 more spaces south of the existing parking lot, and close the southerly driveway into the site. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a conditional use permit for the church expansion. Staff does not feel the proposed church and parking lot expansion would cause any negative effect for the neighbors as long as the precautions noted in the conditions are taken. The applicant is proposing to replace their parking lot lights with downward-cast fixtures. This type of fixture would eliminate light overspill onto neighbors' properties. Neighbors to the south of the proposed property are concerned with storm water and storm water run off, and that the adjacent parking lot could cause flooding and create drainage concerns. Chris Cavett, the Acting City Engineer, is confident that if the applicant makes the recommended revisions to the plans and provides all the information he has outlined, there should be no negative effect on the neighbors to the south by storm water run-off. With the parking lot expansion, the applicant has proposed to add trees adjacent to the property line to provide screening. The trees alone will not meet the city screening requirement of an 80% opaque screening. Therefore, staff is recommending that a screening fence be added so that the screening requirement is met and that there will not be headlight glare shining onto the neighbors to the south. Mr. Frost asked about the resident at 2404 Harvester who had the concern of headlight glare. Staff felt the 80% screening requirement would alleviate this concern. Also, in the conditions it requires that the applicant review with staff the need for additional screening on the north side of the parking lot for this home. Gil Shipshock, Chairman of the Building Committee for Jehovah's Witness, was present for the applicant. Mr. Mueller was concerned with the site lights that were on all night long shining in the neighbor's windows. The applicant responded in saying they are switching to a shoebox type fixture therefore the lighting is controlled and will not flow over into the neighbors lots, and the lights will also be put on timers so they will be shutting off in the evening. Regarding the headlight concern for the resident at 2404 Harvester, the revised plans will create one-way traffic flow which will redirect the swing of vehicle lights away from the neighbors. Mr. Trippler wanted to know how much activity was in the evening hours as opposed to during the day? Mr. Shipshock responded in saying that there are meetings on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. All the other activity is during the day, generally on Saturdays and Sundays. Jerry Hicks was present representing his daughter and her husband who live at 2707 Brand Avenue East. He read a letter to the commission addressing their concerns with the proposed expansion of Jehovah's Witness. The letter gave a brief history of the property at 2707 Brand Avenue East. It included the history of water problems in the basement of the property, and the problems with leaking since his daughter purchased the property last spring. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 01-02-2001 Mr. Hicks and his family did not feel the proposal is the right site for a "rain garden". They feel the rain garden will fill up and when the water percolates into the ground, will flow toward the basement of all the homes between the church and the standing water a few hundred feet away. They also feel the snow accumulation will lead to other problems and that the church should be required to haul the snow way within three days of a snowfall. In summary, they stated: "Now is the time to correct a problem that was created when this parking lot was originally installed. With the expansion, it will only get worse and the homeowners are the ones that will have a problem. This church should not be treated any differently than your neighborhood business nor should the residents have any less protection by the city from possible damage by runoff. Have the church protect the residents by directing the water to the center of the parking lot and be drained to a storm sever. Possibly have them contour the lot so all runoff will go down their driveway toward Century and then into the ditch. Have the snow removed after a significant snowfall." Mr. Pearson asked if a "truth in housing" was available to the home owner before they bought their house, and Mr. Hicks said it was. He stated with the history of the home and the price they were asking, it was a good buy. Mr. Cavett stated the character of the property is changing by a very small percentage. Right now 100% of a given area is draining to the south and the proposal is going to capture 75% of that runoff. Eighty five percent of all rainfall events are less than % inch. Most rainfalls will be captured and absorbed into the ground. Mr. Cavett felt this proposal actually improves the drainage situation for the neighbors to the south. Mr. Cavett also noted two years ago the city completed a project in that neighborhood where a sixteen foot boring was done directly in front of the property line at 2707 Brand Avenue. At that time there was no ground water observed in the boring, which is way below that basement level of a home. A copy of the boring log was provided for Mr. Hicks. The city engineering staff feels wet basement problems are typically caused by an issue with landscaping or grading. There are several things that can be done in the immediate area of the home that can help the infiltration of water around the basement foundation, Angela Stafholt, 2707 Brand Avenue East, reiterated the concerns they have regarding the drainage of Kingdom Hall property. They realize they are at the bottom of a hill and naturally water flows down the hill. They are very concerned with piles of snow in their backyard, and what is going to happen when it melts. They felt even if there is a berm built it will not help the melting of snow, and would like to see the snow hauled away. They are not disputing the expansion of Kingdom Hall, but they are looking at this as an opportunity to correct a current water problem that will and can get worse with the adding of the blacktop. Mr. Trippler asked if the city of Maplewood has a position on snow removal for businesses and churches. Mr. Roberts stated they do not. Ms. Fischer added "until they would lose required parking spaces that were necessary for their permit". Staff responded in saying technically that was a possibility. Mr. Cavett noted the city and the watershed district's philosophy is to contain as much flow as possible on site, and encourage stormwater infiltration. The idea is to not pipe the water and ship it down stream. Once that happens, it becomes someone elses problem. With a proposal what needs to be looked at is: what is the existing condition, what is the proposal, and what impact will there be on the adjacent properties? The engineering staff feels what is proposed seems to be a better management from what is there now. Mr. Frost noted that he trusts the city engineer's opinion about this proposal for the storm water runoff in that it is going to be a better proposition than what is now there. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 01-02-2001 Mr. Frost moved the planning commission to adopt the resolution to approve a conditional use permit for the Mounds Park/Oakdale Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall building and parking lot expansion proposal at 925 Century Avenue North. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: All construction, renovations and improvements shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Site lights shall only be used when needed at night for services or other church functions. They shall not be on all night. Ayes-5 (Fischer, Frost, Mueller, Trippler, Ahlness) Nays-1 (Pearson) Mr. Pearson stated he was uncomfortable approving a proposal that would be adding impervious surface that could be drained away from adjoining neighbors, but was not. Motion carries. This proposal will go the city council on January 22nd. B. Planning Commission's 2000 Annual Report. Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report each year. This report is to include the commission's activities in the past year and the major projects scheduled for the new year. Mr. Trippler asked what the status of the Carpet Court proposal was. Staff responded in saying the acquisition of more property fell through and they are working on revised project plans. Mr. Mueller asked if Amusement City was approved for the Pizza Parlor. Staff will double check if the commission approved this proposal. Ms. Fischer asked that Mike Seeber and Milo Thompson's expiration dates of their terms be added to the report. The commission would like to see a study be completed on the area west of Maplewood Mall (including the Hajicek property) for land use and transportation issues. Another 2001 activity the commission would like to add is a study and consideration of possible revisions to the city's telecommunications ordinance and meet with telecommunications providers to better coordinate the installation of telecommunications equipment (including monopoles) in Maplewood. Mr. Trippler moved the planning commission to approve the planning commission's 2000 annual report as amended. Mr. Frost seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Planning Commission Minutes of 01-02-2001 -5- None VIII, IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. January 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost will attend. b. January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness will attend. c. February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler will attend. STAFF PRESENTATIONS The January 15, 2001 meeting was rescheduled to Wednesday, January 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. t TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit 1101 County Road C Donald Callahan January 10, 2001 INTRODUCTION Reauest The applicant is requesting city approval of a conditional use permit to divide a 140-foot-wide lot into two 70-foot wide lots. Section 36-69 of the city code allows interior lots with widths between 60 and 75 feet in the R-1 zone with city council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). This request is for the property at 1101 County Road C. (See the maps on pages 8 through 11 .) Reason for the Reauest Mr. Callahan is requesting this CUP for a lot split to construct two new homes. The new houses will be on the two new lots after Mr. Callahan demolishes or removes the existing house and garage from the property. (Refer to the survey on page 12, the site plan on page 13 and the statement on pages 14 and 15.) BACKGROUND On September 12, 1988, the city council approved a conditional use permit for Mary Krause of 1281 Kohlman Avenue. The council approved this CUP so the applicant could build a single- family home on a 66-foot-wide lot. On September 24, 1990, the city council approved a conditional use permit for Eldon Dillon at 1373 Kohlman Avenue. This permit was for the creation of two 66-foot-wide interior lots in the R-1 zoning district. APPROVALSTANDARDS Section 36-442 of the City Code gives nine standards for approval of conditional use permits. These are listed in the resolution on pages 19 and 20. Section 36-69(2) of the City Code gives the following additional condition for approving new interior lots that are between 60 and 75 feet in width: "There are at least two developed lots-of-record with the same or less width than proposed, within 350 feet of the site on the street. Larger minimum side yard setbacks may be required to balance the separation between structures." DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit This request meets the required findings for approval of a conditional use permit and for narrow- width lots. There are six lots on County Road C within 350 feet of the site that have a width of either 65 or 70 feet. Shoreland District The site is in the shoreland district of Kohlman Lake. The city code as several requirements for placement and design of the proposed single dwellings near lakes, including this site. These include a requirement that each lot be at least 20,000 square feet in area. The city code defines lot area as "the area of a lot, excluding drainage easements, wetlands and the land below the ordinary high water mark of public waters." Each of the proposed lots, however, would not have 20,000 square feet of buildable land outside of the wetland and lake area. Each lot would have about 8,000 to 10,000 square feet of buildable area. The shoreland code has a provision to deal with this situation. Section 36-566 (b)(1)(c) of the code says that the minimum lot requirements shall not apply to a development that is at least eighty (80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline during the summer. As such, if the applicant could prepare and implement a screening plan for the two lots that show how the new houses would be screened from the lake to meet the 80 percent requirement, then the city could approve the lot division. (The city applied this same screening requirement to the Rosewood Estates building on the corner of Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive in 1994.) It also is important to review the purpose and intent of the shoreland code. These outline why the city has adopted the shoreland regulations. Section 36-561(b) of the code has the purpose and objectives of the Shoreland District. It says "the purpose of this article is to provide specific regulations to protect the city's shorelands. It is in the public's best interest to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands. To accomplish this purpose, (this code) has the following objectives: (1) (2) (3) Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters. Protect the natural environment and visual appeal of shorelands. Protect the general health, safety and welfare of city residents." Section 36-573 of the city code says that "Each lot created through subdivision shall be suitable for development with minimal alteration. The city shall not consider lots suitable for development that would create any of the following effects: (1) Susceptibility to flooding; (2) filling of wetlands; (3) building on soils with severe development limitations; (4) creating severe erosion potential; (5) building on steep topography; (6) inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities or (7) creating a loss of protected wildlife habitat." The proposed lot division can meet the above-listed objectives and the lots are suitable for development. Having two houses on this property, if the owner properly screens them from the lake and if the owner carefully places on the property, should not cause any negative effects on the lake, on the environment or on the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. 2 Molly Shodeen of the DNR also told me that any proposal to create an access to the open water in the lake will require a DNR permit. Wetland Ordinance This site is next to a Class I wetland. As such, the city has several regulations about the use of land and the placement of the structures near the wetland. Because the site is near a wetland and a lake, I asked the staff of the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District to comment on this proposal. Their comments are in the letter on page 16. They recommend that the applicant not make any impact on the wetland as it would require a lengthy review under the Wetland Conservation Act. They also noted that since much of the buffer area had been disturbed that they would only require the applicant to dedicate a 10-foot-wide no-disturb buffer instead the 100-foot- wide no-disturb buffer that the code would usually require. House Placement Both the shoreland code and the wetland code have language about the placement of structures near a lake and near a wetland. Section 36-566 (c)(1) of the code has language about the placement, design and height of structures in the shoreland areas. Specifically, this part of the code says that "where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, the owner or builder may change the structure's setbacks without variance to meet the adjoining structures setbacks from the ordinary high water level.' Section 9-196(d)(1)a of the city code says that the wetland setback regulations shall not apply to "structure, vegetation and maintenance activities and practice in existence on the date this ordinance becomes effective. (May 13, 1996.) A contractor or owner may remodel, reconstruct or replace affected structures if the new construction does not take up more buffer land than the structure used before the remodeling, reconstruction or replacement.' These code sections say that the applicant may line up the rear of the new houses with the rear of the neighbor's houses and that the new construction may occur as long as it does not further impact the wetland buffer. The applicant has not yet submitted specific site plans for the proposed lots. It appears, however, to be enough room on the two lots to meet the setback requirements of the shoreland code and those in the wetland regulations. To meet these requirements, and to minimize the impact on the lake and wetland, the city should require Mr. Callahan to place the structures as follows: the front of the new houses should have a 25-foot front yard setback (the front setback of the existing garage) and the rear of the houses should be no farther than 65 feet back from the front property line. These limits will create a 40-foot deep building pad for each house and should preserve many of the existing trees on the property. (See the map on page 18.) Nonconforming Buildings Section 36-17(b) of the city code says "the substitution of one nonconforming use for another nonconforming use may be permitted by the city council by special (conditional) use permit, provided that, such nonconforming use is determined by the city council to be of the same or more restrictive nature as the original nonconforming use." RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution starting on page 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the property at 1101 County Road C for Donald Callahan. This permit is for the creation of two 70- foot-wide interior lots in the R-1 zoning district. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The front setback for each house shall be 25 feet and the rear of each house shall not be more than 65 feet from the front property line. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The applicant or building contractor shall provide a grading, drainage and erosion control plan with each building permit application. These plans shall show: (1) The proposed house pad and the proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each lot. The house pads shall be such that minimize the grading on the lots so the builder can save as many of the existing trees on each lot as possible. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. This shall include the existing and proposed drainage patterns with elevations and contours for each lot. (3) The wetland and the wetland buffer area being outside the grading limits. (4) 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. (5) All retaining walls on the plans. Any new retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (6) No grading beyond the property boundaries without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). The city engineer must approve these plans before the city will issue a building permit. 4. The applicant or building contractor providing the city a tree plan that: (1) Shall be approved by the city engineer before building demolition or removal, site grading or final lot split approval. (2) Shows where the developer or builder will remove, save or replace large trees. (3) Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. 4 o Shows the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 %) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. Before the city approves and stamps the lot division deeds, the applicant or owner shall complete the following: a. Remove or demolish the garage from the property. bo Record a wetland buffer and drainage easement over all the property that is north of the wetland buffer easement line shown on the survey on page 16 of this staff report. Co Provide city staff with a screening plan for each lot. This plan is to show how the applicant will meet the code requirement that the new houses be at least eighty (80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline of the lake during the summer. Prepare and record covenants with each lot that requires the property owners to keep the required screening in plan. The city council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 15 property owners within 350 feet of the site. There were five replies. Of those, three were for the proposal and two were against. For We have no problem with them wanting to build 2 houses in that area. (Krueger - 1094 County Road C) I agree with the proposal but suggest and easement for the widening of "C" should the road be upgraded. (Keefer - 2557 Highway 61) 3. See the letter from Christianson's on page 15. Against I do not want to see that lot split. It would bring more value to have a large, more expensive-style home. If you split this property, what is going to happen when County Road C is widened and it will be because of the traffic congestion already created. (McClellan - 1085 County Road C) I would not want 2 lots made of this property being that I would not have lake view if that were to happen. (Wood - 1116 County Road C) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE INFORMATION Area: 4.24 Gross acres (140 x 1318 ) or 2.07 Gross acres for each lot (70 x 1318 ) Existing land use: One sinGle-family dwelling and detached GaraGe Surrounding land uses: single dwellings PLANNING Land Use and Zoning DesiGnations: R-1 (sinGle dwellings) PUBLIC WORKS Public water and sanitary sewer are available in County Road C. Application Date We received the application for this request on December 8, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city council action is required on this proposal by February 8, 2001, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:sec4/memo/1101ctyc.mern Attachment~ 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Area Map 5. Site Survey 6. Site Plan (Enlarged) 7. Statement of justification from Donald Callahan date stamped 12-08-00 8. 12-22-00 letter from Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District 9. 12-19-00 letter from Christianson (1111 County Road C) 10. Site Plan (with staff conditions) 11. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 7 VADNAIS HEIGHTS D ATTACHMENT 1 CTo (~) ~ ST LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT~2 I"-)-~-[ -, KO H,~.LM. AN LAKE . PROPOSED LOT DIVISION mmmmmmmm CITY OPEN SPACE PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 'ATTACHMENT 3 /' .~' ~,.' / ...': ..,. ..,..... / , ~ /" ~.. N ~d ~p ~ ~y and ~ n~ inten~ ~ ~ ~E~; WAm~; ~8E~; us~ as ~e. ~is ~p is a ~la~ of M~SA; P~G; LIM~SP , m~s end in~ ~m venous AREA MAP l0 ATTACHMENT 4 KOHLMAN LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE _~ SITE COHNT~ RO.~ ¢  I } UM~$A; P~G; UM~SP AREA MAP 11 ATTACHMENT 5 12 1091 '%~L-" '", LOT DIVISION 1111 SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) 13 , ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT SUBDIVISION AT 1101 CO. RD. C.,MAPLEWOOD,MN 55109 PROPOSED USE: DIVIDE EXISTING LOT AND BUILD TWO NEW HOMES 1. The proposed use (TWO NEW HOMES) would be located, designed, and constructed in conformity with city's Code of Ordinances. 2. The proposed use would enhance the area, while not changing the existing character of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed use would improve and appreciate property values. 4. The proposed use would not involve any activity, DEl 0 8 2000 process, materials or equipment that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to any person or proper~ECE~VED There would be no change in the noise, water or air pollution charters of this property. The drainage water run-off would change very little if at all. It might be necessary to remove two or three of the existing thirteen trees, however the vegetation and general appearance of this property would be improved considerably. 5. The proposed use c~ increase vehicular traffic on local streets, however it would be very minimal. It would not create traffic congestion or any unsafe conditions. 6. The proposed use would blend into public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The proposed use would have only a minimal effect on these public services. 7. The proposed use would have little if any effect on the costs of public facilities and services. 8. The proposed use would maximize and incorporate the site's contours and scenic features including preservation of most of the existing thirteen mature trees into its development design. 9. The proposed use would have minimal if any adverse environmental effects In general the proposed use would greatly improve the appearance of this site within the neighborhood as well as improving surrounding property values. 15 ATTACHMENT $ .- Ramsey-Washington Metro 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 704-2089 fax (651) 704-2092 e-mail: rwmwd@mtn.org Donald Callahan 975 County Road C Maplewood, MN 55109 12/22/00 Dear Mr. Callahan, This letter is in response to the plans the City of Maplewood sent to the Watershed District to review for the proposed lot division at 1101 County Road C. Any grading activity on this site will require a Watershed District Grading Permit. I am enclosing a grading permit application packet along with this letter. The Watershed District has identified a high quality wetland in the north end of the property. Please enclose a copy of the delineation for this wetland with any Grading Permit application material. If there is any proposed impact to the wetland, the steps that will need to be taken are outlined in the grading permit application packet. Please be advised that any proposed impacts to the wetland will require a lengthy review process to meet the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. Due to the current site conditions, the Watershed District will only require a 10 foot no-disturb buffer instead of the usual 100 foot no-disturb buffer. Please contact me at the number listed above if you have any questions. Karl Hammers District Technician cc: Ken Roberts, City of Maplewood OEC 16 ATTACHMENT 9 DON ANDALICE CHRISTIANSON 1111 COUNTY RD. C MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF MAPLEWOOD SUBJECT; LOT DIVISION -1101 COUNTY ROAD C 12-19-00 DEC 2 2 DEAR KEN; SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN THE WATSONS PUT THIS LAND UP FOR SALE I ASKED THE CITY IF I COULD BUY IT AND SPLIT IT. THE REPLY I GOT WAS THAT IT COULD NOT BE SPLIT AS BOTH HALVES NEEDED TO BE 10,000 SQ. FT. BUILDABLE AREA. THAT SAID; I STILL THINK THAT THE LOT SHOULD BE SPLIT, PER MR. CALLAHAN'S REQUEST. MOST OF THE HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BUILT ON 70 FT. WIDE LOTS AND I THINK TWO SMALLER HOMES (I TRUST) WOULD FIT BETTER THAN ONE HUGE HOME! ALL OF THE HOMES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ~C' HAVE DIFFERENT SETBACKS FROM THE ROAD AND STRANGELY, SOME HAVE DIFFERENT ANGLES OF ORIENTATION. I HOPE SOMETHING CAN BE DONE, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO AVERAGE THIS OUT IN ANY NEW DESIGNS. THE LOWER BACK YARD HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY FILLED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND I HOPE NO MORE FILLING OF THE WETLAND WOULD TAKE PLACE. THE SIGHT PLAN SHOWS TWO RETAINING WALLS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, TOUCHING OUR PROPERTY, THAT DO NOT EXIST. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ANY NEW DESIGN IS DRAINAGE! THE WATER DRAINS FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST ON THE 1sT 3 LOTS. 1117 TO 1111 (US) TO 1101. WATER FROM THE STREET AND DRIVEWAY DRAINS DOWN TOWARD OUR GARAGE AND ARE DRAINED OFF ONTO 1101. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY AND CANNOT CHANGE WITHOUT FLOODING OUR BASEMENT. SOME OF 1101 WAS FILLED 2YRS AGO AND THE SLOPE YOU SEE AT THE EAST SIDE IS THE NATURAL SLOPE. 877' TO 870'. I HOPE YOU APPROVE MR. CALLAHAN'S PLAN. HE IS A NEIGHBOR AND HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB REMODELING HIS HOME. AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES ON KOHLMAN LAKE I TRUST HE WILL DO AN OUTSTANDING JOB DESIGNING TWO HOMES THAT WILL FIT AND NOT DISTRACT, AND THUS INCREASE EVERYONE'S PROPERTY VALUES. 17 ATTACHMENT 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Donald Callahan applied for a conditional use permit to divide a 140-foot-wide lot into two 70-foot-wide lots in the R-1 zoning district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1 t 01 County Road C. The legal description is: The Westerly 140 feet of the Easterly 280 feet of the West % of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 04-29-22-43-0005) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On January 17, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council the conditional use permit for the proposal. The city council held a public hearing on ,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 approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. o 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. o The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. ° 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. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. ]9 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The front setback for each house shall be 25 feet and the rear of each house shall not be more than 65 feet from the front property line. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The applicant or building contractor shall provide a grading, drainage and erosion control plan with each building permit application. These plans shall show: a. The proposed house pad and the proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each lot. The house pads shall be such that minimize the grading on the lots so the builder can save as many of the existing trees on each lot as possible. b. Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. This shall include the existing and proposed drainage pattems with elevations and contours for each lot. c. The wetland and the wetland buffer area being outside the grading limits. d. 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. e. All retaining walls on the plans. Any new retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. f. No grading beyond the property boundaries without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). The city engineer must approve these plans before the city will issue a building permit. 4. The applicant or building contractor providing the city a tree plan that: a. Shall be approved by the city engineer before building demolition or removal, site grading or final lot split approval. b. Shows where the developer or builder will remove, save or replace large trees. c. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. Shows the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 %) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. 20 o Before the city approves and stamps the lot division deeds, the applicant or owner shall complete the following: a. Remove or demolish the garage from the property. bo Record a wetland buffer and drainage easement over all the property that is north of the wetland buffer easement line shown on the survey on page 16 of this staff report. Co Provide city staff with a screening plan for each lot. This plan is to show how the applicant will meet the code requirement that the new houses be at least eighty (80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline of the lake dudng the summer. Prepare and record covenants with each lot that requires the property owners to keep the required screening in place. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2001. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Parking Lot Setback and Curbing Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Rose-Rice Auto Sales 1908 Rice Street January 10, 2001 INTRODUCTION Request and Project Description Brad Beatty, of Rose-Rice Auto Sales, 1908 Rice Street, is requesting approval of parking lot setback and curbing variances for his recent parking lot expansion and a conditional use permit (CUP) for used-car sales. Mr. Beatty recently paved the easterly part of his site. This is the unpaved side yard that had been used for unapproved car-parking by the previous owner, Jerry Anderson. Refer to the maps on pages 6-8 and the applicant's letter on page 9. The applicant has improved the property by residing the two buildings, adding a pitched roof to one of the buildings, and in general, cleaning up the site. He also removed the cars Mr. Anderson had parked on the grass east of the buildings. This project requires the following approvals: A parking lot setback variance since the new parking lot is paved up to the east (side) and north (front) lot lines. The city code requires that the parking lot have a five-foot side yard setback and a 15-foot front setback from the Roselawn Avenue right-of-way. (The applicant said that the new pavement is setback about 20 feet from the south lot line.) The applicant would also need a curbing variance since the code requires continuous concrete curbing around the new parking lot. A CUP. The city code requires a CUP for used car sales. The previous owner did not have this permit. He was grandfathered in. The current owner needs a CUP because of the expansion of the paved parking lot. BACKGROUND This property was a continual source of parking-code violations when Mr. Anderson owned the site. This site was also used for a short time as part of a golf-ball driving range for Amusement city. On December 11, 2000, the city council approved a CUP for used car sales across the street from this property at 1930 Rice Street for Affordable Auto Sales. DISCUSSION Setback VaHances State law requires that the city council make two findings in order to approve variances. First, they must determine that the applicant cannot meet the code because of 'circumstances unique to the property.' They must find that the applicant cannot meet the code due to some unique physical characteristic of the site. There is no unique circumstance in this case. The applicant could have met the setback and curbing requirements if they had checked with the city before paving this site. Secondly, the variances must meet the 'spirit and intent of the ordinance.' The purpose of the setback and curbing requirement are so parking lots do not crowd neighboring properties, so there is area provided for snow storage and landscaping for esthetics. Curbing also provides a neat edge to parking lots and controls storm water runoff. Staff appreciates the improvements the applicant has made at this site. Their buildings are attractive and the site is now nicely maintained. As mentioned above, Mr. Beatty also did an excellent job of removing Jerry Anderson's cars from the unpaved side yard, which for a long time was an eyesore. Unfortunately, staff cannot make the findings that state law requires for approval. Staff recommends that the applicant make the necessary changes and corrections to the new parking lot as follows: saw-cut the bituminous to meet the required five-foot side setback as well as the required 15-foot front setback; provide continuous concrete curbing around the south, north and east sides of the parking lot (keeping in mind that the required setbacks must be measured to the back edge of the curb); backfill behind the curbing and restore with sod. Conditional Use Permit Staff does not find a problem with the proposed CUP to sell used cars as long as the parking lot is altered to meet code requirements. Other than the setback and curbing issues, the applicant has vastly improved this comer by refurbishing the buildings and eliminating a long-occurring eyesore. Approval of this CUP should be conditioned on the applicant's correcting the parking lot issues described above. Staff recommends that the city council give the applicant until next summer to correct these items. Site Plan With the exception of the requirement to meet setback and curbing requirements, the site plan looks fine in concept. However, the applicant should stripe the parking lot according to the parking space and drive aisle dimensions required by the code. The code requires parking spaces to be 9 % by 18 feet in size and drive aisles to be 24 feet wide. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Deny the proposed parking lot setback and curbing variances since the proposed variances do not meet the following findings required by state law: Strict enforcement of the code would not cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could have met the setback and curbing requirements without any hindrance by site characteristics. 2 The variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The ordinance requires parking lot setbacks and curbed edges to maintain a neat appearance, control drainage and provide an on,sit6 area to Store snow in the winter. Adopt the resolution on pages 10-11 approving a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1908 Rice Street. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, except as stated below. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The applicant shall revise the site plan as follows: a. Cut away the portions of the new easterly parking lot which encroach into the required five-foot side-yard and 15-foot front-yard setback areas. b. The excess pavement material shall be removed from the site. The edges of the new parking lot shall be curbed with upright continuous concrete curbing. The plan for this curbing shall be submitted to staff for approval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. d. The required five and 15 foot setbacks shall be measured to the back of the curb, not to the parking lot edge. e. Stripe the parking spaces as required by code. f. Backfill and sod the setback areas and restore the boulevard if it is damaged. The applicant shall complete these parking lot corrections by June 30, 2001. The city council shall review this permit after that date if the work is not completed. The council may extend this deadline if an extension is warranted. 4. The city council shall review this permit annually as required by the code, unless they determine that there is no need for such subsequent reviews. SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: One acre Existing land use: REFERENCE INFORMATION Rose-Rice Auto Sales North: West: South and East: Terminal) SURROUNDING LAND USES Affordable Auto Sales Rice Street and commercial businesses in the City of Roseville Amusement City (currently proposed as the new Comfort Bus Company PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Code Requirements Section 36-151(b)(5)(a) requires a CUP for the sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. Section 36-17(e) allows the enlargement of a nonconforming use by CUP if it would not affect the development of the parcel as it is zoned. Section 36-28© requires that parking lots be setback 15 feet from a street right-of-way and five feet from abutting commercial property. Section 36-22© requires that parking lots which have more than 12 parking spaces have continuous concrete curbing. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4 CHteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 10-11. Application Date We received the applicant's applications on December 13, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of this application date. City council action is required by February 13, 2001. psecVicerose.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's letter of CUP request dated-stamped December 13, 2000 5. CUP Resolution 5 Attachment LIT-I'LE CANADA LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 I- UJ i11 CrJ UJ ROSELAWN AVENUE -.. I RICE-ROSELAWN -1 AUTO SALES AMUSEMENT CITY 1870 PROPERTY LINE MAP 7 Attachment 3- L ..! SITE PLAN 8 Attachment 4 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD At the following address of 1908 Rice Street, we are trying to obtain a zoning variance for the parking of cars for sale and reconditioning. The ~ont half of the existing property is already approved for the sale of used cars and we are looking to further expand our lot to include the back half of the property. This area has been utilized in conjunction with the f~ont half for used cars during the past ten years, we are looking to obtain the permits and zoning to legally conform to the cities requirements. The proposed area has already been cleaned up and is ready for use. We have improved the existing property and feel the request for the "CUP" would be a natural extension of the total property. We would appreciate your consideration in this request and look forward to working with the city of Maplewood and surrounding businesses to make things work as soon as possible. THANK YOU RECEIVED u l: ! 3 2OOO Attachment 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Brad Beatty, of Rose-Rice Auto Sales, applied for a conditional use permit to enlarge their paved parking lot and to sell used cars. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1908 Rice Street. The legal description is: LOTS 1-4 AND LOTS 33-39, BLOCK 4, EISENMENGER AND ZASPELS WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On January 17, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The city council held a public hearing on ,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 headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site°s natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, except as stated below. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The applicant shall revise the site plan as follows: a. Cut away the portions of the new easterly parking lot which encroach into the required five-foot side-yard and 15-foot front-yard setback areas. b. The excess pavement matedal shall be removed from the site. Co The edges of the new parking lot shall be curbed with upright continuous concrete curbing. The plan for this curbing shall be submitted ~to staff for aPproval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. d. The required five and 15 foot setbacks shall be measured to the back of the curb, not to the parking lot edge. e. Stripe the parking spaces as required by code. f. Backfill and sod the setback areas and restore the boulevard if it is damaged. The applicant shall complete these parking lot corrections by June 30,. 2001..The city council shall review this permit after that date if the work is not compleX'ed. The council may extend this deadline if an extension is warranted. 4. The City council shall review this permit annually as required by the code, ~niess they determine that there is no need for such subsequent reviews. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2001.