Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/2001BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday July 2, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. June 18, 2001 o Public Hearings None New Business a. Street Vacation - Lydia Avenue, east of Duluth Street b. Home Occupation License - Wethern (193 Mount Vernon Avenue) 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. June 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler b. July 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller c. July 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 couNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 Ill. IV. Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach added Item d. to Commission Presentations: d. Lower Alton Road Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Ayes -All Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 4, 2001 Chairoerson Fischer noted changes to the June 4, 2001 minutes: Page 8, Paragraph 8, Line 3: an apostrophe is need in the word "marshal's" Page 11, Paragraph 10, Line 5: "...there was" should read "...there were". Page 14, Commission Presentations, item D, Paragraph 2, Line 1: an apostrophe is need in Met Council's Commissioner Trippler noted a change on Page 6, Paragraph 4: There should be a space between the words "the" and "proposed". Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of June 4, 2001, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - 7 Commissioner Dierich abstained. The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Conditional Use Permit - Ma lep_[g_~p_od Auto Ce~.q~QL~_(2525 Wh~ Mr. Roberts gave the staff report. He stated that Mr. Da~e Martin of Credit Equity Sales is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to operate a used motor vehicle sales facility at the Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. They would be using two or three of the tenant bays to store and clean up vehicles before selling them. In 1999 the City Council approved a similar request for this property. The business opened, but closed by August of 2000. A Mr. Palmer came to city staff requesting to maintain a used sales facility from the same location. The conditional use permit approval was transferred to Mr. Palmer at that time, conditional use permits run with the property, not with individual owners or operators. This request is needed for a second conditional use permit for auto sales in the same strip center. They are planning to have up to fifteen vehicles on the site. They will not have displayed "for sale" signs on the vehicles, and would limit the length of stay of the vehicles to a maximum of three days, which time they would be sold or transferred to an auto auction. Staff reported no major issues or at concerns with this conditional use permit and recommend approval for this request to operate a used motor vehicle sales business subject six conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Dennis Newcomb, the applicant addressed the Commission. He stated that he would be the individual that would be operating the proposed auto sales facility. He stated that he has run a small business in the past and understands the procedures for used car permits, and what is allowed and not allowed on the property. He does not plan on any dismantling of vehicles, or any type of repair. He stated that would be subbed out. The Commission had no questions of staff or of Mr. Newcomb. Commissioner Frost moved that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the resolution, approving a conditional use permit for a used motor vehicle sales at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by code and shall be subject to the following: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall be null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 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. Vehicles sales shall be by appointment only, not on a drop-by retail basis. The owner or operator shall get a certificate of occupancy from the city before occupying the space. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -3- Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. Ayes - All Motion carries. This recommendation will go to the City Council on July 9, 2001. Schlomka Landscaping Inc. (2511 Carver Avenue) Conditional Use Permit - Oversized Accessory Structure Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Vehicles and Equipment Home Occupation License Shann Finwall gave the staff presentation. She stated Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue is requesting a conditional use permit to build a pole barn larger and taller than code allows; a home occupation license to operate a landscaping business from residential property; and a conditional use permit to store heavy commercial vehicles and equipment on residential property. She stated Mr. Schlomka's property is zoned farm residence, as are the surrounding properties. Within this zoning district pole barns are allowed. The size of the pole barn is based on the size of the lot. In this case, Mr. Schlomka has a five-acre lot and is limited to a 1,250 square foot pole barn at 16-feet in height. Mr. Schlomka's proposed pole barn would be 4,234 square feet in area and 18.5 feet in height. Within the farm residence zoning district, commercial farming or gardening is allowed. However, Mr. Schlomka runs a landscaping business, which requires the storage of heavy commercial vehicles. Therefore, a home occupation license is required as well as a conditional use permit for the storage of the heavy commercial vehicles, which will be used within the business and stored on this residential property. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Schlomka noted that his pole barn will be similar to a pole barn that was constructed at 2405 Carver Avenue. The City Council did approve this 4,200 square foot pole barn in 1997. Mr. Schlomka feels that that pole barn is somewhat of a precedence for approving his request. Staff noted that the size and exterior materials will be similar, but Mr. Schlomka proposes his pole barn will be for business purposes and not the storage of personal equipment, which was the intent of the approved pole barn at 2405 Carver Avenue. The location of the proposed pole barn is well hidden. It will be located in a wooded area behind the house and screened from Interstate 494. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Schlomka will be the sole employee of this business, and no customers will be coming and going to the property. The commercial vehicles that would be stored within the proposed pole barn are two pick-up trucks, one bobcat, one backhoe, one bulldozer, one front-end loader, one dump truck, and two trailers. Staff is sympathetic with Mr. Schlomka as his business is his livelihood and relocation could cause financial hardship. Staff does however feel that this business within residentially zoned property could lead to future code enforcement problems. Furthermore, the hom~ occu~,tion request dcc.3 ~,~,', m~t the intent of the city's home occupation guidelines. It will generate a greater volume of traffic than is normally seen in a residential neighborhood, the area devoted by the home occupation does exceed the 20% allowed, and the equipment used in the home occupation would create noise, dust, and vibration not normally seen within a residential neighborhood. Based on these findings, staff recommends denial of all three requests. Commissioner Frost asked if the pole barn's size is based on the lot size of the property. Ms. Finwall stated that the largest pole barn allowed in Maplewood is 1,250 square feet. Mr. Roberts stated that the sizes of the pole barns are based on a sliding scale of five sizes which is determined by lot size. A small lot of about 7,500 square feet is allowed a 700 square foot accessory building, and lots at one- acre or more are allowed 1,250 square feet of accessory buildings. This code has been on the books since about 1988. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 Chairperson Fischer asked staff is this code has been looked at recently. She recalled that the code was put into place because of the proliferation of home businesses that were the auto maintenance type. She also stated concerns regarding unsightly storage of items in people's yards. It would be preferable to store unsightly items within an accessory building rather than in the yard area in sight of the neighbors. With that, she questioned if any effort has been made to look at the allowable garage sizes. Mr. Roberts indicated that staff has not received any directive from the Planning Commission, City Council or city management to review that code. He also stated that a factor in the amount of garage space allowed is whether there is a detached or attached garage to the main structure, if you have some attached and some detached, you are allowed more total square footage than if there is only detached garages. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff the size of Mr. Grand's property at 2405 Carver Avenue. Mr. Roberts stated that it was almost five acres. Commissioner Dierich questioned how Mr. Grand received approval for the 4,200 square foot pole barn. She also added that Mr. Grand does store heavy equipment similar to what Mr. Schlomka will be storing. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Grand received approval for a conditional use permit by the City Council. He added that there have been no complaints in reference to what he is storing in his pole building, therefore, there has been no investigation. Commissioner Dierich added that she felt Mr. Schlomka's business will not generate additional traffic or additional noise. The area is surrounded by small businesses using large vehicles, which generate noise and traffic. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what was the thought of the City Council when they approved Mr. Grand's request to replace his damaged structure with a pole barn double in size. Mr. Roberts did not recall specifically. He did state that it was a situation where none of the neighbors were concerned about the size of the structure, and City Council was sympathetic with his request and granted approval. Commissioner Rossbach recalled that there were no objections and that Mr. Grand had the support of his neighbors. He feels that the Council found it attractive that Mr. Grand wanted to do something to clean up his yard by using the new pole barn for storage. The applicant, Mr. Paul Schlomka, addressed the Commission. He stated that ideally he would prefer to have a piece of commercial property for his business, in h~s current posmon, however, ne canrlo~ afford it and that is why he is working out of his home. He stated that the property has been family owned since 1963 and virtually nothing has changed in that area. He stated that he would be willing to limit the time he leaves in the morning and when he returns and when he runs his equipment if that is an issue. He added that his secluded location next to a major interstate makes the site suitable for this type of building and business. Commissioner Trippler stated that if this application was granted approval, what is to prevent additional people from requesting oversized pole barns citing Mr. Grand's and Mr. Schlomka's applications as precedence. He asked staff if changing the zoning of the property to commercial would be possible. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 06-18-01 Mr. Roberts indicated that clearly that area is a large lot or farm type setting and felt that there may be opposition by members of the Commission to a zoning change. He added if the zoning was changed and then sold by Mr. Schlomka, the house might be removed and perhaps some undesirable development may occur there. Ms. Finwall added that would be considered a spot zoning, but a possible amendment to the city's farm residence district which would allow this type of business to be a permitted use might be a thought. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if someone was actually doing farming on this piece of property, wouldn't they also have similar types of heavy equipment. Mr. Roberts stated, yes that is possible. Commissioner Rossbach stated his issue is not about the equipment, it is about the home occupation and he stated that granting this application would set a terrible precedence. He stated that the spirit and intent of the home occupation ordinance is to allow small businesses to operate out of their home. It was not intended to have a big equipment situation. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was additional accessory building square footage allowed in a farm zone versus a R1 zone. Mr. Roberts indicated that pole barns are not allowed in R1 zones. The issue is the size of the pole barn requested, which is too large and too high. He added that the maximum size of a detached accessory building in a farm zone would be 1,250 square feet, which is for properties one-acres and higher. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the conditional use permit for the heavy equipment would be transferred with the property, or would a new owner have to apply for a new conditional use permit to have heavy equipment on the property. Ms. Finwall stated that the conditional use permit would run with the land. However, Mr. Schlomka has agreed to make a condition that this conditional use permit would end with his ownership of the property. Mr. Roberts stated that if the City Council did approve this conditional use permit, they could set any number of conditions, such as the number of pieces of equipment or hours of operation. Commissioner Rossbach asked the applicant about the doors on the pool barn. One of the neighbors had requested that the doors face the west instead of the east. The staff report indicated that the doors would be moved to the south because of the concern over vandalism. Mr. Schlomka stated that if the garage doors were facing the freeway, it would be open to see what is inside of the garage. He stated that they have had vandalism problems in the past because of the seclusion. -,- ' ......' .........."~ ~' .... ,e .... 3rwholesale Commissioner Pearson asked staff if a home u,.cu~,..,,u, sales on this site. Ms. Finwall stated this home occupation could not have retail or wholesale. The home occupation that is before the commission is for a landscape contractor's office and storage. Commissioner Pearson stated that this use of the property seems to be right for the area. The neighbors are not opposing it, the noise from the highway is in excess of anything that would be generated from Mr. Schlomka's business, and additional traffic does not seem to be an issue. Commissioner Pearson stated that this request should be something that we could accommodate, but a home occupation license does not seem to be the right vehicle to get there. Mr. Roberts stated, as Ms. Finwall suggested, that a code amendment to the farm zone would be something to consider to accommodate this type of business, and/or similar businesses. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -6- Mr. Jay Libby, of 2591 Carver, a neighbor to the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he fully supports Mr. Schlomka's proposal. He stated that there are only three residences in that area that would be affected by this proposal. He stated that with Interstate 494 adjacent to Mr Schlomka's property any additional noise that may be generated by Mr. Schlomka's business would be unnoticeable. Ms. Judy Schiomka, the owner of 2511 Carver, addressed the Commission. She stated that she has owned the property sir~ce 1963, and nothing has changed in the area. She stated that they have always had trucks and a~so have had race cars, and have never had any complaints. They have always taken pride in the ownership of their property and have always kept it neat and in order. Commissioner Mueller listed nine reasons why' the Commission should allow the applicants proposal: 1) Due to Interstate 494, no extra noise will be added; 2) it is a wooded lot, and the structure will be built where it is not visible; 3) it is on a 5-acre lot, the size of the pole barn is based on a 1-acre lot; 4) it is zoned farm; 5) farming requires equipment; 6) farming is somewhat a home occupation; 7) a new owner would need to apply for a home occupation license; 8) conditions can be set on a CUP; and 9) all but one neighbor is in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Diedch stated that she lived in this neighborhood. She said that this is a very tight knit neighborhood and that the neighbors themselves would control much of what goes on there and would go directly to Mr. Sch~omka if there was a problem. She stated that she felt that Mr. Schlomka is very aware of that and he has been a good neighbor for many years. She stated that she would not want to deprive someone of their livelihood because the Commission cannot find a way to make this conditional use permit amenable without setting precedence. She stated that the Commission needs to be more creative with their thinking in this situation. Commissioner Rossbach stated that looking at the farm zone might be advisable and perhaps combine some of the thoughts that Commissioner Mueller stated. He feels that using a home occupation licenses is not the intent of that ordinance. He suggested denying this application and asking staff to research what could be done to the farm zoning ordinance to make this type of situation allowable. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he wou~d support the conditional use permit with specific conditions that tie the activity to the current property owner. He stated that he would have a problem with this CUP if we were givin9 a long-term approval for this use. For this specific situation, it does seem to make good sense that Mr. Schlomka is able to continue his operation and his livelihood. Commissioner Rossbach asked if we could use the conditional use permit to allow the building and the storage of equipment, and not grant the home occupation license. He stated that Mr. Schlomka is not ac~u~iiy doing his business on his property, only stori~,9 the cqu",p,,m6r~t. Mr. Roberts cited the home occupations code, 17-21A 5, states that "Home occupations shall require a license approval by the city council if any of the following occur more than 30-days each year." Mr. Roberts stated that of the six, number 5 states "a vehicle or vehicles used in the home occupation and parked on the premises which exceeds a % ton payload capacity." Mr. Roberts stated that this is one of the reasons that Mr. Schlomka is required to have a home occupation license. If the farm code was amended, to say that a landscape business or similar type business was either permitted or a conditional use, then that would supercede the home occupation requirements. Chairperson Fischer asked if the present code exclude farm operation from having to have a home occupation permit. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 06-18-01 Mr. Roberts stated that the code does not specifically state that, but the farm code permitted uses include commercial farming or gardening, including the use or storage of associated equipment. He stated that farming is a permitted use, and overrides the home occupation requirements. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the applicant decided to start farming could he drop the home occupation. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, as long as he was farming. Commissioner Trippler asked what the size requirement of the land farmed would have to be. Mr. Roberts indicated that the code is silent on the size requirements. Commissioner Trippler asked if growing sod would be considered a farming operation. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, it would be. Commissioner Pearson asked if procedurally, would it be better to lay this application on the table and give staff and the applicant time to come back with a different zoning request. Ms. Finwall stated that staff could take some time to look at the existing farm zoning, the size of the lots in much of the zoning district, and make a determination on allowing this type of business as either a permitted use or a conditional use within the farm zoning district. With that option, staff would request the applicant to sign a waiver giving up his sixty-day rights as required by the city to make a determination on this application. It could be tabled for possibly a month to review this option. Commissioner Rossbach stated that if we were to explore changing the farm zone, that we may not want to approach it under the thought that landscaping businesses would be a permitted use in that zone. We should look at it as permitting the storage of larger equipment on farm zoned property and also escalating the building size scale so that a five-acre lot would be allowed a larger type storage building than a one-acre lot. Mr. Roberts stated that reviewing this change may take up to three or four months. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Planning Commission table the consideration of home occupation and conditional use permits for Mr. Schlomka's application for approximately four weeks to allow staff time to research additional options of amending the farm residential zone to allow larger pole barns beyond the one-acre size limitation, to allow the storage of more commercially oriented equipment on property zoned farm and also to consider what type of screen that would be appropriate if a larger building were allowed on the property. Also, setbacks should be looked at. Staff should also explore and clarify the permitted uses or conditional uses that would be allowable in the farm zone. If heavy equipment is being allowed, it should be housed and specific hours of use should be reviewed. Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. Ayes - All Motion carries. Commissioner Frost suggested looking at Inver Grove Heights and Woodbury's farm zoning ordinances. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -8- June 11 City Council Meeting. Commissioner Rossbach attended this meeting. He indicated that the only item on that council meeting agenda was the Garden's Townhouse development off of McMenemy and Roselawn. There were a lot of residents in attendance at that meeting. All opposed the trail and presented a petition stating opposition of the trail. They felt the trail was an evasion of their privacy and in no way wanted any part of it. Therefore, the trail was eliminated out of the proposed development. The developer agreed to do some enhancements of the pond shape and also wilt be doing some additional landscaping around the pond. The residence in attendance also indicated that they would like to see more screen and less grading in the area. B. June 25 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Trippler will attend this meeting. The Afton Ridge Development will be on that agenda. C. July 9 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Mueller will attend this meeting. Do Commissioner Rossbach issued an apology to Commissioner Ahlness and Ms. Finwall for statements he made at the June 4 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he overly, aggressively jumped onto some comments that they made and it was not his intention to offend them. Commissioner Rossbach stated his concern about the speed limit on Lower Afton Road where the Afton Ridge development is proposed. Currently there is a speed limit of 50 miles per hour, which seems to be a bit excessive for that area and that type of road. He suggested that the Planning Commission look at speed limits in the area, and if appropriate make a recommendation to the City Council that they also endorse the idea of reducing the speed limit on Lower Afton Road. At that time the appropriate people could be contacted requesting the lowering of the speed limit. The Commission continued discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Roberts stated that the County is going forward with the plans of the golf course south of Lower Afton along Century. He felt that it may be prudent to include the speed limit issue as part of that application. Commissioner Rossbach suggested that each Planning Commission member look at at least six roads in their neighborhoods and their speed limits, of which four of them should be streets that have speeds of less than 50 miles an hour and two with speeds of 50 miles an hour or more. The Commission would then be able to do some comparisons. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ao Bo Co Do Mr. Roberts stated that the City Tour will be July 30th, and asked the Commission for any particular sites that they would like to see. He also asked if there were any volunteers that would like to speak on behalf of the Planning Commission during the tour. Mr. Roberts stated that this Friday, June 22 from 1:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. the Met Council is holding a hands-on planning workshop for community planning at [he community center. Ms. Finwall thanked Commissioner Rossbach for his suggestion about storm water retention at the Afton Ridge Development site. She informed the Commission that the city engineer will require additional ponding for storm water retention at the Afton Ridge Development site. This project will also require Watershed District approval. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the "Taste of Maplewood" event would be occurring this year. Ms. Finwall stated that it will be on Tuesday, August 7th. At this time it is not known if volunteers from the Commission will be needed. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Right-of-Way Vacation Lydia Avenue, east of Duluth ,Street June 26, 2001 INTRODUCTION Richard and Joyce Lambert are asking the city council to vacate the unused part of a street right-of- way. This vacation is for Lydia Avenue, east of Duluth Street and north of the house at 2987 Duluth Street. Please see the maps on pages 4 - 6 and the statement on page 7. BACKGROUND On July 12, 1993, the city council approved the final plat for Countryview Summit. This plat included the Lydia Avenue right-of-way, east of Duluth Street that the applicant is now asking the city to vacate. On August 14, 2000, the city council approved the following for the Highpoint Ridge development: Changes to the comprehensive plan. These were from R-1 (single dwellings), R-15 (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-3(M) (residential medium density) for the site. The city also dropped a planned minor collector street that would have gone through the site from County Road D on the north to Highway 61 on the east. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 65-unit housing development. The applicant requested the CUP because the existing F (farm residence), R-1 (single dwellings), R-1S (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning districts limit the uses to single dwellings in a typical or standard subdivision or to commercial uses near Highway 61 in the M-1 zone. As approved, the project will have 29 single dwellings and 36 town houses. Having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. The existing F and M-1 zoning districts on the site also do not allow twin homes, town houses or other multiple dwellings. 3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. 4. Having no parking for one side of private streets and driveways. On March 26, 2001, the city council approved the final plat for Highpoint Ridge. (See the map on page five.) This plat has set the street pattern for this part of Maplewood. DISCUSSION The Lamberts are requesting this vacation because the city and the neighbors will not need or have a use for the Lydia Avenue right-of-way for a public street. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use this right-of-way for a public street. However, there is a water main in the right-of-way that will eventually connect with the water main in front of Gulden's Restaurant. The city will require this water main connection when the property north of Gulden's is developed. Because of this existing water main, the city needs to keep a drainage and utility easement over the north 25 feet of the vacated street right-of-way. The city council also should require a trail and pedestrian easement over the right-of-way to ensure that this property could be used for a public trail if the city deems it necessary. There are no plans now for a trail in this location. Requiring a trail easement with the right-of-way vacation would give the city the right to build a trail in this location if the city decides that it is needed. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page eight. This resolution vacates the unused Lydia Avenue right-of-way that is east of Duluth Street, next to the property at 2987 Duluth Street. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage, utility, trail and pedestrian easement over the north 25 feet of the vacated fight-of-way. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LANDUSES North: East: South: West: Highpoint Ridge housing development Undeveloped land and Gulden's Roadhouse Restaurant House a~ 2987 Duluth Street Duluth Street p:sec4/lydiave.vac Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Approved Final Plat (Highpoint Ridge) 4. Applicant's Area Map 5. Applicant's Statement 6. Vacation Resolution 2 Attachment VADNAIS HEIGHTS COUNTY ROAD D (~W Lake ~ C/R ~DODR .~CREST DR Y/LL£ DR ~N DR RD. B2 ~ VIK~*N~ DR. \ BEAM AVE. COUN'fY CT. 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVlEW CIR. 5. DULUTH CT. KOHLMAN ROAD AVE. SHERREN AVE. AVE. BLVD. DEMONT E. cad Lake LOCATION 3 MAP A Attachment 2 HIGHPOINTE RIDGE 78 2978 4 6 19 22m~ 12 PROPOSED STREET VACATION GULDEN'S PROPERTY LINE MAP PROPOSED STREET VACATION Attachment 3 C'.'.'"~NTY .'-'.~."AD D FRATTALONE'S g_ j 3 I IrXCF'P"~ON _~ ~JJ : / 5 APPROVED FINAL PLAT Attachment 4 6 Attachment 5 Public Vacation Application Richard and Joyce Lambert 2986 Duluth Street Maplewood, MN 55109-5519 Filing Requirements: Item # 1 On August 14, 2000, on the recommendation of the Maplewood Planning Committee, the Maplewood City Council approved a proposal from Frattalone Properties Company to develop what has been named "High Pointe Ridge." In this approved proposal, construction of Lydia Avenue to connect with Duluth Street was removed. As the abutting property owners of what was to be Lydia Avenue, we are applying for an easement vacation of this land. The benefit to the City of Maplewood would be twofold. By granting this request, property taxes would be paid on this piece of land, thus adding some money to the City of Maplewood. Second, the land would be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. As you can see from the pictures we maintain our lawn in a professional manner. We would continue this practice on this land. The maintenance and landscaping only add value to the entire area. Item #2 Item #3 Item #4 a. F. M. Frattalone b. LaMettry Collision (Director of Community Development waives abstract) Attached check for the amount of $151.00 (one hundred fifty one dollars and no cents.) Attached map for proposed vacation request. Item #5 Petition form. We are requesting that the Maplewood City Council approve our request to vacation this property. Richard and Joyce Lambert 2986 Duluth Street Maplewood, MN 55109-5019 651-483-6463 7 Attachment 6 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Richard and Joyce Lambert applied for the vacation of the following-described right- of-way: The Lydia Avenue right-of-way, east of the east right-of-way line of Duluth Street as platted as part of Countryview Summit in Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On July 2, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. On ,2001, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission, WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: Lot 1, Block 2, Countryview Summit (2987 Duluth Street) (PIN 04-29-22-14-0038.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The city and the applicant have no plans to build a street in this location. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage, utility, trail and pedestrian easement over the north 25 feet of the vacated fight-of-way. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Home Occupation License SteVe and Mary Wethern 193 Mount Vernon Avenue East June 26, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Steve and Mary Wethern are requesting a home occupation license to operate a small engraving business out of their garage at 193 Mount Vernon Avenue East (see the maps on pages 5-7). The Wetherns have been conducting their business (Affordable Engraving) from this location for the past 14 years. Staff became aware of the home business when the Wetherns applied for a building permit to construct an addition to their garage. Staff consequently informed the Wetherns that the city requires a home occupation license in order to conduct business from a residential property. Requests To operate the engraving business from their residential property, the Wetherns are requesting that the city approve a home occupation license (see the applicant's statement on page 8). DISCUSSION Engraving Business Steve and Mary Wethern have been conducting the engraving business from their 480 square foot detached garage for the past 14 years. They are the only two employees in the business. They manufacture engraved nametags, nameplates, and various types of directional signs for companies throughout the metropolitan area. Orders are mailed out by the U.S. Postal Service with very few customers coming to their home. Machinery and materials associated with the business and stored in the garage include an engraving machine, hot stopping machine, plastic stock, vinyl cutting machine, and a computer. With the limited machinery and customer contact, the business does not create excessive noise, waste or traffic. Over the past 14 years in business, the city has not received any complaints from the surrounding residences about the business. In fact, of the 40 surveys sent to surrounding properties within 350 feet of the Wetherns' property, nine favorable responses were returned and one response indicating that a proposed business within that location could be disruptive. Home Occupation Requirements The Wetherns' business requires a home occupation license due to the fact that they manufacture, assemble, and process a product from the premises for more than 30 days a year. The business meets city requirements of a home occupation. This includes the area of the business not encompassing more than 20 percent of the house and garage square footage. The house and detached garage total 2,976 square feet. Per the city's home occupation ordinance, the business could feasibly encompass 595 s uare ¢ . · 480 square feet. q eel The business currently encompasses Garage Addition As stated above, the Wetherns are interested in constructing an addition to the rear of their existing detached garage. The garage addition proposed is 480 square feet, creating a 960 square foot detached garage. Entrance to the addition will be obtained by a double door constructed on the west side of the addition, toward the back yard. The garage addition will meet all of the setback and size requirements. The purpose of the garage addition is to create space to store the family's recreational and lawn equipment. Those items are currently stored alongside the existing garage in a fenced area. They also were stored in a shed in the back yard unt. Jl it was recently removed. One of staff's concerns is that the business may expand into the garage addition. The current size of the business has not posed a negative impact on the surrounding residential properties. If the business were to expand into the proposed addition, the business would double in size (960 square feet). A business of this size would not comply with the 20 percent coverage requirement, and might negatively impact the surrounding residential properties. Because of the removal of the shed, the Wetherns state they are in need of personal storage space, and have assured the city that the addition is not intended as an expansion of their business. With the construction of the 480 square foot addition, the combined house and garage square footage will be 3,456. Per the city's home occupation ordinance, the business could encompass 20 percent of that area, or 691 square feet. This would leave 269 square feet of garage space remaining after the addition. Therefore, to ensure that the home occupation does not expand entirely into the garage addition, a condition of approval should be that any garage space in excess of the 20 percent allowed for a business must be used for storage of the Wetherns' non-business-type materials only. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the Home Occupation License for Steve and Mary Wethern of 193 Mount Vernon Avenue to conduct an engraving business from their residential property. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: Compliance with all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. Any garage space in excess of the 20 percent ~llowed for ~ ,,,~o,, ,,~o~ must bc used for storage of the Wethems' non-business-type materials only. ""~I .... The city council will review this home occupation license in one year. Wethern Staff Report June 26,2001 CITIZEN COMMENTS In Favor: 1. We don't object. We have no problem with the business plan as long as the addition is not turned into business in the future. It's a big garage. (Charles Lin of 1991 Adolphus Street.) 2. I have no adverse comments on this issue. (Anonymous) 3. We have lived here seven years and there have not been any problems with noise or traffic. This is okay as far as we are concerned. (Ellen and Charles Gerstner of 176 Mount Vernon Ave. E.) 4. Small business okay but we expect no more burning of brush and leaves etc in the back yard. No back yard burning!! (Anonymous) 5. I live across the street and have no concern with this expansion. (Peg Cram of 192 Mount Vernon Ave. E.) I think the Wetherns run a good honest business. Go for it. Lots of luck! (Anonymous) o We have no objections. (Anonymous) Okay with us. (Anonymous) No problems. (Gregg Merth of 171 Mount Vernon Ave. E.) Opposed: 1. We treasure the quietness of our neighborhood. We feel this move would be detrimental to our neighborhood. Change is constant and therefore a change may be disruptive. Thank you. (Anonymous) Wethern Staff Report June 26, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 10,275 square feet Single-family home SURROUNDING LAND USES Single-family homes to the north, south, east and west PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Article II, Section 17-21 (b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. These requirements are attached as pages 14 and 15. Application Date We received the complete application for the Wetherns' home occupation license on May 25, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by July 24, 2001. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Location Map Property Line/Zoning Map Site Plan Steve and Mary Wethern's Home Occupation Statement date stamped May 25, 2001 Pictures of the Site (pp. 9-13) Home Occupation Requirements (pp. 14-15) Wethern Staff Report 4 June 26, 2001 Attachment 1 Z B2 LI'FrLE CANADA RO. B A~.. RoS£LAWN AV~. LWOOD KINGSTON , ST. PAUL Lake 5 ~.oF W.C. (z~.7o~ .~ Attachment 2 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP -5-] 6 SITE pLAN Attacl~ment ~ AS REQUESTED FROM CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING BUSINESS OPERATING AT 193 MT. VERNON AVE. E., MAPLEWOOD, MN 55117 NAME OF BUSINEss: AFFORDABLE ENGRAVING Owner's NAMEs: STEVE & MARy WETHERN HOURs OF OPERATION: 8 AM TO 5 PM MONDAy THRU FR/DAy TO WHOM IT MAy CONCERN: AFFO,R~ ABLE ENGRAVING MANUFACTu PLATES, AND VARIous D~ ,~_ _ RES EN D A · TYPEa or' DIRECTir, .... G~RA v r~t~ NAME TAr~,~ OUT THE METRo AREA, THE BUSINEss IS RUN FROM THE DETACHED GARAGE u~X~tL SIGNS t~ ..... ~'~, ~XAME LOCATED ON DESCR/BED PROPERTYABOVE. F,.,,x ~OMPANY,S THRU ORDERs ARE MAILED OUT BY THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. MATER/ALS THAT ARE SHIPPED IN ARE DELIVERED BY THE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE TRUCK THAT COMEs TO THE BASIS. NEIGHBORHOOD ON A REGULAR THERE HAS BEEN NO EXCESSIVE NOISE, WASTE, OR TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS IN THE PAST, NOR WILL THERE BE ANY CHANGEs IN FUTURE. WE ARE REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS OF OUR BUSINESs AT OUR PRESENT LOCATION. ALSO WE ARE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 20 FEET ON TO THE BACK OF THE GARAGE, THIS ADDITION WILL BE USED FOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL ITEMS. Steve and Mary Wethern's Home Occupation Statement Attachment 5 Front of 193 Mt. Vernon Ave. E Front of Detached Garage Where Business is Located 11 Interior of Garage Where Business is Located 12 Interior of Garage Where Business is Located Rear of Detached Garage Where Addition is Proposed § 17-21 ?~PL~WOOD CODg (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. (§) A vehicle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter, ton payload capacity. (6) If the homo occupation producos any wasto that should be treated or regulated. (b) Homo occupations requiring a license shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No' more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off-premises may be allowed to visit the prem- ises. If an on-site employee is parking on-site, off-site employees shall not leave their vehicles on-site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on-site, one (1) off-site employee vehicle may be parked on-site. (3) No vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this requirement. 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. There shall be no change visible off-premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one (1) sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code. (4) (5) Supp. No. 11 1046 Attachment 6 14 Home Occupation Requirements LICENSES § 17-22 (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced off-site unless approved by the city council. (7) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detect- able to the normal senses offthe lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in anY radio or television receivers off the premise~, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, machine shops, welding, ammunition manufacturing or sales, th~ 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 pl_~nning commission. The planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the city Supp. No. 1! 1047