The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/18/2001MAPLEWOOD pLANNING COMMISSION Monday June 18, 2001, 7:00 PM Hall council chambers City .... o--od lB East 1830 {county r,,~,~ Call to order Roll Call Approvat ot Agenda Approval of Minutes a. June 4, 2001 o public Hearings None Avenue) New Bus~ess a. Conditional Use permit - Maplewood Auto Center (2525 White Bear b. Schtomka Landscaping Inc. (2511 Carver Avenue) (1) conditional Use permit - Over-sized AccessorY Structure (,2) Condi~onal Use permit - commercial Vehicles and Equipment (3) Home Occupation License V'tsitor Presentations commission Presentations ncil Meeting: Mr. Rossbach a. June 11 C_ou__:, ,~etina' Mr. Trippler b. June 25 Cou.n,~,",'..'~';~'~n. ~' r. Mueller c. July 9 counct! wl~,,,.u. M Staff Presentations 10. Adi°umment P ~ ~,~U~lMl$$10N THE This outline has been prepared to help you Understand the public meeting The review o~ an item USually takes the following form: process. 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 port/on of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public COmments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING cOMMISSION 1830 coUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, June 4, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL 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 Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer III. Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts added three items under staff presentation to the agenda. a) Planning commission Training Topics b) Update on Annual City Tour c) Notice of Mr. Barrett's Passing Commissioner Ahlness noted change to Item 8 b. for the June 11 council Meeting. commissioner Rossbach would be attending that meeting. Commissioner Frost added one item under Commission Presentation to the agenda. d) Hillcrest Opportunity Site commissioner Trippler added one item under Commission Presentation to the agenda. e) Training Seminar Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Ayes -All commissioner Pearson seconded. He stated that IV, The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 22, 2001 ...... .~ -Commissioner Tdppler Mr Roberts noted a change to the minutes on page 8, paragraph 6. asked why the location for the trail was between Uni~ 11 and 12. He felt that placing it between units 13 Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -2- and 14 and f~he--tra~ between Lot 11 and the eutlet pond on Ripley ~i~ would be less disruptive to Lot 11." Commissioner Mueller noted a change to the minutes on page 6, paragraph 7, line 1. It should read "Commissioner Muelle¢ ~~ asked what the normal. ,, Commissioner Mueller also noted a change to the minutes on page 6, paragraph 9, line 1 It should read "Commissioner Mue~e¢ ~§~ stated that he felt..." Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of May 21, 2001, as amended. Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. Ayes - 7 Commissioner Frost abstained. The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING A.on and McXni 1~ 'ar~'~u. ~cr,K_,n~i ~h_t_,R,o..a_ds nge (BC-M and LBC to R-3H) 2. Zoning Map Change (CO and LBC to R-3) 3. Preliminary Plat Shann Finwall, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for this request. She stated that Tim Thone of Thone Builders and Developers is proposing to construct a 40-unit townhouse development on a 4.22-acre parcel of land located on the southeast comer of Lower Alton Road and McKnight Road. This property is zoned and planned as commercial office and limited business commercial. The surrounding properties include the Holiday Station store, to the south are single family homes, to the east is a wetland, to the north is Battlecreek Park, to the west is the City of St. Paul where there is a strip mall and rental housing. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Thone is requesting the following approvals for thicOoffi~ce_S development; first, an amendment to the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Commercial a_.n_d_._L,i~..ed Busi.n.e.ss..Comme.rc~al to Res,dential High Density. Second, rezone the property from ,,,~rclal ~mce ano L~m~ted Business Commercial districts to Multiple Family Residential. Third, preliminary and final plat approval, as well as design approval which will be addressed by the Community Design Review Board next week. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Thone's development inc/udes 40-units. Two of the buildings will have access onto Mci(night Road, 12-units total. The other two buildings will have access onto Lower Alton Road, 28--units total. The Lower Alton Road building proposed will include 14-units in each building with 7-units on each side, back to back. The intedor units will have garages which are one-car wide and two- car deep with exterior units having two-car wide garages. All four buildings will have earth-tone vinyl siding, viny/shake accents under the windows and bdck extedor on the garage level. These townhomes will be marketed to empty nest professionals and will be priced from $160,000 to $190,000. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Thone stated that the main reason for proposing a land use amendment and rezoning of this property from commercial to residential is that the times and conditions have changed such that the planned land use is no longer appropriate for this pro e . · property is ideal for multiple family housing because of the access to p ~eY.~,i~,H.--e-P°m.ted. out that the McKnight and Lower Alton Road, the location of a regional park directly to the north of this property with an -...~ung major Pus route on walking paths and other recreational opportunities, the location of a bike trail on Lower Alton Road, and the fact that the res/dent/al use will generate less traffic and congestion than a traditional style retail or commercial development, and finally the strong need and demand for moderate housing compared to the need for more commercial development on this property. Staff does concur with this analysis in that the proposal meets many of the required goals, policies, and cfi · Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code for residential dev-.~ ......... !.ena set forth in the city's -.,-'~,,,~c~,[s, Incluo~ng increasing the moderately -3- Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 priced housing stock within the city. The existing conditions on this lot include several mature trees, mainly Cottonwoods, and a wetland to the east of the property. According to the proposed grading plan, Ms. Finwall stated that it appears a number of the trees on the southern end of the development can be saved. Mr. Thone is receptive to idea, as are the adjacent property owners· The landscape plan that was submitted with this this __, ~A~ ,*ot show the trees that wIll be p. rese~ ....... ~,ome's vehicle headlights, wIll have to be single-family propemes, p,~,,'" ..... ~ ' . ed. For this reason, landscape scre. ening of the addressed. Staff does feel that this can be accomplished with a grouping of evergreens at the ends of all driveways. The developer would also like to create screening from the adjacent Holiday Station store· This will be accomplished by a row of deciduous and evergreen trees along the shared property lines of the Holiday Station store· There is currently a bituminous trail with a split rail fence that is located down the center of this property. This trail was put in place with the construction and platting of the adjacent single-family homes. It was created to gain access for this neighborhood to the bus stop and the convenience store on the corner of McKnight and Lower Afton Roads. This trail will remain with this development. In addition to the two-car garage spaces which are being provided in each unit, also proposed are individual driveways into each unit which can serve as guest parking. There are also a total of 17 additional guest-parking spaces scattered throughout the development. The parking proposed does exceed the city's requirements. Originally planned for this development were four turnaround lanes, required by the city's fire marshal for turnaround access for emergency vehicles· After further review of this project, and the fact that the tumarounds will increase impervious surface on the property, it was determined that this turnaround issue could be better addressed on the eastern portion of this development by creating a 12-foot wide fire access lane to the back of the propertY. This access lane will only be accessible to emergency vehicles and as a walking path for the development itself. Because of the grade of the western portion of this development, a similar type of proposal will not work. Ms. Finwall indicated that the turnaround in that area could be reduced from 160-feet long to 80-feet long. In order to insure access for this development to the bus stop and convenience store on the intersection of McKnight and Lower Afton Roads, staff is proposing that the developer construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the McKnight Road right-of-way west of the property. This sidewalk will extend from the southern edge of the property to the existing sidewalk in front of the Holiday Station store. Also, staff is recommending the developer construct a bituminous trail to extend from the western driveway of the eastern portion of the development to the existing bituminous trail· The lighting on this property will consist of exterior lights above each garage· This proposal will insure that light will not shine into adjacent properties, yet still will be adequate to offer enough light within this development for security. There is currently a wetland on the east side of the property which the city requires a 50-foot wide buffer there are four guest from this wetland.. T.h..e de.,_v.el_o~ment does meet this requirement. However, that with the removal · --,, to that buffer area. Ms. Fmwall ~nd~cated parking stalls Iocatect a~rec~y auja~, ,t of the turnaround lane, the parking stalls could be shifted to the south creating more of a buffer for that wetland. In addition, staff does propose that native plantings be planted within this buffer area to help filter any overflow storm water runoff from the project and help restore the wetland to a more native habitat. Staff does recommend approval of this proposal and is requesting three motions from the Commission to include: Adopting a land use plan change resolution from Commercial Office and Limited Business Commercial to Residential High Density; Adopting the rezoning resolution from Commercial Office and Limited Business Commercial to Multi-Family Residential; and, Approve the preliminary and final plat Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -4- date stamped May 11, 2001 with all attached Conditions including an additional condition which is being required by the county and includes deeding three-feet of additional right-of-way to McKnight Road. The Community Design Review Board will review this project on June 12, 2001. Commissioner Frost inquired if the turnaround lanes on the Alton Road side could be a pervious surface instead of asphalt. Ms. Finwall stated that the city's fire marshal did not depict that it had to be an impervious service and stated that could be reviewed. Commissioner Frost asked about Item D 2,4 referring to four groups of six-foot high large evergreens and how many trees make a group. Ms. Finwall stated that the intent of that item was that there was adequate screening at the ends of the driveways. She stated that four trees could make a grouping. Commissioner Trippler questioned the documents that the commission received displaying the units. He stated that the elevations that they received displayed eight units versus the seven that were stated in the staff report. Tim Thone, the applicant, stated that when this project was originally started the application was for eight units on each side. This was before the neighborhood meetings and several staff meetings. The current proposal has reduced the total number of units from 44 to 40. Commissioner Trippler inquired where the existing 10-foot wide bituminous trail leads to. Ms. Finwall indicated that the trail extends from Parkview Lane to the south, adjacent to the Holiday station store down Lower Alton Road. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was a trail on the other side of Lower Alton Road. Ms. Finwall indicated that there is a bike path on the north side of Lower Alton Road. Commissioner Rossbach asked why the storm water was being taken off site for this project rather than having an on-site detention or retention of water. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Planner, stated that due to the basic shape and grade of the site there is not a lot of creativity that can be put into the drainage. Some drainage is being directed towards the wetlands, and ultimately gets directed into a regional drainage system. He stated that there are some Design Review comments for the developer and their engineer to perhaps make some modifications or improvements to this. However, based on the grade it is rather difficult to do anything different to the site. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he thought that the rule was that the area could not have any more drainage going off of it after it was developed than it did before. He inquired how did we achieve that if we are taking all the drainage off site. Mr. Cavett stated that that was correct, unless the site is part of a regional drainage system. This site is part of a regional drainage system, the Lower Afton Creek. It would be nearly impossible to limit the flows on this site to Pre-development run-off amounts. There are some improvements that the city would like to work with the developer and their engineer, more in terms of water quality rather than rate. They are directing flows into the ditch system, which is on Lower Alton Road. Commissioner Rossbach requested a Copy of the ordinance to be clear of what it actually says regarding this issue. He stated that he was unaware that there were exceptions to the rule. He also indicated that Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 06-04-01 due to the extent of the building and the impervious surface on the site. This limits the ability to put ponding on the site. Commissioner Rossbach stated that in the staff report it stated that the applicant felt that this development had fewer vehicle trips per day and generally it was a less intense development than if the areas were developed on their current zoning and land use. Commissioner Rossbach asked if there were any kind of figures that indicate what the anticipated vehicle trips per day for the existing land use would be versus what is being proposed. Ms. Finwall stated that a traffic study had not been completed on this project. She also stated that she had no exact numbers at this time but would supply him with that information. The applicant, Tim Thone, addressed the Commission. He stated that the theory behind the townhome look is more of the "Big House" concept versus the traditional townhome look. This project has some unique features, such as the rooflines. He stated that the units that are before the Commission are the rendering drawings that are being proposed to build, less the units on each building that have been taken off. There will be 28 two-bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. The square footage will range from 1,460 to 1,722. The target market is more the empty nest professionals. Commissioner Mueller asked about families with children moving into this development. Mr. Thone indicated that of course they have a right to purchase in this development. However, historically this type of development does not attract families with children. He stated that multi-family housing is really not set up for families with children. He also indicated that townhouse living is not for everyone, and is more appealing for empty nesters. Commissioner Mueller commented that he felt that we are good at building expensive places for people with a lot of free cash and putting the families that do not have that free cash out to find rental apartments or properties that need extensive repair. He stated that issue concerns him. Commissioner ^hiness asked about the lighting plan and if the lights on the unit garages would be on photocells or if they would be under the control of the owners. Mr. Thone indicated that the lights would be under the control of the owner. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Thone to convince him that this development would be less intense than the development that would have gone into the existing zoning. Mr. Thone indicated that this could not be done without a car count. He stated that if it were a two- bedroom unit that there are demographics done as to how often those people come and go each day. Commissioner Frost stated that for single family residential it would be basically 10 trips per day/per house. As far as the Commercial Industrial and LBC, it is so much per 1,000 square feet. Without looking at what that site could have held, it is hard to say how many trips would have been generated per day. Mr. Roberts stated that for townhouses it is typically 7 - 8 trips per day. But without having a size of a commercial building, or what the uses are, staff does not have the ability to compare the traffic volumes from the projects. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the units on the southeast portion of the project are constructed at one elevation. Mr. Thone indicated that they are all at one elevation. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -6- Commissioner Ledvina asked if there were any attempt to step the units to reduce the amount of grading on the western part of the site. He stated that the floor elevations would be 25 feet higher than McKnight Road. He stated that there is excessive grading on that part of the site. Mr. Thone stated that he would double-check that issue. Mr. Roberts stated that the southern portion of those units would have tuck-under garages and then two floors above that. The northern portions are two levels at grade and then above. The other portion is all slab on grade. He stated that looking at the grading plan, they do step. The top of floor elevation for the east units is about 943.7 and the units close to McKnight are at 939.5. Commissioner Pearson asked for clarification on Item 3 E, the 8-foot wide bituminous trail. Ms. Finwall stated that the trail would connect from the proposed ddveway to the existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail. This trail will help the eastern portion of the development access the trail to the corner where there is a bus stop and convenience store. Commissioner Pearson asked if from that point there was anything planned to take the trail eastward to the front of the site to the crossover point where it would enter the parking lot. Mr. Roberts indicated that theproposed trail is just to connect to the existing trail. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff what the current average cost of housing in Maplewood is. Mr. Roberts indicated that at this time he did not have a number on that. He did state that a report from the Met Council defines affordable at $134,000 or less. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the Commercial Office space and LBC zones were created as transitions between residential communities and more intense uses. Mr. Roberts indicated that that was correct. Ms. Finwall indicated that in this case, the multi-family would also serve as such a purpose. Commissioner Rossbach stated that we are increasing moderately priced housing stock within the city. Mr. Roberts stated that this development was not necessarily affordable housing, and in his opinion it was not high priced housing. Therefore, it seems moderate. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the advantage to the city for making the change from Commercial Office to multi-family. Mr. Thone stated that the times and conditions have changed to where that piece of property is not marketable for a commercial property. The real estate broker has had the property listed for a ver~ long time and there has been no desire for a commercial user for this property. He stated that several years ago it would have not been thought to use that piece of property as a residential area. Times and conditions have changed and it is a nice transition from the Holiday Station to the residential people in the back. The biggest reason is that there has been no users in that area for office buildings. Commissioner Rossbach discussed that in the past this property had been zoned multi-family residential and then was changed to commercial use. He recalled that the reason this was changed was because the density was too high for the property and they were looking for something that had a lesser density. Mr. Thone stated that at this point there is not a market for what the property is being presented for and that is why he is requesting the zoning change. -7- Planning commission Minutes of 06-04-01 Resident Emil Sturzinager of 2455 Londin Lane addressed the Commission. He stated that he is not opposing this development but that he is concerned about the traffic and speed problem in this area. He stated that in the past he had requested a speed reduction from 50 miles per hour and also a turn lane on Lower Afton. He stated that there is scheduled millwork and an overlay on Lower Afton Road and felt that turning Lower Affon into three lanes with a turn lane would be beneficial. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if there was plans for upgrading streets in this area. Mr. Cavett stated that yes, there is a mill and an overlay plan for Lower Afton Road between Century and McKnight. There is also a proposal for next year's construction season (2002) for a reconfiguration of the intersection of McKnight and Lower Affon Road, with turn lanes and possibly medians and an signal. This is just a proposal at this time. There is an additional lane proposed addition of a traffic that there will be limited towards the east to accommodate right turning traffic into the development. He stated that the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer has looked at this situation and that it is his assumption left turning traffic. Commissioner Mueller asked if there has been any conversation regarding lowering the speed limits in the Batflecreek Park area. He felt the speeds might be excessive in that area. Mr. Cavett stated that speed limits are controlled by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The City of Maplewood has no authority on setting speed limits. The 50 miles per hour speed limit is based on the traffic conditions and the number of entrances, etc. He stated that he felt that there would be no changes to speed unless there are alterations on that roadway that would warrant a speed change. He stated that the city of Maplewood could make a request to Ramsey County and they would make the request to MNDot. commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Cavett if the reviews were made on a regular basis or only on request. Mr. Cavett stated that typically it was done by request. There are certain situations that would warrant a speed study, such as traffic accidents. Resident Shawn Schuller of 349 Parkview Lane adjacent to the proposed development addressed the Commission. He stated that he would prefer to see the property stay vacant, but between commercial and residential he would chose the residential proposal. He does have concerns about the turn around for the southern development. He stated that it requires excavation right to his propertY line, eliminating some of the trees. He stated that they would be cutting into tree roots of trees on his property and may damage them. He questions how excavation would take place without damaging his trees. Commissioner Mueller asked staff what the consequences would be if indeed the trees were damaged and died. Mr. Roberts stated at that point the attorneys would get involved. He also stated that looking at the grading plan there may be some room to make changes. It does take careful attention by the developer and by the contractors working on the site to prevent damage to the trees. Mr. Schuller stated that there was concern about the path that goes along his property. There has been some undesirable activities occurring on this path. He stated that if that path could be removed or altered it would be beneficial. Mr. Schuller asked if any solution could be done regarding the turn around, such as moving it or scaling it back. Commissioner Rossbach stated that it was necessary to have the turnaround at the end of the driveway for emergency vehicles. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -8- Ms. Finwal/stated that the length of the turnaround on the western part of the development is currently at 180' in length and could be reduced to 80'. She Parkview to Lower Alton Road was developed as a stated the trail that is currently there going from would require an amendment to their plat. She stated that in SOme of the citizen comments there were Condition with the AJ Plat. Removal of that trail good points brought up about the trail, and that many individuals did want to retain that trail. She commented on the trees in that area stating that grading does cause damage to trees, but if the developer takes care and cuts any roots that go over the property prior to grading it will help retain the trees for a long Period of time. If the site is fenced off and not graded onto the resident's property, any of the trees that are not being graded under the drip line should be ok, depending on the type of tree. Mr. Sc. huller stated that he is aware that there are some grading issues regarding this project. He stated that at the back of the property there is a steeper incline and there are more trees. As the property goes down towards the Holiday Station it flattens out quite a bit and the trees are a/ready removed from that area. He asked if the project could be shifted towards the Holiday Station, preserving trees and reducing grading. Ms. Finwall stated that the developer did discuss shifting the townhomes apProximately 20-feet to the north, towards the Holiday Station store with his engineer. Mr. Thone stated that he talked with Randy Hed/and who is doing the engineering on this project. He stated that they have a 50-foot setback requirement towards the Holiday Station. He said that the project could be shifted down 15-feet and still meet setback requirements. The issue Would be that additional retaining walls would be necessary. Commissioner Rossbach questioned the 50-foot setback for residential next to COmmercial. He said that it would be a 50-foot setback if you were putting commercial next to residential. Mr. Roberts stated that Commissioner Rossbach is correct, there is not a 50-foot minimum for the residential from the Holiday Store property line. He stated that it does become a balancing act between how close do we want residential units next to a COmmercial property. He stated that Code requires 20-feet. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if the fire turnarounds are a new requirement for this type of development. He cited other townhome developments where there was not circulation around the building, in those instances he did not believe that there was any fire turnaround. Mr. Roberts stated that the development that Commissioner Ledvina was referring to was Pineview Estates. He stated that there are provisions at the end of those driveways for SOme type of turnaround, but not as extensive as proposed in this development. Mr. Roberts stated that this is the fire marshals latest requirement. Commissioner Ah/ness stated that the fire/emergency vehicle turnarounds would be blocked with a knockdown harder so that it will not be available for use to the public. Ms. Finwall stated that was correct. Regarding the turnaround on the eastern lobe of the development that staff is proposing a 12-foot wide drive lane with fall down bo/lards at the end of the driveways. Commissioner Ahlness asked it that would also be in place for the southern property as well. Ms. Finwall stated that she did not believe that the bollards Would be necessary because it is only an 80-foot length. Fire lane signs should be posted with no parking. Commissioner Ahlness asked if to relieve the residents concerns about the lights of traffic shining onto their property and to avoid people Parking on that fire lane, whether it is posted or not, if barricades Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 06-04-01 could be placed there. It would also provide consistency within the development. Ms. Finwall stated that she felt that was an excellent suggestion. Commissioner Rossbach disagreed. He commented that why would you put in parking space and not allow people to use it. He felt that it would make no sense whatsoever to put barricades to block off a T in the road. He stated that a furniture truck or garbage truck coming in would want to use that turnaround. Mr. Schueller asked if having that turnaround space available for public use, such as parking or turnaround, does not defeat the purpose of the turnaround for the fire trucks. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he felt all big vehicles that go into that development will want to use that turnaround. Mr. Roberts stated that the area would be posted no parking. It would be just for vehicle turnaround, primarily the emergency vehicles enabling them to maneuver as easily as possible. He felt with the additional landscaping staff is recommending and the posting of the eastern end of the southern part of the site for no parking will address many of the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Frost asked how the requirements of the fire marshal get into the conditions required by the applicant. Mr. Roberts stated that the fire marshal has a lot of discretion under the state fire code. If the fire marshal feels that it is necessary for the emergency vehicles to have that turnaround, he gets a lot of latitude. Mr. Roberts stated that we do try to get consistent, and stated that nine times out of ten the roads or the driveways loop all the way around the buildings on all sides. We are trying to prevent that in this case, but there must be an area where the trucks and vehicles can back up and turn around. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if this was a Design Review Board issue to address. Mr. Roberts stated that was correct, but ultimately it will be the City Council. Commissioner Mueller stated that he would like to encourage the Design Review Board to look at moving this facility farther north if possible, and encouraged them to look at the distance between the farthest east townhome on the McKnight side and where the turnaround actually starts. Perhaps they can decrease the distance of the turnaround from the building. Commissioner Ledvina stated that the Design Review Board does not act on the plat. The plat for this development has the building pads specifically identified, and once that recommendation is made the Design Review Board does not make any recommendations on the plat. He stated that is the Planning Commissioners job to make a recommendation on that. Mr. Roberts stated that he felt the Design Review Board could make some recommendations on the shape of the fire lane and some of the particulars. Commissioner Pearson asked if when this gets to the Design Review Board that they look at some kind of a lighting plan because he feels that what is planned right now is not anywhere near adequate and may be potential for mischief with the trail and the convenience store locations. Greg Diddle, resident of 341 Parkview Lane addressed the Commission. He stated that he was not in opposition of the project and likes the plan. He questioned who is responsible for maintaining the non- paved path between Lots 11 and 12. He stated that the trail needs attention. The residents on either side of the path have contacted the city and were told that it was the resident's responsibility to maintain the path. He also commented on the bituminous trail and that it has never been plowed and there is a lot of trash being left on that trail. He asked staff who owns these easement paths. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -10- Mr. Roberts said that some of the trails in Maplewood are within private easements, some are within public easements, and some are within public right-of-ways. He stated that these particular ones are within easements in the AJ Addition. He commented that the city does not plow any paths, except one on Upper Affon. It has been the policy of the City not to clean them, we do not have the equipment or the manpower. He stated as far as the maintenance, he was not able to answer the question at this time. He stated there would need to be some research with the public works and parks department. Chairperson Fischer stated that we might have answers to that issue by the time this proposal gets to City Council. Mr. Diddle asked if the path on the eastern most edge of the project would remain. Ms. Finwall stated that the path Mr. Diddle is referring to does not affect this development at all and it will be retained. She stated that if a homeowners association were in place for the AJ Addition, it would be their responsibility to maintain the path. If no association is in place, the pathways becomes public property and therefore should be maintained by the city. Mr. Diddle asked about the 50-foot buffer between the wetlands and the new development. He asked where in the wetland does the 50-foot buffer start. Ms. Finwall stated that the 50-foot buffer is from the delineated wetland mark. Mr. Roberts stated that each wetland delineation is different and is based on water characteristics, soil characteristics, and vegetative characteristics. This should be marked with a pink flag as set by a wetlands professional. He stated that this would be reviewed pdor to the grading permit. This development will also be reviewed by the Watershed District. Steve Weckman of 345 Parkview Lane addressed the Commission. He stated that his pdmary concern is with the buffer. He asked for a more specific description of what is required for the cluster of trees, and how many trees define a cluster and what is the size of the trees. He also asked what the green area of the lot is as it is configured now. He said that looking at the code, there is a 35% green area required for this type of development. Ms. Finwall stated that she did not have the answer to the green area required at this time. She stated that in addition, there is a maximum building impervious surface of 30%. Commissioner Rossbach stated that the way the development is laid out, there is more than 35% green space. Mr. Weckman's other concern is about the natural buffer that is already there. Looking at the present plan shows a grade change right up to the property line. He questioned how the trees would stay if the grade changes. Mr. Roberts stated that his understanding is that much of the area of his concern will be undisturbed, except the turnaround and the trail. He stated that yes, there will be some tree removal, but Mr. Thone has indicated that a good portion will remain undisturbed and exactly how much will have to be reviewed with the final grading plan. Ms. Finwall stated that the grading on the south portion of the eastern lobe will be reduced somewhat with staff's proposal of a 12-foot wide ddve as opposed to the hammerhead type tumarounds. That will create more tree preservation in that area. Tree replacement within the City of Maplewood is 2 ~" caliper for deciduous trees and a 6-foot high evergreen. The City of Maplewood does have a tree preservation ordinance and it requires that only what the ordinance terms large trees to be replaced. On this property there is approximately 28 large trees, not including the Cottonwoods which do not have to be replaced. Therefore, the developer has to, by ordinance, replace at least 28 trees. With the Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -11- landscape plan there will be many more trees replaced than that. Mr. Weckman stated that he would like to see the development be moved closer to the Holiday Station Store since the setback will not be an issue. He feels that this would improve the grading situation. He also stated that he felt that as little lighting in the development as possible would be desirable. He feels that there is plenty of light from the Holiday Station. Mr. Emil Sturzinager addressed the commission again. He asked if the path down by the Holiday Station was part of the sewer system. Mr. Cavett stated that was somewhat correct. There is a sewer line through there and that was probably one of the reasons that a trail was recommended there for access and maintenance purposes. Commissioner Frost asked for clarification of the width of the center lane down the private drive. Mr. Thone stated that it was 24 feet. Commissioner Frost stated that he felt that it would take a lot of years before the four 6-foot trees in the clusters would be adequate screening. Mr. Thone stated that the plantings would be Scotch Pines eight to ten feet high. The plantings would be touching the day that they were planted. Ms. Finwall stated that in addition to the concerns regarding screening, particularly on the eastern lobe of the development, that area is lower than the existing single family homes to the south, which will help buffer some of the headlights in that area. She stated that perhaps a cluster of six trees would be more adequate. Chairperson Fischer stated that when the comprehensive plan was first put out, in some areas the buffer zone was high density residential and in some areas it was commercial office. Over the years some of the buffer zone areas were ready to development at times when the market wasn't there for the higher density residential. For several years staff on the city's HRA was concerned about the continuing erosion on the number of acres available for higher density residential because there was requests being submitted and granted for the switch from the higher density residential to commercial office. Staff at that time had been keeping a tally of the number of acres we were loosing that had been originally been intended as higher density residential. Some areas that were thought would certainly go apartments, went to single family. Historically, we have seen an erosion on the number of acres that we had planned for higher density from two directions, some going to commercial office and others going to single family. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he did not see a clear-cut advantage to the city changing the existing zoning, other than raising the population in Maplewood and meet more of the Met Council guidelines. He felt that it does not address any particular need. It is too expensive, so it is not affordable housing. He felt that in these situation there should be some reason to make this change, and he does not see that. He stated that without the area resident's support of this project, he would not even consider voting for this zoning change. He again stated that he does not see where there is a significant advantage to the city to make this change. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he felt there were a number of ways of transitioning between land uses and different densities in land use is one way of doing that. He stated that he felt the area lends itself to a residential area. Commissioner Ledvina moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the Land Use Plan Change resolution. This resolution changes land use plan from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to residential high density (R-3H) for the proposed Alton Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -12- Ridge housing development on the southeast corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads. The city is making this change because the proposal will meet the items identified in the staff report, which are to provide the orderly development of land use, help minimize conflicts between land uses, provide additional moderately pdced housing stock and create in-fill development with a density of 9.5 units per acre. Commissioner Ledvina also moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the Rezoning Resolution. This resolution changes the zoning map from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to multi-family residential (R-3) for the proposed Alton Ridge housing development on the southeast corner of Lower Alton and McKnight Roads. The city is making the change based on; not detract from the use of neighboring properties, to serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, and has no negativity on the city's public services or facilities. Commissioner Ledvina further recommended the approval of the preliminary and final plat date stamped May 11, 2001. Approval is subject to the applicant meeting the conditions identified in the staff report, conditions la. through h. and adding condition li. "Modify the preliminary plat drawing to shift buildings one and two and associated roads on the southwest portion of the site 20-feet to the north" and Items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as indicating in the staff report. Commissioner Frost requested amendment to Item Cl.d. striking "bituminous" Approve the prelimina~j and final plat date stamped May 11, 2001. Approval is subject to the applicant meeting the following conditions: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, driveways and parking plans with the following changes: a. Reduction in the length of the fire lane turn-around located on the west side of the development from 120 feet in length to 80 feet in length. b. Relocation of the four parking stalls on the west side of the development to ensure a 15-foot setback from the McKnight Road right-of-way. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk within the McKnight Road right-of-way along the west side of the development. This sidewalk shall run from the most southerly end of the development's property line to the existing sidewalk in front of the Holiday Station Store. Removal of all three fire lane turn-arounds on the east side of the development to be replaced with a 12-foot wide b!t';m~,-.c,j= fire lane which will extend from the ends of the driveways around the buildings. The entrance to the fire lane shall be equipped with a fall-down bollard to ensure access by emergency vehicles only. so An eight-foot wide bituminous trail from the most westerly drive on the eastern portion of the development to the existing bituminous trail which is in the center of the development. f. Revising the parking space dimensions revised from 15 foot deep x 8 foot wide to 18 foot deep x 9.5 foot wide. g. Driveways for all units maintaining at least a 25-foot length. h. Showing concrete curb and gutter around all driveways and parking areas within the development. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -13- 2. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 3. Signing a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits, including around all trees to be preserved (construction fence to the drip line of the trees) and around the wetland buffer. c. Install wetland buffer signs at wetland buffer line. Install a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within the McKnight Road right-of-way on the west side of the development from the most southerly property line to the existing sidewalk in front of Holiday Station Store. e. Install an 8-foot wide bi+,um~,-,cus trail on the east side of the development from the most westerly driveway to the existing trail. 4. Submit all required easement documents (wetland buffer and trail easements) for staff approval before recording them with Ramsey County. 5. Submit homeowner's association documents for staff approval before recording it with Ramsey County. 6. Record final plat with Ramsey County. The motion to approve ends at Item C6. Item D is to be reviewed by the Community Design Review Board at the June 12, 2001 meeting. Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. Commissioner Rossbach requested that the voting on the conditions be divided by Item A, Item B, and Item C. Item A - adopt the Land Use Change Resolution. Ayes - 7 Nays - 1 (Commissioner Rossbach) Item B - adopt the Rezoning Resolution Ayes - 7 Nays - 1 (Commissioner Rossbach) Item C - approval of the of preliminary and final plat with the addition of Item Cl.i, and removal of the word "bituminous" in ItemCl.d. Ayes - All Motion carries. This proposal goes before the City Council on June 25, 2001. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -14- VI. NEW BUSINESS None, VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS May 29 City Council Meeting. Commissioner Frost reported on this meeting. There were two items from the Planning Commission. 1) Vacation of a street and alley (Clark Street off of DeSoto and Roselawn area), Planning Commission approved Ayes All, and so did the City Council. 2) Conditional use permit for the Little School of Montessori and Cross Lutheran Church, Planning Commission approved Ayes All, so did the City Council. An additional item was the Capitol Improvement Program, which was also approved by the City Council. B. June 11: Commissioner Rossbach will attend this meeting. C. June 25: Commissioner Trippler will attend this meeting. Commissioner Frost gave his presentation on the Hillcrest Opportunity site. It is the Hillcrest shopping center, a joint project between Maplewood and St. Paul with the Metropolitan Council. April 24thwas the odginal public headng where people in the neighborhood got involved in trying to figure out what they would like to see in the whole Hillcrest neighborhood. The area runs from North St. Paul Road down to Haffners on both sides of White Bear Avenue. There were six groups of people, who all had different ideas. Using blocks and puzzle pieces the groups depicted the future layout of the area. The consultant then took all of their recommendations and synthesized it into two different scenarios. One, with more residential development and one with more commercial. One closed off North St. Paul Road onto White Bear Avenue, making White Bear Avenue more of a Grand Avenue type approach, bringing all the business up to the street level and puffing the parking behind the business and having residential above a lot of the commercial establishments. The second concept was more commercial and less residential. Commissioner Frost stated that he felt they did a very good job. There were 60 - 75 people at the initial public meeting. A smaller amount of people attended the second set of meetings. Commissioner Frost felt that it was a very good planning exercise. Mr. Roberts stated that it is the consultants and the Met Councils intention to have the two plans placed either at Maplewood City Hall or someplace like the community center to get a comment period from anybody who cares to look at them. He also believes that they want City Council and Planning Commission to comment on them. They will also be placing the plans in a strategic locations in St. Paul to get comments on it. Chairperson Fischer stated that Met Council is about to hold several workshops on regional growth and development issues and is asking citizens and advocates to attend. One of these meetings will be at the Maplewood Community Center on Friday, June 22"d from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Other meetings are at Shoreview, Rosemont, and other locations. She stated that if anyone is interested she has additional information. Commissioner Frost indicated that he was at the initial meeting on regional growth and development issues. He stated that what they will be doing is similar to the Hillcrest Opportunity site meetings. They will take the east metropolitan area, all the way from Washington County down to Dakota County and use the blocks and puzzle pieces to show future developments. E. Commissioner Tdppler stated that he had attended the "Beyond the Basics" seminar on May 8. He Planning Commission Minutes of 06-04-01 -15- received a lot of material that he would be handing over to staff for distribution as they see fit. He stated that if anyone was interested in taking any training that this seminar would be a good primer, and encouraged council members to attend. He stated that there are three seminars in this series "The Basics", "Beyond the Basics" and "Advanced Zoning Applications". Chairperson Fischer stated that she had attended the "Advanced Zoning Applications". She stated that it dealt with how much discretion the Planning Commission has, and is the burden of proof on the applicant, or is the burden of proof on the Commission for denial. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts stated it has come out in the training session for our newest members that occasionally having a training topic or discussion at our regularly scheduled meetings would be beneficial. Mr. Roberts asked the Commission for topics that they would like to learn more about. Chairperson Fischer commented that at one time staff had included quotes from some of the ordinances in the staff reports. She felt perhaps if it were an ordinance that the Commission did not see often, that putting a quote into the staff report would be beneficial. Bo Mr. Roberts stated that the City Tour is July 30th. He asked for a volunteer from the commission to speak on some of items of interest dudng the tour. He again asked the Commission for any ideas on the tour. Mr. Roberts stated that a former Planning Commissioner, Mr. Richard Barrett, has passed away. He was on the Maplewood Planning Commission for over twenty years, May of 1969 to September 30, 1990. The request in the obituary stated that Memorials are to be donated to the City of Maplewood's Planning Commission. Commissioner Tdppler brought up the issue regarding pay for volunteering on the Planning Commission. He stated that at the seminar he attended the majority of participants on commissions were paid something. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if that has ever been discussed by City Council. Mr. Roberts stated that the last time that issue was looked at was five or six years ago. He stated that the issue was if you paid the Planning Commission, what about the Parks Commission, the Review Board, the HRA, etc. City Council determined at that time not to pay any commission members. Mr. Roberts did state that there now is a different council. Chairperson Fischer stated that issue has been referred to the City Council more than once. The unanimous decision was that the amount would be small and that it would only "goof-up" their taxes and they were more willing to wdte off their mileage as a donation rather than cope with it any further. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he had seen in the Review that the parking ordinance has been adopted by the City Council. He asked if there would be notices going out to homeowners that this ordinance will be going into effect. Mr. Roberts stated that the next Maplewood in Motion will have an article regarding this and more information will go into the Review. After August 1st it will be on a complaint basis. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit- Maplewood Auto Center 2525 White Bear Avenue June 11, 2001 INTRODUCTION Dale Martin, of Credit Equity Sales, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to sell used motor vehicles from the Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. Mr. Martin does not propose to make any exterior changes to the building or site. He would use the building to store and clean up motor vehicles before selling them. Refer to the maps and letter on pages 4-7. BACKGROUND On March 10, 1987, the community design review board approved the plans for the Maplewood Auto Center. This facility was developed as an automotive center for auto parts sales and vehicle repairs. On November 22, 1999, the city council approved a conditional use permit for Mr. Martin to open a motor vehicle sales business for this location, subject to six conditions. Refer to the council minutes on pages 8 and 9. DISCUSSION This request, if approved by the city, would be the second used motor vehicle sales business in this location. Mr. Martin closed his business in this location (Credit Equity Sales) before · now usin the city approval from 1999 (originally for Mr Chris Palmer ~s g e Midwest Auto Works. August 1, 2000. · . . _~:_,A~ ~rom this center under the nam Mr. Martin) to sell usea motor ven~ · Mr. Palmer is able to use the original CUP approval to sell vehicles from this site because Mr. Martin had closed his business. Staff is not aware of any problems with Midwest Auto Works. I spoke with Dennis Newcomb, one of the proposed operators of Credit Equity Sales, about the proposed business. He said that they would store up to 15 vehicles in the parking lot, but these vehicles would not display "for sale" signs. These vehicles would be in the parking lot for up to three days while waiting for a customer to view the vehicle or for transfer to auction. Staff does not find any problem with this request. The applicant is essentially asking to park cars in the existing parking lot. For comparison, if Mr. Martin operated a repair garage it would be allowed without any special review. A repair garage would likely generate a number of vehicles that are outwardly in need of repair. Parking is not an issue. I inspected the site for the amount of unused parking spaces. There were 30 open spaces to the north and west of the building. The available parking at the auto center would, therefore, support the applicant's need for 15 parking spaces. The proposed car-sales business would be compatible with this auto center and would not affect any neighboring property due to its secluded setting. The building official is recommending that the owner or operator get a certificate of occupancy from the city before occupying the space. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 10 and 11. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for used motor vehicles sales at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. There shall not be any vehicles displayed in the parking lot with "for sale" signs or any other forms of vehicle-sale display or graphics. 5. Vehicle sales shall be by appointment only, not on a drop-by retail basis. 6. The owner or operator shall get a certificate of occupancy from the city before occupying the space. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.8 acres Existing land use: Maplewood Auto Center and Super America SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: A multi-tenant commercial building and vacant property owned by Bob Mogren. Mapleridge Shopping Center Undeveloped wetlands owned by Ramsey County Across White Bear Avenue is Bachman's, Mogren Brothers Landscaping, the former NTB building and an office building PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(5)(a) requires a CUP for the sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. 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 in the resolution on pages 10 and 11. p:secl l\maplaut2.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Letter dated June 2, 2001 5. Council Minutes dated 11-22-99 6. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Attachment 1 I. SUIMI' CT. 2. ~ CIR. ,.% DULUTH CT. 4.. LYT:XA AVE. AVE. A~F_ SHEIU~i AVE. AVF_ A~.. LOCATION 4 MAP k 24 ~ 23~ ,S [ . / 21 19 9 · r~-~--COUNTY ROAD C :1862 ' 1876 4 SUPER AMERICAi CAR WASH I -zzs~ AttachmPnt ? METRO LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT KENNETH'S HAIR STYMNG ~ "~' dA~O H. HESLEY; CPA i ? M~HBESHER & SPENCE ~ERS ; OFFICES BACHMAN'S MAPLEWOOD AUTO CENTER .''~ ' MAPLERIDGE SHOPPING CENTER OFFICES :~..~ N C. F;: / INTB I* i FOODS [ ,:: ~ , ~ ~ PROFESSioNAL : ,~' ~: /C'-~ _ .~ GERVAIS AVENUE ~,, ~ -- , I ~.~ ~ Z : ..... PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP Attachment 3 SUPER AMERICA MAPLEWOOD AUTO CENTER r~ APPLICANT'S PROPOSED BUSINESS LOCATION SITE PLAN ATTACHMENT 4 June 2, 2001 To Whom It Ma5' Concern, I. Dale Martin. owner of Credit Equity Sales. am requesting approval of a conditional use permit to sell and prepare used cars. In reference to the conditional use permit, the number one use of the property for my business would be in complete conformity with all city ordinances. The building is zoned for automotive retail sales and preparations. The intended use of my business would be no different and would not depreciate property values. There is an allowance of approximately 50-60 spaces outside for parking which would provide more than adequate space. There will be no usage of any oil or other hazardous chemicals, nor will there be any for sale si,.z, ns. or signs of that matter, located on the vehicles parked in the auto mall at any time. Cars w'~ll only be parked for short periods of time, pending a scheduled viewing or automobile auction. At no time would there be dismantled automobiles or cars in need of repair on the site. I intend to contract out large repairs that may cause a long-term stay of a vehicle to an outside contractor. The only sales at the office would by appointment only. Therefore, there would be no traffic coneestion caused by my business and the integrity of the auto mall would not be challenged. The benefit to my business would be indoor storage of autos, specialty cars and classic cars. The indoor storage would also be beneficial in snow. hail. and wind. We would also like to be able to prepare and clean automobiles for the sale of them. Having a retail license entitles us to have dealer plates, which are needed for transporting vehicles. I will be conducting business with complete honesty and integrity. I intend to have Dennis Newcomb and Julie Berry, who are part of my license, manage the office and viewing appointments on my behalf. Dennis Newcomb and Julie Berry have been very successful in establishing a positive working relationship with the other tenants of the auto mall. I feel Credit Equity Sales will be an important and positive asset to the Maplewood Auto Center. Please take my request into consideration as presented. Your time is greatly appreciated. Sincerely. Dale Martin MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 22, 1999 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 99-26 ATTACHMENT 5 7:18 P.M. Used Car Sales Conditional Use Permit - Maplewood Auto Ctr. (2525 White Bear Avenue) a. Mayor Rossbach convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. Manager McGuire introduced the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Frost presented the Planning Commission report. e. City Attorney Kelly explained the procedure for public hearings. f. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing, calling for proponents of opponents. No one was heard. g. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved/introduced the following Resolution, approving a conditional use permit for used sales at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue/or a s~x month period ol'time. At that rune applicant will be required to come belbre Council at that tnne and moved its adopnon: 99-11-109 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dale Martin, of Credit Equity Sales, applied for a conditional use permit for motor vehicle sales at the Maplewood Auto Center: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 1, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 11-22-99 8 2. On November 22, 1999, the city council held a public hearing. The city staffpublished a notice in the paper and sent :,otices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present xwitten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. o 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, xvater or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 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 d.esign. 9. The use xvould cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. ! 2. The proposed use must be substantially started xvithin 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. There shall not be any vehicles displayed in the parking lot with "for sale" signs, flags, pennants or any other forms of car-sale display or graphics. 5. Car'sales on the site shall be by appointment only as proposed, not on a drop-by retail basis. 6. No Large transport vehicles allowed on the site. Seconded by Mayor Rossbach Ayes - all 11-22-99 9 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dale Martin, of Credit Equity Sales, applied for a conditional use permit for motor vehicle sales at the Maplewood Auto Center: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL (PIN 11-29-22-22-0040) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 18, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On July 9, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, 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. l0 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. There shall not be any vehicles displayed in the parking lot with "for sale" signs or any other forms of vehicle-sale display or graphics. 5. Vehicle sales shall be by appointment only, not on a drop-by retail basis. 6. The owner or operator shall get a certificate of occupancy from the city before occupying the space. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 3_3. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Home Occupation License and Conditional Use Permits Paul Schlomka 2511 Carver Avenue June 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION Paul Schlomka, 2511 Carver Avenue, is proposing to build a 4,224 square foot metal-exterior pole building (pole barn) to store his business equipment. Mr. Schlomka is operating a landscape service from his residence and stores earth-moving equipment and landscaping materials there. Staff became aware of this home business when Mr. Schlomka applied for a building permit to construct the pole barn. Staff consequently informed Mr. Schlomka that he must receive several city approvals to operate his business and build his proposed pole barn. REQUESTS Mr. Schlomka is requesting that the city council approve the following: A home occupation license to operate a landscape business from residential property. Section 17-21 of the city code requires a home occupation license if the home business is conducted more than 30 days each year. Mr. Schlomka's business would be conducted more than 30 days each year. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build a pole barn larger and taller than the code allows. Mr. Schlomka's proposed pole barn would be 4,224 square feet in area and 18.5 feet in height. Section 36-77 of the city code allows a maximum of 1,250 square feet of combined garage area with a maximum height of 16 feet. Mr. Schlomka presently has an existing 714 square foot detached garage on his property. The code, therefore, would allow an additional 536 square feet of garage area. The proposed pole barn would be 3,688 square feet larger and 2.5 feet taller than the code allows. (The code does not limit the number of garages allowed on a residential lot, only the total area.) Co A CUP to store heavy commercial vehicles and equipment on residential property. Section 36-52 of the city code requires a CUP to keep commercial vehicles on a residential lot that exceeds a one-ton carrying capacity. Mr. Schlomka has several commercial vehicles and equipment associated with his business. These include two pickup trucks, one bobcat, one backhoe, one bulldozer, one front-end loader, one dump truck, and two trailers. DISCUSSION Metal-Exterior Pole Building Metal-exterior pole buildings (pole barns) are permitted within farm residence and industrial zoning districts only. Mr. Schlomka's property is zoned farm residence and therefore a pole barn is allowed. However, the size of the pole barn is limited to the requirements of the city's accessory structure ordinance. As stated above, due to the existing 714 square foot detached garage on the lot, Mr. Schlomka could only construct a 536 square foot pole barn without a CUP. In 1997 the city council approved a similar request by Larry Grand of 2405 Carver Avenue. Mr. Grand's property is located approximately four houses to the west of Mr. Schlomka's house. Mr. Grand had an existing 2,100 square foot barn that suffered snow damage. The city council approved a CUP to reconstruct the barn with a 4,200 square foot pole barn. Mr. Grand proposed storing his personal equipment in the pole barn including vehicles, trailers, tractors and snowmobiles. No commercial storage or activity was proposed for the building. Mr. Schlomka references the city council's approval of Mr. Grand's CUP as a precedence for approving his request. The size and exterior materials of Mr. Schlomka's proposed pole barn will be similar to Mr. Grand's. However, Mr. Schlomka proposes a new structure, not a replacement, and the pole barn will be used for business purposes, not the storage of personal equipment. Unlike Mr. Grand's pole barn which is visible from the street, Mr. Schlomka points out that the location of his proposed pole barn will not be visible from the street or surrounding properties. The proposed location is in a wooded area located to the north of the house. In preparation for the pole barn, earlier this year Mr. Schlomka constructed a second driveway that will serve as the access to the pole barn. Two berms were created on each side of the driveway, adjacent to Carver Avenue, which the applicant landscaped with evergreen trees. Because of the added berming and landscaping, the size of the lot at 5 acres, and the proposed location of the pole barn in a wooded area, the pole barn will not be visible from the street or surrounding properties. For this reason, the structure itself should not pose a negative impact on surrounding properties. However, staff is concerned about the use of the pole barn for storage of commercial vehicles and the operation of a landscaping business. Neighborhood Comment During Mr. Schlomka's first three years in business, the city has not received complaints from the neighbors regarding Schlomka Landscaping Inc. This could be due to the fact that initially Mr. Schlomka's business was relatively small, with limited vehicles and equipment. The request for such a large pole barn in which to store commercial vehicles and equipment concerns staff in that it appears that the business has expanded already since opening three years ago. With approval of Mr. Schlomka's requests, staff is further concerned that the business could expand again in the future, posing a negative impact on the surrounding residential properties. The neighbor most affected by the pole barn and business is the easterly adjacent property owner, Jay Libby, of 2591 Carver Avenue. Mr. Libby supports the requests and states that Mr. Schlomka has a proven record of property stewardship, property maintenance, with an obvious concern for appearance. He also states that the proposal is an excellent use of the property, particularly since it is a large lot that abuts 1-494. Two other neighbors located to the east of Mr. Schlomka expressed some concern over the proposal including: screening of the large building, glare from exterior lighting, pollution issues including oil from commercial vehicles and other vehicle emissions, noise, and landscape materials being dumped and/or stored on the property. To alleviate their concerns they have suggested that Mr. Schlomka install mature evergreen trees and/or a 6-foot high fence along the east side of the pole barn for screening, move the garage doors from the east side of the pole barn to the west side (toward the freeway), require that no lighting is allowed on the east side of the pole barn, and restrict business hours. Paul Schlomka Staff Report 2 June 13, 2001 Landscape Business Bo Mr. Schlomka states that he is the sole employee in the business and that there would be no customers coming to the property. The business would be run from the house with storage of commercial vehicles and equipment in the pole barn. There are currently several commercial vehicles stored in the woods in the back yard. There is also a stockpile of dirt on the north end of the property. Mr. Schlomka states that this dirt was used in his grading and driveway project, but that he also uses it for his business. Because of the number of commercial vehicles on the property and the stockpiled dirt, staff feels that this type of business within residentially zoned land makes for poor land use practice. Once approved, there is always the possibility of additional exterior storage such as rock or wood chips. There is a possibility of further expansion including added employees and extended hours. In addition, CUPs run with the land. If Mr. Schlomka were to sell the property, a new owner could utilize the CUP for commercial vehicle storage. The home occupation license is not transferable, however, and a new owner could not conduct a similar business without city council approval. Mr. Schlomka is aware of staff's concerns and has stated that he is willing to make all necessary arrangements to ensure that the business does not pose a negative impact on surrounding properties. He has agreed to install mature evergreen trees along the east side of the pole barn, relocate the doors from the east side to the south side (neighbors had suggested relocation to the west side but Mr. Schlomka is concerned about vandalism and would like the doors to be visible from the house), and has agreed to a condition that the CUP for the storage of commercial vehicles not be transferable. Similar Uses The city council approved two similar cases involving large storage buildings for contractor businesses in residential neighborhoods: Ao Jim Sabota of 2036 English Street: On May 18, 1978, the city council approved a CUP to build a 4,800 square foot pole barn for the storage of landscaping equipment and materials. Mr. Sabota's building and business was originally built on property zoned M-1 (light manufacturing). The site was later rezoned R-2 (double dwelling residential) to comply with the city's comprehensive plan. This site is surrounded by single-family homes. The business has been a source of complaints from surrounding neighbors. Specifically, neighbors complained that Mr. Sabota was working beyond his allowed hours of operation and expressed concern over the resulting noise and disturbance. In the past the city has also required that Mr. Sabota clean up his site after an increase in landscape materials were being stored outside. Don John of 2335 Stillwater Road: On October 21, 1980, the city council approved plans for a 2,800 square foot pole barn for the storage of excavating equipment and materials. This business was a continual source of complaints from neighbors because of the business-type disruptions within a residential neighborhood. Mr. John has since relocated his business. Paul Schlomka Staff Report June 13, 2001 CONCLUSION The abutting neighbors have accepted Mr. Schlomka's proposed business. There have not been any complaints in his first three years of operation. The site, in fact, is fairly secluded and wooded so Mr. Schlomka's business activity and the pole barn would be buffered from neighbors. Staff is sympathetic with Mr. Schlomka's position in that the business is his livelihood and relocation could pose financial hardship, but feels that such a business within residentially zoned land could lead to future code enforcement problems. As stated above, the city has had bad experiences with two similar developments in the city. Business growth always results in additional burdens on the neighbors---more materials stored outside, outside employees, more equipment, and the storage of discarded materials or broken equipment, to name a few. The approval of Mr. Grand's pole barn should not be Considered as a precedent for allowing this request. Mr. Grand's pole barn was constructed to replace an existing, damaged structure and was intended for personal use only. Mr. Schlomka's pole barn is not intended as a replacement and will be used for business purposes. The home occupation request, furthermore, does not meet the intent of the home occupation guidelines. This use would generate traffic in greater volumes than would normally be seen in a residential neighborhood, the area devoted by the home occupation would exceed an area equivalent to 20 percent of the square foot area of the house, there would be a visible change to the premises indicating the presence of a home occupation, and the equipment used in the home occupation would create noise, dust, and vibrations (from vehicles and equipment being transported to and from the site). (See pages 19-20 for the complete list of home occupation requirements.) RECOMMENDATIONS A. Deny the home occupation license for a landscaping business requested by Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue. Denial is because the proposed home occupation fails to meet the following city code requirements: 1. No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. 2. An area equivalent to no more than 20 percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. 3. There shall be no change visible in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation. 4. No equipment shall be used in such home occupation that creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, and odors detectable to normal senses off the lot. B. Deny the conditional use permit request by Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue to build a metal pole building that would exceed city code size and height requirements. Denial is because the proposed building would not meet the following requirements for approval: June 13,2001 Paul Schlomka Staff Report 4 The structure would not be designed and constructed to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. The structure would change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The structure would not maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Deny the conditional use permit request by Paul Schlomka to store heavy commercial vehicles on his residential property at 2511 Carver Avenue. Denial is because the request would not meet the following findings for approval: The use would not 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 change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would potentially depreciate property values. The use would involve activities, processes, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be 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 or other nuisances. The use would generate additional vehicular traffic on local streets beyond that expected for residential purposes and would create traffic congestion on existing or proposed streets. Paul Schlomka Staff Report 5 June 13,2001 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the property owners within 350 feet of this site to get their opinions of this proposal. Out of the six properties, we received four responses, three approved of the proposal and one opposed. Approvals Written statement from Eleanor and George Ledo, 2510 Carver Avenue East: "Eleanor and George Ledo said to go ahead and build his pole barn (good luck)." Written statement from Jay Libby, 2591 Carver Avenue East: "1 support Paul Schlomka's request for the construction of a 48' x 88' building for commercial vehicle storage, and his request for a home occupation permit. Our properties have a common boundary line, his Eastern and my Western. I see this proposal as excellent usage for this property that is up against Interstate 494. This usage will allow the open areas that we have all come to enjoy to continue, and will keep a contractor, that we all need from time to time, located without our community, and readily accessible to our needs. Mr. Schlomka has a proven record of property stewardship, maintaining his property very well, with an obvious concern for appearance. I see no reason to believe that his new project will be any different." Written statement from Patty Gearin, 2575 Carver Avenue East: "1 would only okay it if Mr. Schlomka would put pine trees covering the east side between my land and his. It would be the side of the building facing me. In that:, for the trees to be of a larger size! Not just starter trees." Opposed Telephone call from Bob Woog, 2595 Carver Avenue: Mr. Woog is concerned about the possible pollution the Schlomka business will create including noise, oil and other emissions, and landscape materials being dumped on the property. He is not in favor of a large pole barn being constructed within a residential neighborhood, but if it does get built he suggests evergreen trees and a screening fence on the east side of the pole barn, and requiring the garage doors to be constructed on the west side of the building facing the freeway, as opposed to facing the residential properties. If the city council allows a business on the property the hours of work that the business can run from the pole barn should be limited. The amount of light emitted from the pole barn or surrounding the pole barn should be limited. Paul Schlomka Staff Report 6 June 13, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 5 Acres Single Family Homes SURROUNDING LAND USES West: North, South, East: PLANNING Interstate 494 Single Family Residential Existing Land Use Plan: R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) Existing Zoning: F (Farm Residence) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT Section 17-21 requires a home occupation license if the home business is conducted more than 30 days each year. Section 36-77(a) allows a maximum of 1,250 square feet of combined detached garage area on lots that are 42,000 square feet or greater. Section 36-77(b) allows a maximum height of accessory structures to be 16 feet. Section 36-52 requires a CUP to keep heavy commercial vehicles (one-ton carrying capacity) on a residential lot. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL See attached home occupation and CUP requirements and standards (pp. 19-22) for approval. APPLICATION DATE Mr. Schlomka made formal application for the home occupation license and the two CUPs on May 18, 2001. The required 60-day deadline for decisions on these land use items is July 17, 2001. P:24-28/2511 carver Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Location Map Zoning/Property Line Map Site Plan Building Elevation Building Footprint Pictures of the Site (pp. 13-17) Paul Schlomka Letter Dated 3/16/01 Home Occupation License Requirements (pp. 19-20) Conditional Use Permit Standards for Approval (pp. 21-22) Paul Schlomka Staff Report June 13,2001 Attachment 1 0 0 ~,MSEY ® HINGTC Z >--0 CO. CO. 'LOCATION MAP _/ Attachment 3 / / / / th;$ oreo ge' Proposed Storo~e ~u~ld;n~ 79.=6' Streel [asemen~ ~, L SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 4 Trusses 4' centers per store code Iooding 29' color clod steel roof treoted poles 4' in ground with concrete under eoch 19'-8" overoge roof height 2x4 roof Perlins @ 24" centers itch 12'x10' steel overheod door 12'x14' steel overheod door 12'x14' steel overheod door All Colored steel 48' Scole: 3/,52" = 1'-0" BUILDING ELEVATIONS 11 Attachment 5 °X BUILDING FOOTPRINT 12 Attachment 6 13 16 Attachment 7 May 16, 2001 Reference: Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission City of Maplewood 1830 Count3.' Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Sir or Madam: I am requesting that you alloxv us to construct the proposed Storage and Maintenance Building as shown on the attached site plan. The building xvill be 88'x48' in size, and will be constructed a good distance from Carver Avenue so as not to hinder the current appearance from the street. I would like this building for storage and maintenance of equipment for mx' small one man landscaping business I have to serve our local communiw. I have spoken to our neighbors about this and they have no concerns regarding the construction of this building. \Vith that, I ask that you approve our request. Sincerely, Paul Schlomka 2511 Carver Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 18 § 17.21 MAPLEWOOD CODE Attachment 8 (2) Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. (3) Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or mate- rials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. (5) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. .. (6) If the home occupation produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. . (b) Home occupations requiring a license shAl! be subject to, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No' more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the prem- ises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on-site, one (1) off-site employee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one (1) sign meeting the requirements of the dty sign code. V Supp. No. I1 1046 HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE 19 LICENSES § 17-22 (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detect- able to the normal senses offthe lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers offthe premise~, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or heal~ hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, machine shops, welding, Ammunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knives or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Ma- chine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that operate on more than one hundred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) Any noncompliance with these requirements shall consti- tute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The city may waive any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential lot line. (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6-27-88; Ord. No. 729, § 1, 11-14-94) Sec. 17-22. Original license approval procedure. An application for home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development shall prepare a recommendation to the p]Anning commission. The planning commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city Supp. No. 11 1047 20 Attachment 9 § 36-441 MAPLEWOOD CODE (d) The city council may approve, amend or deny an application for a conditional use permit by a msjority vote. (e) All decisions by the city council shall be final, except that any person aggrieved by a decision may, within thirty (30) days of the decision, appeal to the county district court. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 36-442. Standards. (a) A conditional use permit may be approved, amended or de- nied based on ~he/oiiowmg stanclards tbr approval, in addition t~ any standards for a specific conditional use found in this chapter: Supp. No. 8 (1) The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's compre- hensive plan and Code of Ordinances. (2) The use Would not change the existing or planned char- acter of the surrounding area. (3) The use would not depreciate property values. (4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dan- gerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nui- sance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water of air pollution, drainage water runoff, 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 un- safe access on existing or proposed streets. (6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. (7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. (8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorpo- rate the site's natural and scenic features into the devel- opment design. 2304 21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ZONING § 36-443 (9) The use would cause minimal adverse environmental ef- fects. (10) The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. (b) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the use would meet all of the standards required for approval of a condi- tional use permit. The city may require the applicant provide, at his or her cost, any information, studies or expert testimony nec- essary to establish whether these standards would be met or to establish conditions for approval. (Ord. No. 648, § 5, 7-20-89) Sec. 36-443. Conditions. (a) The city council, in granting a conditional use permit, may impose such conditions and guarantees that it considers neces- sary, and as supported by the record of the proceedings, to protect adjacent properties and the public interest, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. (b) Conditions and guarantees may include but are not limited to the following: (1) Controlling the number, area, bulk, height, illumination and location of such uses. (2) Regulating access to the property, with particular refer- ence to vehicle and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic control and emergency vehicle access. (3) Regulating off-street parking and loading areas, including the number and width of parking spaces. (4) The location and design of utilities, including drainage. (5) Berming, fencing, screening and landscaping, including un- derground sprinkling. (6) Compatibility of appearance with surrounding land uses. (7) Preservation of the site's natural, historic and scenic lea- tures in the development design. Supp. No. 8 2305