Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2000BOOK 10. 11. MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 7, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes a.. January 19,2000 Approval of Agenda Public Hearing a. United States Post Office Annex Building (1686 Gervais Avenue) 1. Land Use Plan Amendment (M1 to G) 2. Conditional Use Permit New Business a. Maplewood Retail Center (2271 White Bear Avenue) 1. Parking Lot Setback Variance 2. Conditional Use Permit b. Historic Resources Management Plan Review - Robert Overby Unfinished Business a. 1999 Annual Report Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. January 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson b. February 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller c. February 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach Staff Presentations a. Reschedule February 21 meeting (Presidents Day) - February 22 or February 23? 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 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000 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 Michael Seeber Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Absent Present Present Present Present Absent Absent Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 20, 1999 Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of December 20, 1999. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstain--Mueller IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, amended to include Item d. Election of Officers under 5. New Business. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 7 (West of 2175 Woodlynn Avenue): Preliminary Plat and Front Setback Variance Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. The board had no questions on the staff report. Pat Kinney, the applicant, had nothing to add to the report. Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant to explain the easement aspect of the proposal. Mr. Kinney said that the lot extends back but NSP has a power line easement over the majority of the back of the land. The land can be used by the homeowner but cannot be built upon. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-19-2000 -2- Commissioner Ledvina felt that moving the buildings back eight feet to meet the setback requirement would not be an extreme hardship for the applicant. He noted the different setback for the existing townhomes. He did not "see any glaring problem with the differences in the alignment of the building." It also made sense to Mr. Ledvina that, since Woodlynn is a busy street, these units should be set further back, at least within the setback requirement. Commissioner Rossbach asked about potential drainage problems. Mr. Kinney was not aware of any problems. Commissioner Ledvina confirmed that, based on discussion at the Maplewood Community Design Review Board meeting the previous evening, the city engineering department did not think there would be any difficulty in dealing with drainage from the site. Ken Haider, city engineer, said when the other units to the east were built, the drainage was "shunted off" to the west a little further each time and now needs to be brought out to the street. He said the plan does have a swale in between each of the units that comes out to the front. Mr. Haider felt this was adequate. Mr. Kinney said reducing the depth of the buildings and spreading them out was not an option--they did not have enough width to expand that way. He pointed out that the buildings closest to McKnight Road are a totally different style. They are two-story townhomes with garages underneath or close to the upper level and front structure of the house. The units directly to the east of the proposed buildings have the garages more to the front and the living area to the back of the home. Commissioner Trippler asked if the units directly to the east had requested a setback variance. Mr. Roberts clarified that the fronts of the buildings were not the setback problem, just the parking areas. He said the problem was that, when the bituminous parking areas were put in front, they put in more than what was allowed by code. He pointed out that the front of the building directly to the east lines up with the proposed fronts of the new units. These units did not receive a variance for the parking lots. Mr. Trippler questioned if allowing "the next three to conform to the two that are out of compliance" sent a "bad message to people in Maplewood to just go ahead and do whatever you want to do" and then keep doing it. He thought it was better to say that those two were done wrong and no more can be done that way. Mr. Roberts said that staff felt it was possible to cut the parking area down but it would make vehicle maneuvering too tight, and pushing the buildings back would put them up against the easement. Commissioner Mueller asked if the design of the proposed buildings was changed to that of the first four units would they then fit on these lots. Staff confirmed that they would. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that they were basically talking about three feet of asphalt that is too close to the road since the buildings were aligned. Because the buildings could be placed as designed, he didn't think it made sense to handicap the people by not giving them adequate turn-around space. Commissioner Trippler questioned why Mr. Rossbach was talking about three feet; he thought it was eight feet. Mr. Rossbach said the argument was the same--the buildings meet the setback, just the parking areas don't. Mr. Trippler had a problem with "negating our rules and regulations" and then have the city grant a variance for the same thing. He said if the issue was only three feet, the applicant could move the building back three feet. Mr. Roberts said they were talking about seven feet. Commissioner Ledvina also mentioned that the buildings don't bump up right against the NSP easement so there is some room to move the buildings back and reconfigure the stairs to meet the setback requirement. Thus, he did not feel there was a hardship by meeting the setback requirement. Commissioner Trippler remarked that the first four existing buildings appear to be at the easement line. He asked if there had been any problems with these units complying with the easement. Mr. Roberts said a shed was built in the easement with permission from NSP. He Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 01-19-2000 was not aware of anything else. Mr. Roberts said that extensive landscaping was recommended in the boulevard area between the sidewalk and parking/driveway area. Commissioner Rossbach asked, if the city council denied the variance, would the applicant move the buildings back or less~n the parking areas? Mr. Kinney replied that it would probably be a combination of both. According to Commissioner Ledvina, the building elevations shown on the grading plans would not provide for a "look-out type" of setup. The grading plan shows that the finished floor elevation is a foot above the grade. Therefore, if the decks are built, there would only be one or two stairs to match the existing grade. Chairperson Fischer noted that the grading plan was marked preliminary. Mr. Kinney thought the units further to the west would have the look-out basements. Commissioner Ledvina moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Denial of the seven-foot front setback variance for Woodlynn Heights Townhomes Number 7. B. Approval of the preliminary plat date-stamped December 3, 1999 for the proposed Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 7. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1 .* Obtaining the city engineer's approval of the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage and erosion control plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 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. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along each side lot line between buildings and along the west and east lot lines of this addition. d. Extend the five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from its current location to the west lot line of this townhouse addition. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-19-2000 -4- e. Provide for the repair of Woodlynn Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the sidewalk. 4. If the developer decides to final plat the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 5.* Submitting the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the Director of Community Development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structure. 6.* Providing a written statement from NSP and Amoco Oil Company which allows the grading in the easement that the developer proposes. Bo *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Commissioner Rossbach asked if denying the variance but approving the preliminary plat, which shows it with the variance, made the two parts of the motion work against each other. It was Mr. Roberts' opinion that the preliminary plat was "laying out the box" while the variance is more of a site plan/structure within the lot. Commissioner Ledvina said he was recommending denial of the variance because the aesthetic impact was not significant. Mr. Rossbach did not think a hardship was being shown because the buildings are not built or fully planned yet. He did not want to end up with "crummy parking areas and the buildings in the same spot." The motion passed. Ayes--all Commissioner Pearson asked what the penalty was if developers don't develop according to the plans and use as approved. Mr. Roberts said that, if the change was caught before completion of the project, it could probably be corrected. Mr. Pearson then asked, if swales, setbacks, etc. were not maintained and no fine was imposed, what would keep them from doing it again. Mr. Roberts said that, if drainage problems occurred because a swale was not maintained and it was necessary for a city crew to correct the problem, these fees could be put on their taxes. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Presentation--Update on Land Use Planning (Bob Close) Melinda Coleman, director of community development, introduced Bob Close. Mr. Close worked with city staff on planning for the White Bear Avenue corridor. Ms. Coleman mentioned the Steering Committee meeting on January 20 and a final open house on February 15, 2000. Mr. Close said they were looking at White Bear Avenue to determine what kinds of things they "could do to improve everything from signage to image along the corridor." Recommendations for Maplewood, that will be presented at the open house, primarily have to do 'with landscape because the spaces are large and the roads have been engineered for the traffic. Mr. Close said the group was specifically asked to consider the Builders' Square site, the area around Hillcrest Shopping Center, and the 80-acre site west of Maplewood Mall. Mr. Close said they saw the power line easement going through the area west of the Mall as a possible connection for the regional trail system. They also considered ways to make the Maplewood Mall more accessible for pedestrian and bicycle users. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 01-19-2000 According to Mr. Close, the group looked at reconfiguring the blocks around the site to arrange for different types of housing, as well as accommodating the proposed new church and new commercial sites. He said they considered the realignment of North St. Paul Road to intersect with White Bear Avenue at 90 degrees. This would allow the neighborhood streets with single- family housing to be extended, would allow for some higher densities of housing, and would create a block that has a "more logical commercial structure." Mr. Close saw the area on the west side of White Bear Avenue as a good site for potential housing of higher density, i.e. senior housing, townhouses, etc. The group also identified a site very close to the existing Builders Square building that would accommodate the church and provide adequate parking. Commissioner Trippler asked who would pay for "all this reorganization." Mr. Close replied that the group was asked to look at this project in a "theoretical way--in terms of what could happen in a long-range plan." He said it was a projection for how the area might be developed if the Builders Square building was demolished. Commissioner Rossbach mentioned the redevelopment taking place in the old Phalen Shopping Center area. He said many times the retailers pay their own way if the redevelopment is in their best interest. Mr. Rossbach felt it was important to first "have a vision of what you want to do" so when the opportunity presents itself they could be prepared. Commissioner Mueller thought a pedestrian roadway into the back of Maplewood Mall might be very inviting to cars. He also asked about plans for parks in this area. Mr. Close felt there would be a great opportunity for recreational uses. Commissioner Rossbach was glad to see some thoughts about residential uses in the area. He said there needs to be another way to move traffic from the Mall area. Commissioner Pearson asked if the planning for the Builders Square site was a "moot point" since a church has been approved for the site. Melinda Coleman said that the church must still purchase the property. She thought the city missed an opportunity by letting the building sit for so long. Ms. Coleman said staff was seeking community and commission input and then would submit a land use proposal for consideration. She pointed out that Ramsey County would need to be involved in any planning because North St. Paul Road is a county road. She felt the city might become involved with funding to help demolish some of the buildings that are becoming dated. Ms. Coleman said the neighborhood residents have not seen the plan that was presented to the commission. Commissioner Rossbach alluded to a meeting he attended where it was projected that in thirty years the buildings in the Hillcrest mall area would be not be located as they are now. Ms. Coleman thought that land demands would pressure the city to look at different alternatives for sites. Chairperson Fischer asked if this study and the one that was done by Calthorp (a study of primarily the Lake Elmo and North St. Paul area) were working together. Mr. Close said there are a lot of competing uses and market studies have to be part of the whole process. Co 1999 Annual Report Chairperson Fischer introduced the staff report. Commissioner Pearson thought the WBBBA study should be included as a work item for 2000. Ken Roberts, associate planner, had a few changes to the report. There were actually seven land use plan changes (page 1). The Woodland Hills Church (BC to C) should be added to page 2. Ms. Fischer asked for a breakdown of the conditional use permits. Commissioner Rossbach inquired about the progress on a video tape of the public hearing process. Commissioner Ledvina said he didn't see a real value in generating a generic video--it Planning Commission Minutes of 01-19-2000 -6- should be specific to the City of Maplewood. He thought it might be possible to purchase the video. Ms. Fischer mentioned that the commission previously hoped to look at the comprehensive plan on a yearly basis to see if there were some areas where changing land uses, values, businesses, etc. should have less recommending. Ms. Coleman said she had serious problems with three or four of the proposed activities. She suggested tabling the annual report so that the commissioners could take additional time to decide on some realistic goals and activities. She mentioned staff goals that relate to White Bear Avenue, home replacement, and planning around the Maplewood Mall. She thought the sign ordinance might need to be reviewed. Ms. Coleman said she was going to work out the budget so that they could get a nice bus for the annual development tour of Maplewood. Commissioner Ledvina spoke about an "unsewered" area in south Maplewood. The council did not want to approve a change in zoning for these lots. They are now zoned for farm and can be subdivided to 10,000 square foot lots if sewer systems can be installed. Mr. Ledvina thought the zoning for this area should be reconsidered. Ms. Coleman said this was a reasonable suggestion and could be included as a 2000 activity. She also suggested having priorities within the activities. Mr. Roberts said the Metropolitan Council and the DNR are requesting changes to Maplewood's comp plan in regard to the Critical Area for the Mississippi River (south of Carver Avenue and west of 1-494) to make sure the city is in compliance with all the requirements these agencies have because of the river. One of these requirements is a three-acre minimum lot size. Commissioner Ledvina moved to table the Planning Commission's 1999 Annual Report until the next commission meeting. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. D. Election of Officers Commissioner Ledvina moved to nominate Lorraine Fischer as chair and Jack Frost as vice- chair of the Maplewood Planning Commission. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Commissioner Ledvina moved in favor of Ms. Fischer continuing as chair and Mr. Frost as vice- chair. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-19-2000 VII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS -7- VIII. December 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler reported on this meeting. January 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina reported on this meeting. January 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson will attend this meeting. (?) February 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller will attend this meeting. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Melinda Coleman, director of community development, asked to have the February 21 planning commission meeting moved from February 21 to February 22 because of President's Day. Since a couple commissioners cannot attend on February 22, it will be decided at the next meeting whether the meeting should be held on February 23. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - North St. Paul Post Office Annex 1686 Gervais Avenue February 1, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description The North St. Paul Post Office is proposing to use the building at 1686 Gervais Avenue, the former Meader Distributing building, as a mail distribution facility. Refer to pages 8-12. This facility would be for mail distribution only, but there would be a mail drop box on site. This would not be a retail post office facility for walk-in service or the pick-up of mail. There would be approximately 33 employees. The hours of operation would be 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. The applicant is proposing to make several door/window changes on the east, west and south sides of the building and various parking lot/driveway changes. Security is an issue--the applicant would provide chain link security fencing with barbed wire on top and a concrete screening wall in front facing the street. Refer to the building elevations and site plan. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A comprel~ens~ve lancl use plan amen~tment trom M1 (,!!g.~t. manutactunng) to G (,government. ~acility). 'f'he code' rec~uires ti"tat, to apl~rove'~; con~li'tional use per'nit' (~UP)i th~ land use plan designation for a property must be in conformance with the proposed use. 2. A CUP for a public building. The city code requires a CUP for "public utility, public service or public building uses." Refer to the CUP justification on page 13. 3. Building, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Amendment The classification of G (government facility), is a broad designation, which covers any type of public facility. The city council would need to approve this land use plan change to comply with the ordinance if they wish to approve the applicant's CUP. The proposed use complies with the commercial/industrial development policies noted in the comprehensive plan. Refer to page 15. The proposed use, furthermore, is similar to the previous use by Meader Distributing since it essentially involves shipping and receiving goods. Conditional Use Permit The survey replies from the neighbors have mostly been favorable. One neighbor, however, (see the letter on page 14) expressed the following comments and concerns: 1. The facility looks like it will be used for pubic service---if so, shouldn't the neighbors be notified. The applicant said they do not intend this facility for use as a walk-in retail center. There would be excessive parking on the site. There would be 33 employees and 41 parking spaces are proposed. Staff does not feel that this is excessive for this size of building. The 41 spaces would accommodate additional persons that may visit the site. There is no specific code requirement for the proposed post office use. The applicant has provided enough parking for this facility. One typical concern is that a parking shortage may develop. In this instance there is sufficient site area to add more parking spaces. 3. Traffic will increase from November through January and again at April 15. These are increased mail times due to Christmas and the income-tax season. This may or may not result in the need for an additional truck tdp (or tdps). This is an industrially-zoned area and truck traffic is a typical activity. Staff recommends that, as a condition of this permit, delivery trucks to this facility be required to access the site from White Bear Avenue and also exit to the east, toward White Bear Avenue, as well. This is to limit the truck traffic that would go past the homes to the west/northwest. Small mail delivery trucks would be exempt if they are delivering to this neighborhood. There are no vehicle-direction options to keep cars or trucks from going past Flandrau Street (this neighbor's street). 4. The city should reduce the speed limit on Gervais Avenue to 30 mi/es per hour because of the increased pedestrian traffic on this street. The applicant would have to petition the city council with this request. 5. Late night semi trailer traffic would be disruptive in the summer. The applicant said that there would be five mail deliveries to this facility. They are anticipated to be 3, 5 and 7:30 a.m. and 1 and 6 p.m. 6. Victory in Christ Church has had a portable sign up for a long time. Staff has notified the church of the sign requirements and required the removal of the sign. CUP Conclusion The majority of the neighbors favored this proposal. Staff also feels that the proposed post office annex would be a compatible use in this area. The proposed use would likely be much less disruptive than a private business. A private business would also not receive any city council review as this one is. Building and Site Design The proposed changes to the building would not affect it's appearance to any degree. It would be essentially the same after the window and door changes. The most noticeable changes would be the chain link fence and the concrete block screening wall. The screening wall would match the concrete block of the building. The building colors would remain the same. Landscaping The proposed landscaping would be attractive. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 16 amending the comprehensive land use plan from M1 (light manufacturing) to G (government facility) for the proposed North St. Paul Post Office Annex at 1686 Gervais Avenue. Approval is because the proposed post office annex would comply with the commercial and industrial development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Adopt the resolution on pages 17-18 approving a conditional use permit for the North St. Paul Post Office Annex at 1686 Gervais Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall instruct all ddvers to access and exit this site via White Bear Avenue to avoid the residential neighborhood to the west. Mail deliveries to that neighborhood are exempted from this. Approve the plans (stamped January 12, 2000) for the proposed North St. Paul Post Office Annex, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan for the city engineer's approval. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. If the trash container is not visible to the public it does not have to be screened. (code requirement) 3 I s I 'T [ b. Install all landscaping as shown on the approved plan. Screen any new roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible from the homes along Gervais Avenue. All other new roof-top units that are visible from non residential areas must be painted to match the building. (code requirement) d. Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces as required by the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act). All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes, CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 24 property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the eight replies, three had no comment and six replied as follows: As owners of the building, we are obviously in favor of the Postal Service's application. The proposed use of the property by the Postal Service will be almost exactly the same as that when it was used for our book distributing business in terms of hours, traffic and the like and will serve the community's needs. Thus, there will be no negative impact on the neighborhood. (Eugene and Elaine Meader, North Oaks) 2. It's fine with me. (Occupant, 1730 Gervais Avenue) I think this would be a wonderful idea. I would always go to the Mpls/St. Paul airport to mail packages if I couldn't make it before closing time. A post office close by would be nice. (name not given) 4. This would be great! (Donna Anderst, 1700 Gervais Avenue) I would much rather have postal trucks then any more semis in the area! (Or factory employees teadng down our streets!) Many near accidents. Our mail delivery will be earlier-Great ideal (Daniel and Debra Prowoll, 1631 Gervais Avenue) 6. Refer to the letter on page 14 from Justin Mallmann. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.8 acres Existing land use: The former Meader Distributing building SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Northwest: Northeast: South: West: East: Four Seasons Park Single dwellings Victory in Chdst Church Highway 36 Maplewood 2 Business Center SCS CoSines PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: Existing - M1 (light manufacturing); Proposed - G (government facility) Zoning: M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(1) requires a CUP for public utility, public service or public building uses. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, ordedy and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Findings for Land Use Plan Changes There is no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. Refer to the policies on page 15. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of CUPs on the nine findings stipulated in the resolution on pages 17-18. Application Date We received this application on January 12, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 12, 2000. p:sec14\famshelt.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Hazelwood Neighborhood Land Use Plan 4. Site Plan 5. Building Elevation Reduction 6. Applicant's CUP Letter of Justification dated January 12, 2000 7. Letter from Justin Mallmann dated January 26, 2000 8. Commercial and Industrial Development Policies 9. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 10. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 11. Plans date-stamped January 12, 2000 (separate attachments) Attachment 1 VADNAIS HEIOHTS' ~~.~_ I cou~ ~. ~k Il 1. SUlalalT CT. II 2, COUNTR'IMEW (:IR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA AV~. COUN~ B~ KOHl.MAN ROAD ~ C CERVNS AVE ,d KOHLMAN DEIdONT EDGEHILL RD. SHERREN AVE. AV~:. Lake AVE COPE AVE JUNCTION O) CHA~eEeS ST coUP, sc smu. AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. LOCATION MAP Z 1615 ~ 1631 R1 FOUR SEASONS PARK VICTORY IN CHRIST CHURCH I EL | 135.f,,~ .' ~ 240 GERVAIS AVENUE _~LGS' ~ -'· 4.?-S n.c. [ ~ PROPOSED MAPLEWOOD 2 BUSINESS CENTER' ~ NORTH ST. PAUL ~ POST OFFICE SCS CoSI~ES I '1 t Attachment 3 interchange REVISED 07/06/93 7-20-95 12/06/94 10-13-95 12/12/94 1/19/95 11-01-96 ~ ',princiPal arterial 694 interchange I minlor arterial Vadnais Heights M-1 ma;or c olle c I-c~.-~--- CO major collector M-1 '" R-3 1 LBC major .C_.O I I e__c_ t o r rte. rial : Highwa PROPOSED G (government facility) CLASSIFICATION interchange al BC(M) HAZELWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN PLANNING AREA NUMBER 4 10 Attachment 4 PROPOSED NORTH ST. PAUL POSTOFFICE ANNEX II I ! I GERVAIS ~AVENUE 1 I SITE PLAN 11 I Attachment 5 12 .... IO'~'V Attachment 6 PROJECT TO FROM SUBJECT DATE PRESENT USPS North St. Paul - RRT Project ~tt9862.01 City of Maplewood Albert W. (Chip) Undeke, III CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12 January 2000 MEMO The intended use of the property is as a United States Postal Service Carrier Annex. This will be a facility out of which mail carriers will operate. Mail will be delivered to this facility, sorted and taken out for delivery to customers. The mail delivery vehicles will be stored inside the building. Thero will be a large workroom for processing mail, and additional support space - i.e. office storage, lockers, toilets and lunchrooms. There will also be a loading dock facility. The USPS will be using the existing building on the property. They will be remodeling it extensively, but will not be building any additions. The existing parking lot will be remodeled, adding only a minor amount of additional pavement. The City should approve this conditional use permit because the proposed development and use is essentially the same use that already exists on the property. Also, the facility and property will be upgraded to current building standards. END This summary is part of the permanent record for this project, If there are concerns or discrepancies, please notify RRT within 7 days. AWL/jrng XC: Enclosures 13 RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON ARCHITECTS 253 EAST 4TH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-1632 TEL: 651 224-4831 FAX: 651 228-0264 O:\O862-01\Correspondence~o011200awl.doc I An Affirmative Action/£qual Opportunity Employer Attachment 7 January 26, 2000 Justin & Joan Mallmann 2400 Flandrau Street Maplewood, MN 55109-2100 651-773-9720 Thomas Eksrand Office of Community Development 1830 East County Road C Maplewood. MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand In regard to the letter we received from you concerning the use of the old Meader Distributing building. The statement you put in the letter for use of this facility has nothing to do with the general public use of this annex station. The plan diagram shows an extreme amount of parking also the driveway for mail drop off by the public. The view of the building shows an entrance for possible general public use. If the intended use is going to expand to public use should we not be notified now instead of it just happening and we are left out of our say as the neighbors who have to live by this increased traffic flow during November through January, plus also around April 15th. The increase in traffic should entice the city to reduce the speed to 30 miles per hour from White Bear Avenue to Kennard. I see a park across the street plus the increase of mature citizens that have in fluxed the neighborhood. The foot traffic during the summer has increased immensely since we have moved into our house on Gervais and Flandrau. The next subject is how much late night semi trailer traffic per night will this cause. The present has two Semi's coming in at or around eleven PM and three AM. The winter isn't that bad but the summer is worse because of the noise. The business's now that run 24 hours have breaks during the night and these people go out and start there cars in the winter and play the radio's loud in summer and winter late night or early morning. Sometimes they have shouting matches to see who can be the most rowdy. The final problem will be signs. The church has had that temporary sign out front for eight years now. Will the postal annex also have a temporary sign out that long. I can see a sign for special occasions, but what occasion lasts eight years. ~/Just'n Mallmann 14 ! ! I 1 I II I II II II Attachment 8 Disperse Iow- and moderate-income developments throughout the City, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. Such housing should be near bus lines or have access to other public transportation. · Support innovative subdivision and housing design. Support the use of planned unit developments for sites with development challenges to allow for creative design solutions. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following are the City's commercial and industrial development policies: · Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. · Provide attractive surroundings in which to shop and work. · Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. · Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. Use planned unit developments wherever practical. Maintain orderly transitions between commercial and residential areas. Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. Plan land uses and streets to route non-residential traffic around residential neighborhoods. Restrict commercial development that would result in traffic volumes which are beyond the capacity of the road systems or generate excessive noise or pollution as defined by state standards. 15 · ! Attachment 9 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the United States Post Office North St. Paul applied for a change to the city's land use plan from M1 (light manufacturing) to G (government facility) to bring the land use plan into conformance with their proposed use as a mail distribution facility. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 1686 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: LOTS I TO 24 INCLUSIVE, BRIGHTON PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED ALLEY, AND VACATED NEWBURY STREET, ACCRUING THERETO BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH LOT 6, BRONSONS SUBDIVISION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 7, 2000, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the land use plan change. 2. On ,2000, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change because the proposed post office annex would comply with the commercial and industrial development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 16 Attachment l0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the United States Post Office North St. Paul applied for a conditional use permit to operate a mail distribution facility in an existing industrial/warehouse building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the site located at 1686 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: LOTS 1 TO 24 INCLUSIVE, BRIGHTON PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED ALLEY, AND VACATED NEWBURY STREET, ACCRUING THERETO BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH LOT 6, BRONSONS SUBDIVISION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 7, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. On ,2000 the city council held a public heating. 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 from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. 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. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. ir r .............. -1 ...... I 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall instruct all drivers to access and exit this site via White Bear Avenue to avoid the residential neighborhood to the west. Mail deliveries to that neighborhood are exempted from this. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Maplewood Retail (former Bali Hai site) 2271 White Bear Avenue February 1, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Vince Driessen, of Reliance Development Company, is proposing to build a 16,367-square-foot restaurant/retail center on the former Bali Hai Restaurant site, 2271 White Bear Avenue. The proposed building would have an exterior of decorative concrete block, brick, stucco and EIFS (exterior insolation finish system--a stucco-look material). Refer to pages 8-11. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: A ten-foot parking lot setback variance from the Highway 36 right-of-way. The code requires a 15-foot setback; the applicant is proposing five feet. Refer to the letter on pages 12-13. A conditional use permit (CUP) because the proposed building would be 200 feet from a residential distdct (the center line of White Bear Avenue). The code requires a CUP for buildings in an M1 (light manufacturing) district if they would be closer than 350 feet to a residential zone. Refer to the letter on pages 14-15. 3. The architectural, site, signage and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Parking Lot Setback Variance Staff feels that the city council should approve this variance since: The highway right-of-way ranges in width from 52 feet to 100 feet adjacent to the proposed north/northeast lot line. With the proposed five feet of setback, there would be 57 feet to 105 feet of green space to the shoulder of the highway off ramp. This is well over the typical green strip width between a parking lot and a street which is usually 25 to 30 feet (15 feet of on-site setback and 10 to 15 feet of boulevard). The green stdp in this case would be substantial and would easily meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The parking lot setbacks proposed are substantially better than the existing ones. Currently the Bali Hai parking lot is at the lot line, and in areas, extends into the right-of-way. The applicant's plan would improve this current situation. 3. The site is somewhat difficult to fit a development since it has three street frontages and has an irregular shape. Conditional Use Permit The code is intended to give the city an opportunity to require additional buffering, if needed, when reviewing plans for a building in an M1 zone that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. In this case, the proposed building would have a 200-foot setback from the residential zoning district line, which is the center of White Bear Avenue. The proposed development would not adversely impact the nursing home and assisted-living facility to the east which are the closest residential buildings. The nursing home would be 910 feet from the proposed building; the assisted-living facility would be 720 feet away. Staff feels that there would be no negative impact visually or by the activity generated by this building. The existing traffic on White Bear Avenue would be a greater cause of disturbance than the proposed development. The Bali Hal restaurant, in fact, would have a greater potential for disturbance due to late night activity than this proposal. To soften the view of the proposed building and site complex from the east, though, the applicant should provide trees on the White Bear Avenue side. The landscape plan does not show any plantings in this stdp which encompasses a 160-foot stretch of site. Design Considerations Building Aesthetics The proposed building would be attractive and the materials compatible with the surrounding development. The applicant is currently working on the color scheme for the building and will have it available for presentation to the design review board. Landscaping The applicant proposes to relocate two large pine trees to the southeast lot line and preserve four mature ash trees along the south lot line. The additional trees proposed would largely be acceptable. Except as stated above, staff recommends that the applicant plant additional trees along the White Bear Avenue frontage. Parking The applicant would meet the parking code with the proposed 117 spaces. The code requires 117. They are proposing a row of 15.5-foot-deep parking stalls on the south side of the site. This is permitted as long as there is a 2.5-foot-wide bumper overhang strip next to the parking lot curb. This strip is shown on the landscape plan as a four-inch-deep bedding of hardwood chips. The code requires that this strip be hard surfaced or crushed rock. To meet this requirement, the applicant must substitute this strip with rock mulch. Rock is preferred to cement since it would qualify as landscaping within the required 15-foot green strip. Signage The sign code requires that the applicant submit a comprehensive sign plan "for business premises which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project." The applicant has submitted the start of a sign plan by indicating possible wall and pylon sign locations. The sign plan needs to be further developed, however, to include the following details: the proposed number of signs for each tenant, the proposed sign style (would wall signs be cabinet or individual channel-letter signs?), the maximum sign height or letter height and the length of wall signs for tenants. We would also need details on what the pylon signs would look like. If the applicant wishes to attain approval of a sign plan they must provide this information for design review board approval. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17, approving a ten-foot parking lot setback variance for the proposed Maplewood Retail Site at 2271 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the following findings: The proposed five-foot-wide green strip would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance in combination with the wide highway boulevard. The highway right-of-way ranges in width from 52 feet to 100 feet adjacent to the proposed north/northeast lot line. With the proposed five feet of setback, there would be 57 feet to 105 feet of green space to the shoulder of the highway off ramp. This is well over the typical green strip width between a parking lot and a street which is 25 to 30 feet (15 feet of setback and 10 to 15 feet of boulevard). The parking lot setbacks proposed are substantially better than the existing ones. Currently the Bali Hal parking lot is at the lot line, and in areas, extends into the right-of- way. The applicant's plan would improve this current situation. Complying with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is difficult to fit a development since it has three street frontages and has an irregular shape. Adopt the resolution on pages 18-19 approving a conditional use permit for a building in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district to be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The proposed building would be 200 feet from the nearest residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan, for community design review board approval, providing trees on their site along the White Bear Avenue frontage. Approve the plans, date-stamped January 7, 2000, for the proposed Maplewood Retail Site at 2271 White Bear Avenue, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. b. Submit a building color scheme to the community design review board for approval. c. Submit a comprehensive sign plan to the community design review board for approval. d. Revise the site plan for staff approval substituting the hardwood chips next to the southerly parking row with landscape rock mulch. e. Submit a revised landscape plan for community design review board approval providing trees on site along the White Bear Avenue frontage. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter all around the parking lot and driveways. c. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) d. Construct the trash dumpster enclosure using the same materials and color as the building. This enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate. e. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas except for the planted areas by the wetland behind the building. (code requirement) f. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. The director of community development may CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 24 property owners within 350 feet of this site and received the following eight replies: No gas or convenience store should be constructed on the site. Will the curb cut along with McDonald's support the amount of traffic the site will generate with only one access point? Does the city have restrictions on adult book stores etc. to protect adjoining properties into the future should this developer fail? (Burt Nordstrand, 512 Second Street, Hudson, WI) 2. The management of this building has no objection to these development plans. (1890 Sherren Avenue) 3. We welcome the developmentl (Specialty Engineering, 1766 Viking Drive) 4. My opinion is to allow Reliance to proceed with their proposal. Bear in mind high traffic in this area. (Arthur Engstom, 2525 Highwood Avenue) Traffic on White Bear Avenue has doubled in the last yearwMore congestion, traffic problems with a few more businesses on White Bear Avenue. (Edward Elsola, 2260 Van Dyke Street) I think developing the Bali Hai as it is suggested would be a welcome addition for Maplewood. That corner has been empty long enough. (Katie Vener, 2271 White Bear Avenue) 7. This should give us revenue to make up for losses at Builder's Square site. I am in favor of this plan. (Joseph Fleming, 2271 White Bear Avenue) 8. The area could use this type of improvement. The Bali Hai is in poor condition and is an eye sore to the immediate area. (Owner/Occupant, 2251 Van Dyke Street) 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Two acres Existing land use: The vacant Bali Hal Restaurant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Highway 36 South: Cope Avenue and Bear/36 fuel station, convenience and repair garage West: McDonald's Restaurant East: White Bear Avenue and the VolunteeCs of America Assisted Care Living Facility PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M1 Zoning: M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots be set back 15 feet from public right-of-way. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship," as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 18-19. Application Date We received these applications on January 7, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 7, 2000. p:secl l~balisite.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Letter of Variance Justification dated January 7, 2000 6. Letter of Conditional Use Permit Justification dated January 7, 2000 7. Variance Resolution 8. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 9. Plans date-stamped January 7, 2000 (separate attachments) Attachment 1 ~ C A~ ~AV~ A~ A~ LOCATION 8 MAP Attachment 2 o ,,McDONALD'S Attachment 3 COPE AVE. Total A~'ea = 4.84 Acres SITE PLAN 10 .ttllql', Attachment 4 11 Attachment 5 'Reliance Development Company; L.L.P. Janua~ 7,2000 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner Community Development Departnlent City of Map!ewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood. MN 55109 (651)770-4563 RE: Application for Variance to Parking Setback Proposed Commercial Deveiopment 2303 White Bear Avenue Dear' Mr. Ekstrand, In support of the request for a parking setback variance at the above referenced location, i otter the following findings: BACKROUND The property ~s currently occupied by the vacant Bali Hal Restaurant. The site is surrounded Dy McDonalds to the immediate west, Highway 36 to the North, White Bear Avenue to the east, and Cope Avenue to the south. Cope Avenue is the only side with direct access to the subject property via an access easement over the McDonalds driveway. The site has three front yards per the definition in the ordinance. Currently, the existing asphalt parking lot is on or slightly beyond the property line on the east and north frontages, and is approximately 7' setback from the Cope Avenue frontage. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST Rehance Development Company respectfully requests approval of a 5 foot parking setback on the north property line fronting Highway 36. in lieu of the required 15 foot setback. All other setbacks would be maintained per ordinance requirements. Please note that the 5' requested setback on the north frontage and the standard 15 foot setback on the other frontages is a substantia! improvement over the exisbng zero setback condition described above. FINDINGS The request for a single parking lot setback variance is consistent with the findings required by the City for the following reasons: · Three frontages on one property is unique. The existence of three frontages causes additional setback restrictions, above and beyond that which would be enjoyed by most property owners in the City. The applicant cannot develop the property to the same standards as a comparable property with only one or two frontages. · The issuance of the variance will not alter the character of the area. In fact, the creation of at least the minimal setbacks is a substantial improvement over the Rand Tower · 527 Marquette Avenue South · Minneapolis, MN 55402-1301 (612) 338-1000 · Fax (612) 338-8971 12 existing condition. Further, the requested frontage is that of Highway 36, and due to topography and use, there are no neighbors that would be affected by the change in the setback. Highway 36 provides a substantial, permanent buffer between this project and uses north of Highway 36. This buffer will be expanded by 5' from the existing condition if the variance as requested is approved. The issuance of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The proposed development creates the buffers sought by the ordinance provisions. In all other respects, the development meets or exceeds the requirements of the ordinance without detriment. Further, we have been informed by staff that the City has approved similar variances unde~ similar circumstances. Given the above findings, Reliance Development Company respectfully requests approvai of a 10' variance to the 15' setback on the north property frontage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call. Sincerely, RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.P. Vin ce~D~,~~''/z'''~'/'~ Attachment 6 Reliance Development Company, L.L.E January 7,2000 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 770-4563 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit Proposed Commercial Development 2303 White Bear Avenue Dear Mr. Ekstrand, In support of the request for a conditional use permit at the above referenced location, I offer the following findings: BACKROUND The property is currently occupied by the vacant Bali Hal Restaurant. The site is surrounded by McDonalds to the immediate west, Highway 36 to the North, White Bear Avenue to the east, and Cope Avenue to the south. Cope Avenue is the only side with direct access to the subject property. Our property would be located within 350' of a residential zoning district line located approximately down the center line of White Bear Avenue. The nearest residential structure is located well beyond 350'. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to demolish the existing Bali Hi restaurant structure and the existing parking lot The proposal calls for construction of a new retail/commercial neighborhood center. While not firm at this time, the proposed uses include a Kinko's Copy Center, Starbucks Coffeehouse, Sprint Customer Center and a Davanni's Restaurant. The development proposal calls for all new parking and service areas, landscaping, and building improvements. The proposed design of the center incorporates a variety of masonry materials, glass, decorative steel, and backlit awnings. FINDINGS Per the published application materials, the project meets certain findings summarized as follows: The use has been designed and located in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan and ordinances. Further, the development will be constructed, maintained and operated in accordance with all applicable municipal codes and ordinances. Rand Tower · 527 Marquette Avenue South ° Minneapolis, MN 55402-1301 (612) 338-1000 ° Fax (612) 338-8971 14 2. The use will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. In fact, the applicant believes the development will improve the existing character with having quality national tenants. 3. The proposed development is expected to improve existing property values. 4. As the use proposed is a traditional neighborhood commercial center, there will not be activities, processes, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a nuisance to any person or property due to noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The proposed development relies on existing access points without modification. The proposed uses would generate the same amount of traffic that was enjoyed by the existing use during its operation. The access will not adversely affect the existing traffic patterns on Cope Avenue and White Bear Avenue. 6. The proposed development is adequately served by public facilities, roadways, infrastructure, and services such as police, fire, parks, and schools. 7. The proposed development does not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The proposed development incorporates several mature, existing trees into the new development, primarily existing Ash trees along Cope and White Bear Avenue. There are no significant natural or scenic features to preserve. 9. The use will not cause adverse environmental effects. 10. The proposed development is neither a public building nor a utility structure. Based on the above findings, Reliance Development Company respectfully requests approval of the Conditional Use Permit. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.P. Vince Driessen Vice President 15 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Reliance Development Company LLP applied for a parking lot setback variance from the zoning code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property at 2271 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: Parcel 1: Tract E, except the West 263 feet, as measured at right angles to the West line of said Tract E, and except that part of Tract E contained in the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract E, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest comer thereof; thence South 00000'00'' East, assumed bearing, along said West line, 21.33 feet; thence South 84023'47'' East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80058'04'', 122.63 feet, to the right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01" West, along said right of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89°08'00'' West, along said right of way line 290.31 feet to the point of beginning; in Registered Land Survey No. 258. Parcel 2: That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as: Commencing at a point 295.90 feet North of the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 and 289.28 feet East of the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence North parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 261.71 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 141.37 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 107.61 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 530.45 feet to the Westerly line of the White Bear Road; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of the White Bear Road to a point which is 295.90 feet North (measured at dght angles) from the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence West parallel with the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 510.60 feet to the place of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 258, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Tract E; thence South 00000'00'' East, assumed bearing, along the West line of said Tract E, 21.33 feet; thence South 84023'47'' East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80058'04'', 122.63 feet, to the right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01'' West along said right of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89008'00'' West along said right of way line, 290.31 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) of the zoning code requires a 15-foot parking lot setback from street right-of-way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a five-foot parking lot setback. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 10 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On, ,2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public headng on ,2000. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the headng an opportunity to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance as recommended by the city staff that would allow a ten-foot parking lot encroachment into the normally- required 15-foot setback area for the following reasons: 1. The proposed five-foot-wide green stdp would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance in combination with the wide highway boulevard. The highway right-of-way ranges in width from 52 feet to 100 feet adjacent to the proposed north/northeast lot line. With the proposed five feet of setback, there would be 57 feet to 105 feet of green space to the shoulder of the highway off ramp. This is well over the typical green stdp width between a parking lot and a street which is 25 to 30 feet (15 feet of setback and 10 to 15 feet of boulevard). 2. The parking lot setbacks proposed are substantially better than the existing ones. Currently the Bali Hal parking lot is at the lot line, and in areas, extends into the right-of- way. The applicant's plan would improve this current situation. 3. Complying with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is difficult to fit a development since it has three street frontages and has an irregular shape. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 1'7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Reliance Development Company LLP applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property at 2271 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: Parcel 1: Tract E, except the West 263 feet, as measured at dght angles to the West line of said Tract E, and except that part of Tract E contained in the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract E, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest comer thereof; thence South 00°00'00" East, assumed bearing, along said West line, 21.33 feet; thence South 84o23'47.. East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80°58'04", 122.63 feet, to the dght of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01" West, along said dght of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89°08'00" West, along said dght of way line 290.31 feet to the point of beginning; in Registered Land Survey No. 258. Parcel 2: That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as: Commencing at a point 295.90 feet North of the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 and 289.28 feet East of the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence North parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 261.71 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 141.37 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 107.61 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 530.45 feet to the Westerly line of the White Bear Road; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of the White Bear Road to a point which is 295.90 feet North (measured at right angles) from the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence West parallel with the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 510.60 feet to the place of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 258, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest comer of said Tract E; thence South 00°00'00" East, assumed bearing, along the West line of said Tract E, 21.33 feet; thence South 84°23'47'' East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80058'04'', 122.63 feet, to the right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01" West along said right of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89°08'00'' West along said right of way line, 290.31 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On permit. ,2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this On ,2000, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. 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. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan, for community design review board approval, providing trees on their site along the White Bear Avenue frontage. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. TO: FROM: 'SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Comprehensive Plan Update - Historic Resources Management Plan February 1,2000 INTRODUCTION Mr. Robert Overby, a member of the Maplewood Area Historical Society (MAHS), has asked the city to consider adding a Historic Resources Management Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. He has submitted a draft plan for the city's review and consideration. BACKGROUND Minnesota State Law required all cities in the metro area to update their comprehensive plans by the end of 1999. City staff has completed a draft update of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan as the law required. We have submitted the draft plan to the Metropolitan Council and surrounding cities for their review and comment. DISCUSSION The proposed Historic Resources Management Plan has several parts. These include planning guidelines, standards and guidelines for preservation planning, an outline for a program in Maplewood, preservation planning goals, preservation planning policies and an implementation and action plan. It appears that this plan would put much more emphasis on historic preservation and on historic planning in Maplewood than has occurred in the past. This would include forming a Maplewood Heritage Preservation Commission and having them review development, building and demolition applications for their possible impacts on historic resources. Staff has several concerns about the proposed Historic Resources Management Plan and its impacts on city policies and practices. These include: 1. Does the city have the need for and, if so, the resources (with staff and budget) to have an effective Heritage Preservation Commission? 2. What should be the functions, duties or responsibilities of such a commission? If the city council agrees with the need to have a Heritage Preservation Commission, and if this commission is going to review building and demolition permits and development proposals, how much relevance should city staff, city commissions, applicants and property owners give to their comments and concerns? How might their input effect the "60-day" rule for the city to act on development requests? There probably are other issues and concerns to consider with this proposed plan. The city must proceed carefully to ensure that whatever the council adopts or approves is really in the best interest of the entire city. RECOMMENDATION Review, discuss and take action on the proposed Historic Resources Management Plan. p:compplan\preserv, mem Attachment: Draft Historic Resources Management Plan MAPLEWOOD HISTORIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN Januaw2000 VISION "We live not alone in the present, but also in the past and future. The radius that circumscribes our lives must necessarily extend back indefinitely and forward infinitely. We can never look out thoughtfully at our immediate surroundings but a course of reasoning will start up, leading us to inquire the causes that produced the development around us, and at the same time we are led to conjecture the results to follow causes now in operation. We are thus linked indissolubly with the past and the future." (1) A more modern description of why history is important to people and communities is found in the following quote from a recently published book: "Nostalgia is forever preserved by tradition, by the sense of being part of something that has endured over time". (2) Introduction At the time this comprehensive plan was being updated, Maplewood had grown through 43 years since its incorporation in 1957. Before that, the Township of New Canada had endured for 99 years since its founding in 1858. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan will, among other things: - guide future growth and development in an orderly manner; - define the proper functional relationships between different types of land uses; - help to coordinate public and private sector decisions; - establish a framework to guide and involve citizen participation in City government; and - provide for a sense of community and neighborhood identity. All of the above-listed purposes of the City comprehensive plan can be informed by and supported by an effective historic resources plan, and by citizens and decision-makers who use the guidance of this plan chapter to preserve historic, cultural, and archeological resources In Maplewood. The Historic Resources Plan is also connected to many of the goals of the City of Maplewood, as described elsewhere in this comprehensive plan (pages 7,8): + Human Rights Goal + Citizen Involvement Goal + Communication Goal + City Implementation Goal + Cultural/Leisure Activity Goal + Economic/Tourism Goal + Significant Natural Features Goal + Urban Design Goal In its efforts to preserve and protect historic resources in Maplewood, the City will refer to the above goals and related policies, and make decisions to plan and implement programs consistent with those goals and policies, and with the goals and policies in this plan chapter for historic resources. (1) From "History of Dakota County", by Reverend Edward D. Neill (1880). (2) From "In a Time of Fallen Heroes, by William Betcher and William Pollack (19 _). Statutory. Requirements The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Statutes, Section 473.859, subdivision 2) specifies the required an optional elements of comprehensive plans for cities in the 7-county metropolitan area. In regard to historic preservation, the statute states that: %.. A land use plan shall contain a protection element, as appropriate, for historic sites..." The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint (the Council's regional policy plan) promotes the use of historic preservation as a tool to develop or enhance a community's identity. In 1997, the Council developed a "Local Planning Handbook" to assist metropolitan communities in updating their comprehensive plans. For the subject of historic preservation, the handbook states: "Because the Council does not have specific regional standards or policies with regard to a historic preservation element of a comprehensive plan, each community is free to interpret this requirement in its own way". Planning Guidelines However, the Council's handbook does contain the following suggested guidelines for a historic preservation plan element: 1. Under state enabling legislation, a community may establish a Heritage Preservation Commission. Its purposes and powers are "to promote the use and conservation of historic properties for the education, inspiration, pleasure, and enrichment of the citizens" (Minn. Statutes, section 471.193). Maplewood established a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC)in 19 , and the City Council appointed members with two-year terms. The HPC has responsibilities f~ identifying, registering, protecting, and enhancing heritage resources in Maplewood, and for establishing a broad planning direction for the proposed historic preservation program. The HPC also played a critical role in creatir' this plan chapter and working with City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council to review an,~ adopt it as part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Members of the HPC also serve on the Maplewood Area Historical Society (MAHS), which was first established in 19 _, was temporarily inactive, and then was revived in 19 _. In addition to working on this comprehensive plan chapter, the MAHS also: 2. The ordinance that establishes a Heritage Preservation Commission includes a system to inventory and evaluate historical resources in Maplewood, and to establish measures to protect those resources (for example, local controls and building permit review). The Maplewood City Council, the HPC, and the MAHS need to discuss and form a plan of how an inventory and evaluation of historic resources should be conducted, using this plan chapter as a guide. Once this inventory has been done, then the City Council should select the measures for protecting identified historic resources. The inventory and protection measures form the basis for decisions about what properties in Maplewood are historically or culturally significant, and therefore worthy of preservation. 3. Once a community has established a Heritage Preservation Commission ordinance, it becomes eligible to apply to the State Historical Preservation Office (part of the Minnesota Historical Society) to become a "Certified Local Government" (CLG). This certification makes the community eligible to apply for federal funds to plan for historic preservation projects. The City of Maplewood will work with the HPC and the MAHS in applying for CLG status for Maplewood. Inventories of historic properties and planning work should be done to conform with standards and guidelines of the Secretary of Interior for historic preservation projects. It is very important that the City of Maplewood, the HPC, and the MAHS follow the Secretary of Interior's Standards when planning and implementing this chapter of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, a portion of those standards have been included below. Secretary. of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation - Summary Outline A. Standards for Preservation Planning 1. Preservation Planning Establishes Historic Contexts. a. "Decisions about.., historic properties are most reliably made when the relationship of individual properties to other similar properties is understood." bo Information about historic properties which represent aspects of history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture must be collected and organized to define these relationships. This organizational framework is called a historic context. The historic context organizes information based on a cultural theme and its geographical and chronological limits. Contexts describe the significant broad patterns of development in an area that may be represented by historic properties. The development of historic contexts is the foundation for decisions aboul identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties. "Develop goals, policies and priorities for the identification, registration, and treatment of historic properties." This task should be pursued by the City of Maplewood, the HPC, and the MAHS, after this plan chapter is adopted by the City Council. 2. Integrate the results of preservation planning into broader planning. The City of Maplewood should use this plan chapter and the Secretary's standards and guidelines where historic and cultural preservation impacts other planning goals, policies, and programs in Maplewood. B. Guidelines for Preservation Planning 1. Link the standards with more specific guidance and technical information. ° This task needs to be pursued after this plan chapter is adopted. Management of the planning process (these are "must" elements). a. Develop an explicit approach to plan implementation. b. Provide for ongoing and periodic review and revision of the plan. c. Provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts within the overall set of preservation goals, and conflicts between this set of goals and other goals in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Development of Historic Contexts. (The cornerstone of the planning process for historic preservation.) A comprehensive summary of the history of Maplewood can be created by developing a set of historic contexts that will include all significant historic and cultural properties (and sites) in the City. The State Historic Preservation Office generally possesses the most complete information.., and in the best position to coordinate the use and development of historic contexts. Developing Goals for a Historic Context. a. A goal for this purpose is a statement of preferred preservation activities, generally stated in terms of property types. b. The purpose of having goals for historic contexts is to set forth the 'best case' version of how properties should be identified, evaluated, registered, and treated. c. Develop goal statements for each historic context in Maplewood. d. Set priorities for the goals. Integrate the Individual Historic Contexts. a. Reconcile competing goals and priorities in overlapping geographic areas. One approach that Maplewood could use for this task is to identify which historic contexts affect each of the City's thirteen neighborhood planning areas (see the Land Use Plan chapter for maps). Neighborhood maps of significant historic properties and related historic contexts should be prepared, and then integrated by their goals and priorities. b. Reconcile the ranking of goals. c. Establish an overall set of priorities for several historic contexts. d. List the activities which must be done to achieve the ranked goals. NOTE: When tasks 5 (c) and (d) are applied to a specific geographic area, this becomes the preservation plan for that area. 6. Integrate with Planning and Management Frameworks. Adapt preservation goals and priorities to land units, by integrating them with other planning concerns. This involves resolving conflicts that arise when competing resources occupy the same land use base. The remaining sections of the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines include the following: C. Standards for Identification D. Standards for Evaluation E. Standards for Registration F. Standards for Historical Documentation G. Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation Standards for Archeological Documentation Standards for Historic Preservation Projects 1. General Standards 2. Specific Standards a. acquisition b. protection c. stabilization d. preservation e. rehabilitation f. restoration g. reconstruction OUTLINE OF A HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR MAPLEWOOD 1. The Historic Resources Management Plan and an ordinance for historic preservation. The preservation plan provides the policy and legal framework for decisions on the preservation, protection, and use of heritage resources. The preservation ordinance provides the legal basis for implementing the program. 2. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The citizen advisory panel appointed by the City Council, which has major responsibilities for identifying, registering, protecting, and enhancing the heritage resources in Maplewood and for establishing a broad planning direction for the City's preservation program. 3. The Inventory of Heritage Resources. Heritage resources can include historically or culturally important objects, structures, buildings, sites, or districts. The heritage resources inventory forms the basis for decisions about what properties in Maplewood are historically or culturally significant, and therefore worthy of preservation. 4. Local Historic Contexts for Heritage Resources. Information about heritage resources is organized into historic contexts, based on a cultural theme, geography, and chronology (time period). 5. Designation of Maplewood Heritage Landmarks. Designation of historically or culturally significant objects, structures, buildings, sites, and districts. To be designated a heritage landmark, a property must meet specific criteria for determining historical significance. Besides local registration, certain properties may qualify for nomination to the Nation, Register of Historic Places. Properties listed on the National Register are recognized for their historical significance, and any alteration or demolition may be prohibited or strictly regulated. Creating a register of significant historical properties is a critical planning tool for historic preservation. 6. Review and Compliance. The Maplewood Heritage Preservation Commission will review plans for new construction, moving buildings, and building demolition in relation to designated historic landmarks. Plans and projects which meet established standards for preservation will be granted a Certificate of Appropriateness. 7. Certification as a Certified Local Government. Maplewood has a Heritage Preservation Commission, so the City is eligible to apply for this certification. Once certification is received, Maplewood may participate in the CLG preservation partnership that was established by the National Historic Preservation Act. Through a grants-in-aid program, federal funding is available to finance activities such as the local inventory of historic resources, historic preservation planning, and education. 8. Encourage Public Participation and Education. The Maplewood Heritage Preservation Commission and the Maplewood Area Historical Society will work with the City of Maplewood to promote historic preservation in Maplewood through preservation plans, educational programs, and publication of technical and informational materials. 9. Adoption of the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines. These are the basic standards and guidelines for historic preservation, and they should be the accepted reference in the City of Maplewood. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING GOALS Maplewood will use this Historic Resources Management Plan to support the preservation, protection, conservation, and wise use of the significant historical, cultural, architectural, or archeological objects, structures, buildings, sites, and districts in the City. o Maplewood will develop the historic preservation program proposed in this plan, and will integrate the program with other planning programs in the City. Maplewood will use this plan to establish a comprehensive framework for all decisions and actions related to historic preservation. Maplewood will follow the Secretary of Interior's standards and guidelines for archeology and historic preservation. Maplewood will work with the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Maplewood Area Historical Society to identify, document, and evaluate the historical significance of objects, structures, buildings, sites, and districts in the City, and consider their preservation potential. Maplewood will protect, preserve, and enhance the significant heritage resources in Maplewood by designating them as Maplewood Heritage Landmarks, and where appropriate, by nominating them to the National Register of Historic Places. Maplewood will work with property owners to preserve the heritage resource value and historical integrity of significant historical or cultural resources affected by projects that are permitted, assisted, or funded by the City. Maplewood will support research and public education on the preservation, protection, and use of heritage resources in the City. Maplewood will encourage broad citizen participation in historic preservation activities, in order to obtain the knowledge, insights, and support of City residents. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING POLICIES The Heritage Preservation Commission will advise and assist the Maplewood City Council and City staff about historic preservation matters. Historic preservation goals and policies will be implemented by linking them with other City programs and activities, including but not limited to zoning, code enforcement, housing, economic development, and public works. o Maplewood will work with the State Historic Preservation Office of the Minnesota Historical Society in implementing this preservation plan. The Maplewood Heritage Preservation Commission will issue a finding of significance for individual objects, structures, buildings, sites, and districts to determine whether they are eligible for designation as Maplewood Heritage Landmarks. The Maplewood Heritage Resources Inventory will be maintained by the Heritage Preservation Commission, with assistance from City staff. Before the City Council designates a property as a Maplewood Heritage Landmark, there will be a preservation planning report completed. Properties designated as Maplewood Heritage Landmarks will be placed on the official zoning map of Maplewood. The Heritage Preservation Commission will review all applications or permits for demolition, moving a building, and new construction to determine their impacts on significant heritage resources. In cooperation with City staff and the Maplewood Planning Commission, the Heritage Preservation Commission will review all plats, rezonings, conditional use permits, and site plans to determine their impacts on significant heritage resources. 10. Maplewood will encourage voluntary compliance with historic preservation standards and guidelines by property owners proposing work on historic properties carried out under City building permits. 11. Maplewood will use the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines as the required basis for design review decision. 12. Maplewood may issue permits or approve development plans that include conditions for historic preservation, based upon the recommendations of the Heritage Preservation Commission. 1:3. Maplewood will provide information about historic preservation to property owners and to the gener~ public. 14. The Heritage Preservation Commission and/or the Maplewood Area Historical Society will advise schools and teachers in the development of curricula about history and historic preservation in Maplewood. IMPLEMENTATION AND ACTION PLAN 1. Adopt and implement the historic resources management plan. 2. Review the Maplewood ordinances and amend as needed to reflect the goals and policies for historic preservation. 3. Undertake a comprehensive survey of all objects, structures, buildings, sites, and districts that are over 50 years old in Maplewood. 4. Provide City officials and the public with information on properties that are historically or culturally significant. 5. Designate significant historic or cultural properties as Maplewood Heritage Landmarks, and nominate appropriate properties for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 6. Use the Secretary of Interior's standards and guidelines to advise owners of historic properties on maintenance and restoration work. 7. Provide public information and education about historic preservation. 8. Establish a program of local historical markers and plaques. 9. Provide staff support to the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Maplewood Area Historical Society. 10. Work with the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Maplewood Area Historical Society to develop teaching aids about Maplewood history and historic preservation. pf:c:\wpwin\office\frm\comphis. 1 ~'O'. Ken R°ue[~,,,~missiOn s ,~ FRO~" p%annin_g_~'~'~' suBJECT' januaW 2u, DA~6: the city cound~ ,~RoDUCTtU" .__ ~omm~ssion ~~e me comn,,=~'° "'-- - -'~e Pta~in~ ~ -~o~ · -~ae ~equires tA~ ;;bruaW. ~his ~he city uu~ _~ ~eeting m ~ ,~, ~he new past yea~ ~"~ 1999 AC3'N%l'%ES 3'he commissiOn considered the following: 1 canget°thez°n 9 2 pre .... changes .... ~ reviSiOnS . 21 cond~t~ n~ riqht'°~'waYs devetop~ent 3 va~ta~,,~neous ~equestS ~-nsive plan update and took atou[ of 11 ~tsc~'° - ~ ~n the c°mpren~ %be commission a~so worKeD ~ sites. 1999 LAND US6 pLAN C~ANG~S %be commissiOn consi6ere6 seven changes to the lan~ use glan in 1999. CounCil ActiOn pC Ac6On Agprove~ ApprOVed Changes 6.7-99 ddition . · ~tu~ Avenue) ~~e~S?;~merda'~ to APProved S (s¢°°~) 8-2-99 ace Corbe C~ sgace~ ApprOVed ~ Ride Lot - I' '"'~"uracturing) C) to G (g°vemnment) From i~~, east of .~~ I. ,u.] Fo OS (Open Space) ~d Hills C 74O h From ,.., ,~ y~e Stree0 ~ mUSmess eOmmereiaO ApProved to C (Church) ~Senior Ho (DeS Usin 12-20-99 ~999 ZONING MAP CHANGES The Commission COnsidered One Change to the Zoning map in 1999. Change ~Grou~ Ltd. PC Action ~lOe (business ~_ nce) to B ApProved " 'nerc~al) 5-17-99 ApProved 8-2-99 ApProved 8-2-99 ~999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ACorn Mini-Stora e AND REVISIONs (Highway 61) g Maplewood AUto $ (743 Cent....- em/ce "' Y "~Venue) [~ep Boys Store (White Bear Avenue) Amerigaurd Truck (County ROad D) Bed Liner Frattalone Minin (Hi h m, ~. g Revision gw~u :~ ~, SOuth of County Road D) New Century PUD (Century AVenue and HighWood Avenue) Approv, ApProved ApProved Pending Council ACtion ApProved Bruentrup Farm (County Road D) Hill-Murray High School Revision (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) Schroeder Milk Revision (Rice Street) Menards Revision (Maplewood Drive) Feed Products Revision (McKnight Road) Waldorf School (County Road B) US West Monopole (Kennard Street) Dege Garden Center Revision (Century Avenue) Minnesota Motors (Century Avenue) Kline Volvo (Highway 61) Used Car Sales - Maplewood Auto Center (White Bear Avenue) Choice Auto Rental (Highway 61) Mogren Brothers Landscaping Storage Yard (County Road C and White Bear Avenue) Rosoto Senior Housing (Desoto Street and Roselawn Avenue) Woodland Hills Church (Van Dyke Street) MEMBERS WHO RESIGNED IN 1999 None MEMBERS WHO WERE APPOINTED IN 1999 None 1999 ATTENDANCE Name Appointed Term Expires 1999 Attendance Lorraine Fischer 1970 12-01 16 out of 17 Jack Frost 12-10-90 12-00 15 out of 17 Gary Pearson 12-10-90 12-02 14 out of 17 William Rossbach 10-10-89 12-02 16 out of 17 Milo Thompson 10-10-94 12-00 15 out of 17 Matt Ledvina 12-08-97 12-01 15 out of 17 Dale Trippler 6-8-98 12-00 17 out of 17 Michael Seeber 6-8-98 12-01 15 out of 17 Paul Mueller 7-13-98 12-00 12 out of 17 2000 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the planning commission for 2000: 1. Have an annual tour of development sites. 2. Finish the comprehensive plan update and changes as mandated by state law. This shall include updates to the plan for the Mississippi River Critical Area as required by the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and possibly code changes for rural residential zoning in south Maplewood. 3. Have in-service training for the planning commission. 4. Have information (including maps) about the comprehensive plan available at the open house. 5. Work with the consultants and city staff on any code or land use plan changes that result from the White Bear Avenue and Maplewood Mall Area studies. 6. Provide input to HRA on housing re-development and program issues. p:\...\miscell\99annrep.mem