Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2000BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION ~ February 23, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes a. February7, 2000 Approval of Agenda Public Hearing a. Maplewood Fire Station (Clarence Street) 1. Land Use Plan Amendment (P,-3(H) to G) 2. Conditional Use Permit o New Business a. Fresh Paint Office/Warehouse Conditional Use Permit (1055 Gervais Avenue) 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations o 10. Commission Presentations a. February 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. February 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. March 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher Staff Presentations a. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Update ~11. Adjournment r--- ................. .......... 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. o o This is the time for the pUblic to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 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 Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 19, 2000 Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of January 19, 2000, amended to have the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 6 read "should be considered." Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstain--Mueller, Thompson IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda, amended to add 9 d. Consideration of Metro Transit Bus Service. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING A. United States Post Office Annex Building (1686 Gervais Avenue): Land Use Plan Amendment (M1 to G) and Conditional Use Permit Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff's opinion on the nighttime deliveries. Mr. Roberts responded that staff did not see delivery by one truck as a problem because this is an existing commercial building with a similar use as before. He also noted that there is a park across the street from the facility. Chip Lindeke of Rafferty Rafferty Tollefson Architects, the designer for this project, was present. Larry Bock represented the Post Office at the meeting. Mr. Lindeke said the post office does not own this building. According to Mr. Bock, the hours of operation will predominantly be about Planning Commission Minutes of 02-07-00 -2- 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. Any trucks in the middle of the night would just be dropping off mail and would only be there about 10 to 15 minutes. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. There was no comment from the audience so the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Adoption of the resolution which amends 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. Bo Adoption of the resolution which approves 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. 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 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. VI. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS Ayes--all Maplewood Retail Center (2271 White Bear Avenue): Parking Lot Setback Variance and Conditional Use Permit Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city had considered the potential "bottleneck" that will be created by this center. He wondered if an egress road to parallel Highway 36 was a possibility. Ken Haider, city engineer, has had a number of requests lately to look at alternatives and conceivably have an access directly from this site to Cope Avenue. He felt the site access was "as good as it gets around there." Even thought it gets crowded at lunchtime, Mr. Haider felt that the situation seemed to work. He didn't know if there was a better way to direct this traffic. Commissioner Rossbach asked where the runoff from this site goes. Mr. Haider said it goes north to the highway ditch, then west to Knuckle Head Lake (Cope and Hazelwood), then to the south of Cope Avenue and through a series of pipes westerly to English Street, and then north under the highway to Guertin Pond. Peter Hilger of Portfolio Design Services, Susan Nesvold of Reliance Development Company, Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 02-07-00 L.L.P., Christine Moss of Landform Engineering Company, and Dan O'Mara of Portfolio Design Services were present at the meeting. Mr. Hilger described this as an "access-challenged site." He thought it should be noted that there is a driveway, where parking is not allowed, which cuts across the McDonald's site from this site and, therefore, allows a clearer exit. Mr. Hilger said possible tenants will be Kinko's on the north, a restaurant such as Davanni's on the south, perhaps a Starbucks, and also an office retail use. They are not fully certain of the tenants at this point. Mr. Hilger anticipated that construction would start in the spring, if all approvals are received, and be completed by mid-summer. He confirmed that the center would be open 24 hours per day if Kinko is the anchor tenant. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Adoption of the resolution which approves 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: 1. 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). 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. B. Adopt the resolution which approves 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. 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. Ayes~all Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-07-00 -4- Bo Historic Resources Management Plan Review--Robed Overby Melinda Coleman, director of community development, introduced Robed Overby, a representative of the Maplewood Historical Society. She gave a preview of the proposed resources management plan and offered comment from the city staff's perspective. She thought it was basically "a great plan and will be a great opportunity for the city to document our historic resources." Ms. Coleman said the cost of staffing the commission would need to be addressed by the city council. Ms. Coleman listed completing the blank dates on page 2 of the plan as one of her concerns. She commented that it was a good starting point to inventory and evaluate historical resources that are present in Maplewood. Ms. Coleman didn't think city staff would have the expertise to do this. She thought one of the key points for the historical society, if the city establishes a historic preservation ordinance, is that it becomes eligible for federal funds. Ms. Coleman thought all the planning goals "were great." Her main concern with the planning policies was how they would be staffed (No. 5 of the policies). She asked what that meant for the city. Ms. Coleman also wondered who would do the preservation planning report on property that is being considered as a heritage landmark. She emphasized that the city "does not have the staff here to do that kind of thing." Ms. Coleman thought that getting anyone else involved in the demolition permits would delay the process and made no sense to her unless it is something that needs to be protected. She saw no problem with reviewing plats, rezonings, etc. but felt it should only apply to significant properties that the city was trying to protect. Ms. Coleman spoke about the 60-day rule that applies to plats, etc. and was concerned about the amount of review that could be done in this timeframe. Ms. Coleman said, since this proposal would become part of the comprehensive plan, the planning commission needed to approve it. She felt that some policy issues needed to be discussed before this became part of the plan. Commissioner Frost said he was "very uncomfortable at this point" without some staff recommendations. Ms. Coleman wanted to open a discussion with the members of the historical society that were present. She didn't think there were many pads of the historical plan that would concern the planning commission. Chairperson Fischer noted that the format of the management plan was different from the rest of the comprehensive plan. Ms. Coleman explained that this submittal was the historical commission's "first attempt at trying to get what they want." She thought some of the content would not need to be in the comp plan. Commissioner Mueller asked if there was a dollar amount associated with staffing an advisory panel such as this. Ms. Coleman replied that real costs are involved, i.e. about $5,000 to staff the planning commission. Commissioner Mueller interpreted the commission, because of specific wording, as a mandatory rather than advisory group that offers information and helps in making decisions. Commissioner Pearson "was very uncomfortable with this" because it seemed like a program that was "very, very shod on specific and very long on form and developing authority before the fact." Chairperson Fischer questioned if some of the problem was that in other sections of the comprehensive plan there is not specific reference made to the planning commission and its role. She said there is an ordinance that established the planning commission, and its duties and the bylaws existed before the comprehensive plan. Ms. Fischer compared that to this historic preservation group that is about to be sunseted and does not have an ordinance establishing it or bylaws. Commissioner Pearson felt that this commission could possible impede future redevelopment throughout the city. Commissioner Trippler asked if this was a "political issue" and why the Planning Commission Minutes of 02-07-00 -5- commission was being sunseted. He also wondered if something like this does not go into the comprehensive plan, would the commission cease to exist. Robert Overby, a member of the Maplewood area historical society, and Pete Boulay, also a member of the society and the commission, were present. Mr. Boulay said the historical commission was created during the 40th anniversary of the city of Maplewood. He listed sc. me of the tasks given to the commission as finding photographs of all the past mayors, planning a celebration for the 40th anniversary party, forming a Maplewood area historical society, and advising in any historical matter that might arise in the area. Mr. Boulay said one of the troubles they had was that people did not recognize the society as a viable commission. Part of the reason they wanted to implement this management plan was to assure that they would be notified of happenings before it would be too late to do anything about them. Mr. Boulay said a list of historical properties has been compiled. There are approximately 70 homes and 24 businesses on the list. A Ramsey County historic site survey in 1982 and a century home project were used as the original basis for the list. Chairperson Fischer asked that a copy of the list be given to staff. Mr. Boulay mentioned the arch that was a part of the former Kroger food site at White Bear Avenue and North St. Paul Road as something that was historically architecturally significant. This arch was taken down about four or five years ago. He said that at least a picture would have been taken of the arch before it was destroyed if the commission had known it was to be removed. Commissioner Rossbach asked about the existence of a list of criteria that would help to determine if a building was historic, not just old. Mr. Overby said that setting the period and architectural style for a structure would be a part of doing the inventory. Commissioner Thompson referred to the Secretary of the Interior's standards as a basis for design review. He said "some of the federal regulations that have been created frighten me a little bit." Mr. Overby had a copy of the standards and said they are being used on the Bruentrup farm project. Mr. Thompson said he was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Mueller asked what the commission does, why they do it, and how they would work together with other groups and the city. Mr. Overby spoke about the three sample plans he used as a reference. He felt the historic preservation commission was advisory to the city council, not mandatory. He said historic properties should be identified and noted on the city's maps. This should then be taken into consideration when proposals are presented to the planning commission or city council. Mr. Overby said the commission needs to prepare a set of information and procedures so they would know how to react to a proposal. This commission would like to provide advisory comments. He did not see these things "happening overnight" and felt it needed to proceed in steps. Ms. Coleman questioned if there was authority to refuse a demolition proposal because the structure was on the historic list. Mr. Overby answered that if a historic preservation district was established, the city would have some authority to restrict the modification of the exterior of buildings. Mr. Boulay gave the "poor farm" barn on White Bear Avenue that is on the historic register as an example. The interior of that building can be altered, but not the exterior. He mentioned that Lois Behm, a former employee of the city, did assist the commission and was paid for her work. There is no city staff working with the group at this time. Commissioner Pearson would like to see the list of homes. He also asked for an instance where notification of the commission might have made a difference in the outcome. Mr. Boulay said the Ostregren house on Edgerton Street ( the old Maplewood Heritage Center) was a good example. The best building, according to Mr. Boulay, was the Hockmuth house (on Highway 61 between Sparkle Auto Sales and Gulden's Restaurant) that was destroyed about ten years ago. This was the only building in Maplewood that Ramsey County felt should be saved at all costs. Mr. Boulay spoke about other old buildings in Maplewood. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-07-00 -6- Mr. Overby confirmed that a goal was to ensure that the historical commission continued to exist past the end of this year. He thought they could provide comments to the community design review board on historical resources. Ms. Coleman felt the best thing to do at this point was to take the proposal to the city council to see whether they wanted the commission continued. She said the planning commission had identified some concerns that staff will work on. Commissioner Thompson encouraged that the standards for historic preservation that begin on page 61 of the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines as the required basis for design review decisions be highlighted. Mr. Overby said those standards apply primarily when the structure is either on the register or eligible for it. The Maplewood list only includes the Ramsey County poor farm as being on the national historic register and about five that could be on the register. It was the consensus that the planning commission will table this historic resources management plan and staff will bring it to the city council. If the council so directs, staff may bring this back to the planning commission for further consideration. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. 1999 Annual Repod Ken Roberts, associate planner, noted the changes he has made to the report since the last planning commission meeting. Chairperson Fischer asked it the planning commission and council action could also be listed under the conditional use permits and revisions. Chairperson Fischer suggested that Number 6 in the 2000 Activities be broadened. She thought it should state, "provide input to HRA, on housing redevelopment and program issues, and other pertinent commissions." Ms. Fischer thought item 4 of the 2000 Activities should state "have information (including maps) about the comprehensive plan, and commissioners, available at the open house." Melinda Coleman commented that Ms. Fischer and Mr. Rossbach help staffed the information booth in 1999. She said that this year, because of our GIS program, there will be "lots of really neat maps" to hand out. Ms. Coleman encouraged participation by other planning commissioners. Chairperson Fischer proposed having a copy of the planning commission and city council agendas displayed on the cable channel with the meeting notices. She thought item 1 of 2000 Activities should say "have an annual tour of sites of interest." Commissioner Trippler suggested holding meetings to discuss unresolved and or new planning issues on some nights when the regular planning commission meeting is canceled due to lack of applications. Commissioner Rossbach thought a motion could be made to further discuss a topic, in the normal meeting time, if the person who initiated it feels strong enough about it. Ms. Coleman thought it was a great idea and asked the commissioners to tell staff when there is an issue that needs more time. Ms. Fischer felt it could be mentioned under the visitor presentation section of the meeting. Commissioner Frost moved approval of the 1999 Planning Commission Annual Report, amended to add planning commission and council action to the 1999 Conditional Use Permits and Revisions, and make the following changes to 2000 Activities: 1. Have an annual tour of sites of interest; 4. Have information (including maps) about the comprehensive plan, and commissioners, available at the open house; and 6. Provide input to HRA, on housing redevelopment and program issues, and other pertinent commissions. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-07-00 -7- VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. January 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson reported on this meeting. B. February 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller will attend this meeting. C. February 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach will attend this meeting. D. Metro Transit--Jack Frost Jack Frost notified the commissioners that the metropolitan transit commission has proposed a revision of service to the Ramsey County northeast area. He said many of the existing routes will be canceled, new routes will be started, and there will be express bus service from Maplewood Mall to downtown all day. With the new policy, there would be no bus service along McKnight Road, north of 11th Street in North St. Paul. He said the Maplewood Mall will be used as a large transfer station. Mr. Frost recommended that Maplewood send a letter to the Metropolitan Council indicating that they would like to see service provided to the northeast section of Maplewood, along Mc Knight Road, that would enable riders to get to Maplewood Mall during peak hours. They could then transfer to an express route to downtown, Minneapolis or 3M. Mr. Frost said there will also now be all day service from Maplewood Mall to Rosedale. There will be a public hearing Thursday at 12 at the Metro Council offices in Mears Park Centre. Comments will also be taken on their web site and by phone. Melinda Coleman asked Mr. Frost to put some notes together that she could take to the city council on Monday. Mr. Frost agreed to do this. Ms. Coleman questioned how these changes get made without city and resident input. Mr. Frost said there were news releases, newspaper articles, a web site announcement, and a distribution to bus riders. These changes should happen in about nine months. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Melinda Coleman brought up rescheduling the February 21 meeting. The majority of the commission was available on the 23. The concensus was that the next planning commission meeting will be February 23. The White Bear Avenue Corridor Study is having a final open house on Tuesday, February 15, 1999, at 7 p.m. This will be at the District 2 Council office at Epworth Methodist Church, Furness Parkway and Sherwood. A follow-up meeting with the steering committee will be on February 24 at 5 p.m. in the Maplewood City Council Chambers. Commissioner Thompson attended the White Bear Study session on signage. He thought they seemed to be copying the concept that Maplewood has used. Mr. Thompson felt that Maplewood looked very acceptable and commended staff on their "foresight and practice." IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. · MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Amendment, Wetland Variance, Parking Lot Setback Variance, Curbing Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Maplewood Fire Station No, 2 Gladstone Neighborhood Frost Avenue and Clarence Street February 15, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Maplewood Fire Department is proposing to build a 12,744-square-foot, one-story fire station north of R&M Family Meats and Maplewood Bakery. The building extedor would be brick with a standing-seam metal roof. Refer to pages 11-16. The site plan shows a possible future trail head for the Gateway Trail. This is not part of the fire station project. If built, it would be a joint effort between the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A comprehensive land use plan amendment from R3H (residential high density) to G (government facility). The code requires that, to approve a conditional use permit (CUP), the land use plan designation for a property must be in conformance with the proposed use. A wetland vadance to build the proposed fire station and paved surface on a Class 5 Wetland. Class 5 Wetlands are the poorest quality wetland denoted by the Maplewood Wetland Ordinance. There is no setback required from a Class 5 Wetland, but the code does not allow their disturbance. Refer to the wetland location on page 14. A parking lot setback variance for the proposed 10 parking spaces that would front on Clarence Street. The code requires a 15-foot setback. These would be perpendicular spaces accessed directly from Clarence Street. A parking lot curbing vadance for sections of the parking lot and entrance drive that are not proposed for curbing. The code requires continuous concrete curbing for parking lots with more than 12 spaces. The applicant is not proposing curbing in these areas for more effective drainage. 5. 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 17. 6. Building, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND November 2, 1999 (election day): The Maplewood voters approved the expenditure of $1.8 million for the construction of a new Gladstone Fire Station as part of the fire-safety referendum. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Amendment The city council must approve the proposed land use plan change to G if they wish to approve the CUP. Staff recommends approval of this change since the proposed use complies with the general development policies in the comprehensive plan. Refer to pages 18-19. Wetland Variance / Watershed District Comments The applicant must get a variance from the wetland ordinance to remove the small wetland on the site. The wetland is the Iow area shown on the grading plan west of the garage doors and also on the reduced site plan on page 14. Rob Langer, of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, said that Class 5 wetlands may be mitigated subject to specific constraints--mitigation is the relocation of the wetland. Mitigation is done at a two to one ratio. Mr. Langer said that disturbance of wetlands is regulated by the Wetland Conservation Act which the watershed district regulates. The applicant must work with the district regarding the disturbance of this wetland. Mr. Langer confirmed that they have denoted this Iow area as a wetland in their data, but field verification should be made in the spring. The wetland ordinance lists the following exemptions from the ordinance. · Section 9-196(d)(d) waives the wetland requirements for the construction of public and semi- public utilities or trails. Section 9-196(d)(e) waives the wetland requirements when this ordinance would deny ail reasonable use of a lot of record. This exemption states that the owner shall construct buildings to maximize the setback from a buffer. There would be no buffer in this instance. The first exemption addresses the need for necessary public utilities. Though the proposed fire station is not a utility, it is a necessary facility for the health, safety and welfare of the public. The second exemption waives the need for a variance, but requires that any construction maximize the setback from a wetland buffer. Staff feels that this proposal warrants approval of a vadance for the public welfare. The applicant should contact the watershed district right away, however, to begin processing a request to mitigate this wetland. Parking Lot Setback and Parking Lot Curbing Variances Parking in General The applicant has proposed three parking areas. The 26-space parking lot south of the building is intended for fire fighters, the 10 spaces along Clarence Street are primarily for convenient handicap parking spaces plus six regular stalls and the 48 spaces east of Clarence Street are for trail and fire station banquet-room use. There is no parking formula for a fire station. The proposed 84 spaces should be enough. More can be added east of Clarence Street at a later time if needed. Setback Variance The code requires that parking lots be set back 15 feet from a street right-of-way line. The proposed 10 spaces along Clarence would be in the right-of-way. The architect designed the site this way for two reasons: first to provide the handicap-accessible spaces close to the front entrance, and second, because the odd shape of the site did not offer any better options. One option would have been to shift the building to the west and provide on-site parking at a 15-foot setback. This would have crowded the building too close to the west lot line, however, and consequently hinder fire-truck access into the west doors. The city has allowed on-street parking before. This was for road-side parking in front of the commercial building at the northeast corner of Kohlman Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road. Two other instances of parking within the right-of-way are the Vomella Companies parking in the highway right-of-way at the northeast corner of Highway 36 and English Street and at Champps Restaurant at 1-35E and Roselawn Avenue in the freeway right-of-way. Curbing Variance The applicant did not propose curbing around the parking lot east of Clarence Street, along the southerly edge of the south parking lot or along the long driveway from Frost Avenue. The city typically requires curbing in such areas. The applicant did not propose curbing in these areas so as not to impede drainage to the adjacent holding ponds. Their plan is to sheet drain these paved areas across the grass to avoid the channelization of runoff and to avoid potential erosion. Sheet drainage is becoming a preferred method from the standpoint of water quality. It allows nutrients and sediments in runoff to disperse into the grass rather than being channelized and concentrated by hard surfaces and curbing. The benefit of curbing is to create a neat edge between the parking lot and the grass. Curbing also helps to keep cars on the pavement by providing a wheel stop. The applicant could provide curbing along the higher-grade sides of the east parking lot, but did not do so for design consistency. Staff agrees with the proposed sheet-drainage concept but would prefer to see concrete curbs or concrete edges provided wherever possible. Staff recommends that the applicant add curbing in the areas shown in the sketch on page 20. This sketch shows where curbing is proposed and also where staff would like to see it added. One variation in curbing design that staff is recommending is that the applicant provide a flat concrete edge, perhaps one foot wide, along the east edge of this driveway. This edge would be no taller than the pavement and would allow runoff over the top. The intent is to create a neat curb-like edge while allowing surface runoff. The applicant is proposing to provide a parking barrier on the south edge of the southerly parking lot. They have not designed this barrier yet, but should provide the design to staff for approval before getting a building permit. Conditional Use Permit The proposed fire station would be compatible with this neighborhood and the majority of the neighbors liked the proposal. Two neighbors expressed concerns, however, about traffic, noise, reduction in privacy and parking lot visibility due to tree loss. 3 Traffic Traffic will increase, but a fire station is not a high traffic generating use. The proposed fire station will, in fact, create much Jess traffic than if this land were developed as currently zoned and planned. The current land use plan designation (R3H-high density residential), would allow 35 apartment units. This would have a far greater impact on this neighborhood than the proposed fire station. Noise Noise associated with the fire station would be the occasional fire call with siren and vehicle noise associated with it. Tree Loss, Reduction in Privacy and Visual Impact Tree loss is unfortunate but unavoidable when developing a site. The neighbor north of the proposed site is concerned about loss of privacy and negative visual impact. Fortunately, however, the areas of most activity would be on the south and east, away from this neighbor's property. There will also be a substantial amount of trees left on the Gateway Trail property that will provide a heavy screening for this neighbor of the fire station and the proposed parking lot east of Clarence Street. The applicant would also plant trees on the north side of the building adding to the buffer. Comment from the owner of the R&M Family Meats Property The owner of the abutting property offered a suggestion that perhaps the city would consider swapping the southerly point of the fire station site with the northerly point of his property. Staff will pursue this idea with the Fire Chief to discuss it's merit. Lieutenant Banick's Comments Lieutenant John Banick points out that fire stations have not been a source for complaint from neighbors. Refer to the memorandum on page 21. Building, Site and Landscaping Design The proposed building would be attractive. However, staff has the following recommendations for the site and landscape plan: 1. The applicant should submit a site lighting plan indicating fixture design and illumination intensity. The code requires such a plan for developments adjacent to residential property. The landscape plan should be further developed to provide a six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque buffer south of the proposed east parking lot. Some of the proposed tree sizes on the landscape plan are smaller than the code allows. The Red Maple and Red Oak trees must be at least 2 ~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The Amur Maple trees must be at least 1 ~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The applicant has not shown limits to which areas would be sodded and which would be prairie grass. The plan should show these limits in conjunction with the holding pond layout. 3. The grading/drainage plan should be revised to show even sheet drainage across the grass from paved areas. 4. The applicant should submit a design proposal for parking barriers and the curbing changes as discussed above. 5. Clarence Street Right-of-Way Dedication Clarence Street is not shown on the county half-section property line map as it crosses this site (see page 12). It was presumably not dedicated as right-of-way since this land was publicly owned. The right-of-way, therefore, was not secured. This is a good opportunity to clean up the map and show the Clarence Street alignment. The applicant should have their surveyor describe the Clarence Street right-of-way for incorporation into a right-of-way dedication document. Park Director's Comments Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Director of Parks and Recreation, suggests that this proposed fire station have public bathrooms available for trail users and also that the easterly parking lot be regarded as trail-use parking. Refer to Mr. Anderson's letter on page 22. These building and parking lot use issues have merit. These should, however, be worked out later among city staff and city council since they do not specifically affect the applications. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 23 amending the comprehensive land use plan from R3H (residential high density) to G (government facility) for the property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This approval is for the construction of the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood. Approval is because the proposed fire station would comply with the general development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Bo Adopt the resolution on pages 24-25, approving a wetland variance for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This vadance would permit the construction of the proposed fire station and driveway pavement on a Class 5 Wetland. Approval is because: Building on the wetland meets the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance provides exemptions from the wetland requirements for public benefit. Allowing the construction of the proposed fire station is a necessary facility for the health, safety and welfare of the public. 2. There is sufficient area available on the site to mitigate the small Class 5 Wetland. Approval is subject to the applicant submitting a wetland mitigation plan to the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District and to the city engineer for their approvals. Adopt the resolution on pages 26-27, approving a 15-foot parking lot setback variance for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This variance would allow a parking lot within the Clarence Street right- of-way. Approval is based on the following findings: Compliance with the setback requirements would cause the applicant undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is oddly shaped making meeting all parking lot setback requirements difficult. The applicant would meet the spirit and intent of the code by providing handicap- accessible parking spaces closer to the front entrance than if the spaces were moved to a different location. 3. The city has allowed parking in the right-of-way before when the situation warranted it. This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. Adopt the resolution on pages 28-29, approving a variance from the parking lot curbing requirements for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This variance would waive the curbing requirement in specific areas on the site. Approval is because sheet drainage from the two larger parking lots is preferred for water quality in this instance. This vadance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. Adopt the resolution on pages 30-31 approving a conditional use permit for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost 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. 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 have their surveyor provide the legal description for the Clarence Street right-of-way and have the city attorney prepare documentation for the dedication and recording of this right-of-way. Approve the plans (stamped January 28, 2000) for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood, 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. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide the following for staff approval: a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan. b. A revised landscape plan showing the following: (1) Red Maple and Red Oak trees that are at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (2) Amur Maple trees that are at least 1% inches in caliper, balled and buflapped. (3) A six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque buffer on the south side of the east parking lot. (4) Areas that will be sodded and those that would have prairie grass. (5) Any additional tree, shrub or turf requirements of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. (6) In-ground lawn irrigation around the site on the west side of Clarence Street. c. A revised site plan showing the following: (1) The design of the parking barriers. There must be a parking barrier on the south sides of both larger parking lots. (2) A site lighting plan which indicates the fixture designs and illumination intensity. (3) Concrete curbing and concrete edges as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. (4) The driveway from Frost Avenue moved to the west five feet to meet the required five-foot side yard setback from the easterly lot corner. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosure must be 100 percent opaque, match the material of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. (code requirement) b. Install all landscaping as shown on the approved plan. c. Screen roof-top-mechanical equipment that would be visible from the homes along Clarence Street. All other 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 and signs 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. 1" ] CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 34 property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the ten replies, three had no comment or objection and seven written replies were received. 1. The fire station is fine with us. (Woodbun/Mechanical, Clarence Street) At some time will there be a way for trail pedestrian to use the bathroom or get a drink of water? At times we have such requests. Parking space looks like a great plan. (Maplewood Moose Lodge No. 963) 3. Looks pretty good. (Leonard and Evely Jablonski, 1763 Man/knoll Avenue) The only concern I have is the increase in traffic especially on English Street. No one does the speed limit. Would this mean more speeders? There are already enough close calls with the gateway trail crossing on English.. (Nancy Kuffel and Donald LaValle, 1986 English Street) The newly proposed fire station plans look great! I think it has been much needed for years and look forward to having the increased traffic in the neighborhood. Additionally, I would like to be informed of any future meetings on the new site as well as the existing site plans. Thank you. (Oakstreet Furniture, 1375 Frost Avenue) 6. I do not object to this plan, but I don't believe it will increase my property value. Where will the funds come from to build this fire station? (Gladys Olson, 1999 Clarence Street) As the home owner at 1991 Clarence Street, I believe this will negatively impact my privacy and, therefore, my properly value in a negative way. I want to see that plenty of noise prevention landscape and sight-line landscape will be provided between your side of the trail and mine. The traffic is a negative to me, my neighbors and the trail users. I would like to see a decrease in my property taxes to make up for the negative impact. I will now see a parking lot instead of trees. (April Brake, 1991 Clarence Street) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.72 acres (1.72 acres from the original two parcels plus 2 acres from the former railroad right-of-way) Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Gateway pedestrian/bike trail and single dwellings R&M Family Meats, Maplewood Bakery and Frost Avenue Ramsey County pedestrian/bike trail Clarence Street and single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: Existing - R3H (residential high density); Proposed - G (government facility) Zoning: R3 (high density residential) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(1) requires a CUP for public utility, public service or public building uses. Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots have a 15-foot setback from street right-of-way. Section 36-22 (c) requires that parking lots have continuous concrete curbing. Section 9-196(h)(3) prohibits construction on wetlands. 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 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 pages 18-19. 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. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on the nine findings stipulated in the resolution on pages 30-31. Application Date We received this application on January 28, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 80 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 28, 2000. p:secl 5\firestat. cup Attach ments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Gladstone Neighborhood Land Use Plan 4. Site Plan 5. Building Elevation Reductions 6. Applicant's Letter of Justification 7. General Development Policies 8. Curbing Diagram 9. Memorandum from Lieutenant Banick dated February 4, 2000 10. Memorandum from Bruce Anderson dated February 7, 2000 11. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 12. Wetland Variance Resolution 13. Parking Lot Setback Variance Resolution 14. Parking Lot Curbing Variance Resolution 15. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 16. Plans date-stamped January 28, 2000 (separate attachments) l0 Attachment 1 AVE. SH£RREN AVE. AVE. DEMON1' AVE AVE:. COPE AVE. NTON AVE. AVE AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. R~MSEY COUNTY NURSING HOME AND FAIR GROUNDS GOODRICH GOLF COURSE PRICE AVF.. LOCATION ll MAP n 33 7 Attachment 2 -- PARK EDGE - APARTMENTS 20~' 2000-2002 15. RIS ! 1960' _ ~,,, =i: 1938-1940 R&M FAMILY MEATS AND MAPLEWOOD X 'FURNITURE BAKERY _~__.. ,7~.~ .~, ..~~ ~' ': MARKET ~'~'~ s 3 ~ ~~~_, ~'~. I ~I~YAN § I ~ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 12 Attachment 3 PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN CHANGE TO G (government facility) M · · ~ E OS Ii ti I&lnt i_ NC~ilor~l:ollect0r,, ~, major arterial = ~ .. GLADSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN 13 CLASS 5 WETLAND Attachment 4 PROPOSED FIRE STATION LANDSCAPE O: .?... PLAN SITE PLAN 14 Attachment 5 T-----1 I ............ -T---- "-T I 16 Fire ,~tat Ion CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Attachment 6 LETTER OF REQUEST JANUARY 20, 2000 The station is located one block north from the existing station on Clarence. It is essential in our response time to have the station located in close proximity to our firefighters' homes. The station has been designed to fit into the area. The administrative (north side) section, is a one-story gabled roof design to fit with the residential neighbors. The apparatus bays are located (south end) facing toward the commercial building. The station is designed as a 50-year building with one function, being a fire station. The station is again designed to fit into the neighborhood. Its design hints at the past with a train station flair resembling the Gloster Train Station which was located near our station site. The fire department administration conducted a meeting to introduce the design to the immediate neighbors. Thirty people, of about 200 invited, attended this meeting which resulted in positive feedback for the design. Five open houses were conducted for fire prevention at each station with the design on display. This also resulted in a positive result. The station being designed to fit into the area as a transition from residential to commercial is a good fit for the site. The station bay area will have glass overhead doors front and rear to give the building a transparent look. The building, in the writers opinion, would positively impact the neighborhood as existing homes to the north are newer as well as several new homes being built on Ide Street. This positive impact would, again in my opinion, only increase property valves. Prior to the referendum, I received several calls from area residents expressing their hope the building would be built to rejuvenate the neighborhood. The facility would not bring any processes into the neighborhood. With the station will come increased activity. In addition to the current use, there will be increased activity in meetings, therefore increased apparatus and firefighter traffic. This traffic would enter and egress for the most part to and from the south. Traffic would increase in the area as it now exists for the current site. The outbound emergency vehicle traffic generally will depart from the site to the south to Frost. Upon return to the station, apparatus will use the access located on Frost Avenue, west of the market building, east of the Trail. The design and site would create little effect on city services as we are a city service. Additionally, having a fire station one block to the south, the area should be accustom to our operation. However, with this station being essentially our headquarters/or central station, department wide meetings and activities will become more frequent. However, this activity generally occurs Tuesday mornings and evenings, and an occasional Saturday morning. This facility would not create additional costs for services. As a replacement facility, the costs to services may be the same or slightly higher for lawn care and snow removal. Again, the building design, colors and glass doors are to become and blend in as an integral part of the neighborhood. In my opinion, the environmental effects are minimal. 17 Attachment 7 Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land, especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets, are not available. Provide a wide variety of housing types. Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods 'and commercial areas. Integrate developments with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. Maintain and upgrade environmental quality and, where needed, reclassify land uses. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following general development policies are intended to implement the previous goals: The City will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. · The City requires all development to meet state and federal laws, including Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations, unless a variance is obtained from the regulating agency. · The City may require that a developer do sound tests to verify compliance with MPCA regulations, · Grading and site plans should preserve as many significant natural features as practical, The City requires drainage and erosion control plans with new developments. Such plans shall not increase the rate of runoff and shall prevent erosion. The city will use the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for the design of new storm water ponds. 20 18 · Maplewood will use the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA's) urban best management practices when reviewing any proposed development to reduce nonpoint source pollution in storm water. · The City will not remove land from the tax rolls unless it is in the public interest. · The City supports the improvement, replacement or redevelopment of substandard or incompatible development. · The City coordinates its planning with neighboring communities. · The City applies its development policies and ordinances consistently and uniformly. · The City coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. · The City regulates development near or the alteration of natural drainage systems to manage storm water runoff. · The City uses the Ramsey County Soil Survey to identify areas with soils that are not suitable for building sites, · The City may reqUire the developer to furnish evidence from a registered soil engineer that areas with problems can be developed as proposed, · The City considers the recommendations of the area Watershed organizations in the review of development requests, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following are the City's residential development policies: · Plan residential neighborhoods, with schools and parks as the hub, Natural or man-made physical barriers should not traverse, but set the boundaries of the neighborhood, · Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background, A diversity of housing types should include apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing, 21 ~9 T-- i I I Attachment 8 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED UPRIGHT CURB STAFF'S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL UPRIGHT CURB STAFF'S PROPOSED ONE FOOT WIDE CONCRETE EDGE CURBING DIAGRAM~o Attachment 9 interoffice MEMORANDUM to: from: subjeot: date: Tom Ekstrand John Banick, Police Lieutenant PROJECT REVIEW February 4, 2000 I have reviewed the plans for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station on Clarence Street north of Frost Avenue. I agree with Fire Chief Hewitt's assessment about the increase in traffic to the area and it's minimal impact on the neighborhood. I believe most residents in the area are familiar with the operation of a fire depatunent in their neighborhood and the impact on their dally lives. Over the years I do not recall one complaint relating to the arrival or egress of firefighters or firefighting equipment to one of our fire stations. The apartment building on Clarence at Skillman generates considerably more traffic in the immediate neighborhood than the proposed fire station would. Currently, my only concern with this proposal is the exterior lighting. I did not see an exterior lighting plan included in this proposal. Should a lighting plan become available I would be interested in reviewing it. I believe a new fire station on this property would improve the area and be an asset to the community. Should you have questions please contact me at extension 4502. cc: Chief Winger 21 r~ ~" r r T- ....I Attachment 10 Together We Can MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Bruce K. Afld~rsonJ~/ Director, Park~ecta February 7, 20~0 ~ Fire Station Review The proposed fire station is located at the intersection of the Gateway Trail and Ramsey County/ Burlington Northern Trail. This is the only point that these two highly used trails are crossed. I have had some informal discussion with both the State DNR, owner and manager of the Gateway Trail, and Ramsey County, owner and manager of the Burlington Northern Trail, to discuss the feasibility of constructing a trailhead. This land was originally purchased with the thought of creating a rest area, and the concept of constructing a trailhead on a shared three-way basis has some merit. The proposed trailhead would include (at a minimum) a rest area, a paved area including a drinking fountain, kiosk, benches, and possibly some picnic tables. In my discussions with DNIL there are two issues that were raised regarding the parking lot on the east side of Clarence. The first being is there merit to have that identified as an official parking lot for the State DNR trail. I have spoken with the fire department and there are pros and cons to use of that eastern parking lot. The second item is public bathrooms. I have shared both of these issues with Joel Hewitt, and believe that with the increased usage of traffic on the trails the fire department could have a number of requests to utilize the bathrooms. I wonder if it makes any sense to have public bathrooms, possibly as a service with an outside access. I realize there would be some cleaning and possibly vandalism issues, but I raise this item for your consideration. Should you have any questions regarding these issues, feel free to contact myself directly at 651- 770-4573. Cc: Joel Hewitt, Fire Chief 22 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 612-770-4570 CiTY OF MAPLEWOOD · 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B · MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Attachment ll LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R3H (high density residential) to G (government facility) to bring the land use plan into conformance with their proposed use as a fire station. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT right of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest corner of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly comer thereof. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 23, 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 fire station would comply with the general development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 23 Attachment 12 WETLAND VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a vadance from the Maplewood Wetland Ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT right of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly corner thereof. WHEREAS, Section 9-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection code prohibits construction on wetlands. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to build a new fire station and site paving on the wetland. WHEREAS, the history of this vadance is as follows: On ,2000 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. The city council held a public hearing 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 hearing an opportunity 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 variance as recommended by the city staff that would allow the construction of a fire station and driveway paving on a Class 5 Wetland for the following reasons: Building on the wetland meets the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance provides exemptions from the wetland requirements for public benefit. Allowing the construction of the proposed fire station is a necessary facility for the health, safety and welfare of the public. 2. There is sufficient area available on the site to mitigate the small Class 5 Wetland. Approval is subject to the applicant submitting a wetland mitigation plan to the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District and to the city engineer for their approvals. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 25 [ / Attachment 13 PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a parking lot setback vadance from the zoning code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT right of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north fight of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most eastedy corner thereof. 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 to build a parking lot in the Clarence Street right-of- way. WHEREAS, this requires a vadance of 15 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On ,2000 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. The city council held a public hearing 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 hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance as recommended by the city staff that would allow a parking lot to be built within the Clarence Street right-of-way for the following reasons: Compliance with the setback requirements would cause the applicant undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is oddly shaped making meeting all parking lot setback requirements difficult. The applicant would meet the spirit and intent of the code by providing handicap-accessible parking spaces closer to the front entrance than if the spaces were moved to a different location. 3. The city has allowed parking in the right-of-way before when the situation warranted it. This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 27 Attachment 14 PARKING LOT CURB vARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a parking lot curbing variance from the zoning code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT dght of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad dght of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. dght of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. dght of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly comer thereof. WHEREAS, Section 36-22(c) of the zoning code requires that all parking lots have continuous concrete curbing. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to leave some of their parking lot edges uncurbed. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On this variance. ,2000 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve The city council held a public hearing 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 hearing an opportunity 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 variance as recommended by the city staff that would waive the curbing requirement in specific areas on the site plan. Approval is because sheet drainage from the two larger parking lots is preferred for water quality in this instance. This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 29 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a conditional use permit for a fire station. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT right of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly comer thereof. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 23, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On ,2000 the city council held a public hearing. 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 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. 3O 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. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall have their surveyor provide the legal description for the Clarence Street right-of-way and have the city attorney prepare documentation for the dedication and recording of this right-of-way. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Fresh Paint 1055 Gervais Avenue February 8, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Thomas Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments, is proposing to build a 5,300 square- foot office/warehouse facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue. Refer to the maps and drawings on pages 9-12 and 14-16. Mr. Schaffhausen has submitted a narrative explaining this proposal. Refer to the letter on page 13. This facility would consist of a building for Fresh Paint, a commercial painting contractor. This . building would have office and storage space and a garage for the indoor storage of company equipment and vehicles. Refer to the enclosed project plans (separate attachment). The proposed building would have an exterior of prefinished horizontal steel siding, brick, steel doors, windows for the offices and standing-seam roof panels. Requests 1. Approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) because the proposed building would be about 64 feet from the residential property to the rear (north). Code requires a CUP for buildings in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. 2. Approval of building design, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Mr. Schaffhausen wants the city to allow him to keep the existing house on the property for an employee to live as a site caretaker. Section 36-151(a)(1) of the city code says "A dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use" is a permitted use in this zoning district. However, there is some question about the city's intention by adopting this code. That is, did the city intend the dwelling unit to be in or connected to the business building or did the city intend for the dwelling unit to just be on the same property as the business? It is staft"s interpretation that the city did not intend the code to allow an existing single family home to remain when there is new development. It would be possible for the applicant to include living quarters in the new building, if they so choose. This development proposal gives the city an opportunity to change a nonconforming land use (the single dwelling and garage) to a commercial property that fits the standards and policies of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. As such, the city should require the property owner to remove the house and the garage from the site before building the new office/warehouse. Having a new office/warehouse on this site would meet the requirements for a CUP. This project should have little effect on the adjacent single-family homes to the north due to the 64- foot setback to the building and the existing vegetation south of the existing houses. This facility also would screen and buffer the houses from the businesses on the south side of Gervais Avenue. The proposal would be compatible with the existing single-family homes to the north and the warehouses across Gervais Avenue and should not cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors. Staff does not have any concern with this proposal and operation. Traffic should only increase slightly over its present level. As for the effect on property values, city staff cannot . make the determination that there would be any negative impact on property values with this request. Building Design The proposed building would be attractive. The project architect told me they have not yet picked the building colors, but expects that they will be neutral and attractive. Landscaping and Screening There are trees on the north side of the site that would provide screening between the existing houses and the proposed building. It would be advantageous to preserve these trees for screening purposes if the grading limits allow. The applicant proposes to leave some of the existing trees on the site, but proposes to add several new trees around the site and landscaping in front of the new building. The city code requires that the applicant replace quality trees that are eight inches or more in caliper. Poor-quality trees such as box elders, cottonwoods and poplar are exempt. The code requires that these trees be replaced up to a density of 10 trees per acre. The property to the west of this site has an occupied single-dwelling. Because of his house, there is a need for screening on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening is necessary because Sections 36-27(b)(1) and (4) of the code requires screening where: - The light from vehicle headlights and other sources would be directed into residential windows. A parking lot is constructed next to a property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for single- or double-dwelling use. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. The community design review board (CDRB) should review this plan before the city approves a building permit for the project. The city code also requires in-ground lawn irrigation. The applicant should provide this in the front and on sides of the new building and around all sides of the existing house. Parking The proposed site plan shows 13 parking spaces. Based on the proposed use of the building, these should adequately serve their needs. In the event a shortage develops, however, the city could require that the applicant add more spaces on the west side of the driveway. Drainage Considerations The applicant's plans show much of the site being graded to create the building pad, the driveway and the parking area. The proposed grading plan shows the storm water running off the parking lot to Gervais Avenue and possibly the loss of an infiltration area on the northwest corner of the site. Because of the proposed grades, the city engineer is suggesting that the developer . direct all impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that they connect to the existing city system to the west of the site. The final plans for the storm sewer and utilities will be reviewed by and subject to the city engineer's approval upon building permit submittal. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on pages 18 and 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Thomas Schaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This request needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to a 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 date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. 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 city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. 6. All commercial traffic to and from this site shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall prohibit commercial vehicles going to or from this site from using Cypress Street. 7. The hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 3 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. Approve the project plans date-stamped January 20, 2000, for the Fresh Paint facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner or applicant shall: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit for the new office/warehouse, complete the following: ao Have the community design review board (CDRB) approve a screening plan for the area on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. ao b. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements. The grading and storm water plans shall direct all impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that the developer connects to the existing city system to the west of the site. c. Submit a building-color scheme of neutral colors to city staff for approval. d. Get a demolition permit from the city and remove the existing garage and house. Complete the following before occupying the new office/warehouse building: Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Restore and seed or sod any and all disturbed ground such as the areas of driveway or blacktop removal. Remove all old driveway entrances and restore with sod. c. Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. d. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from adjacent residential properties. Such equipment visible on non-residential sides must be painted to match the building color. (code requirement) So Construct a trash dumpster enclosure if there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosure must match the building in color and materials and shall have a closeable gate that is 100 percent opaque. go ho Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all lawn areas on the front and on the sides of the new office/warehouse building and on all sides of the existing house Provide site-security lighting as required by the city code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed or shielded so not to cause any nuisance to vehicle drivers or to adjacent property owners. There shall be no lighting on the back of the building unless required by the building code. Post the west side of the new driveway and the west side of the parking area for "no parking." i. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around all parking areas and the driveway. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: o a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The city receives cash escrow 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 of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS We had sent surveys to the 23 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received four replies. 1. I have no problem with (this). (Northernaire Motel, Inc.) 2. Absolutely not! We don't know what would go there in the future. Too much trucks in area and noise now. Do not want paint and truck fumes, either. (Karl - 1008 Sextant Avenue) Absolutely no! This firm originally stated intended use was office only in existing building. Now they want to add a building that will add to the truck and noise and traffic that is already too loud in the area. No way - do not let them expand into a truck and equipment storage facility. (Karl - 2440 Cypress Street) 4. See the letter dated January 24, 2000 from Sherrill Benjamin on page 17. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 0.99 acres Existing land use: A single-family home and detached garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings businesses across Gervais Avenue A single dwelling that the city has zoned and planned M-1 (light manufacturing) Undeveloped property and Sunset Realty PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or constructed within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. Section 36-151(b)(4) requires a CUP for the outdoor storage or display of goods or materials. The city may require screening of such uses provided at least 80 percent of materials are screened. Section 36-22(a) requires one parking space for every 200 square feet of office space and one parking space for every 1,000 square feet of warehouse space. Findings for Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 18 and 19 for the findings. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board 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, orderly 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 environmer~t for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date The city received the application materials for this request on January 20, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by March 19, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec9\freshpnt, mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans 5. Applicant's Letter dated 1-19-00 6. Building Elevation Reductions 7. Building Elevation Reductions 8. Building Floor Plan 9. 1-24-00 letter from Sherrill Benjamin 10. CUP Resolution (2 pages) 11. Project Plans date-stamped January 20, 2000 (separate attachment) Attachment L~! Lake PLAZA C/R ALVARADO DR B~LLECREST D~ MERIDIAN DR BELMONT AV. BELLWOOD CT, COUNTY ROAD GERVAIS JUNCTION (1) CHAMBERS ST Y'~'t'~ GO~,~' SKILL ~Troil . FROST LOCATION MAP 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA AVE:. B?.AM C ~RANDVtEW VIKING SHERREN AVE:. f ~ F. Attachment 2 ~ 3 2o5.9~ MINI-STORAGE__ MOTE AVE POND , '* REALTY IJ%l .... .99~ HERMANSON DENTAL I ~ ) 1065 ~-,,o') ~ (8 ~, i 055 ~) 1081 · · ~ ~. ,,~ ~v/ ~ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 10 Attachment SITE PLAN 11 Attachment 4 UTIL~'Y NOT'ES GRXD~NG NOI~'S ,% P~OPOS~ ! i i L ........... .~ ..... GERVAIS A VENUE PLANT LIST ........ GRADING, UTILITY AND LANDSCAPE PLANS 12 SANAS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC 850 Hamline Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Attachment 5 January 19, 2000 City of Maplewood Community Development Attn: Kenneth Roberts 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 JAN 2. 0 2000 On behalf of Sanas Capital Investments, I am requesting your consideration in issuing a conditional use permit to allow us to construct up to a 6,000 sq ft building on the commercially zoned lot located at 1055 Gervais Ave. The building will be leased to Fresh Paint, a 15 year old, independently owned commercial painting contractor, currently located in the Midway area. Fresh Paint employs approximately 35 painters, and six office employees. On a daily basis, only the six office employees will be utilizing the building - the remaining staff will be working in the field. The building will be designed to adequately provide offices and indoor storage for trailers and equipment. There will be no painting work done at the site. The building design is both modem and efficient. It's exterior design was carefully chosen to be attractive, yet unobtrusive. Considerable time was given to the interior to ensure that it would be a multiple use building in the event of a tenant change, as well as to allow for growth within the leasing company without further expansion. I am also requesting your approval to leave the existing house on the property. Fresh Paint's top supervisor is currently renting the home, acting as a caretaker of the grounds. He is prepared to accept the responsibility of acting as caretaker for both buildings and the grounds, keeping both clean and attractive to the community. We have updated the home's decorating, and this spring, plan to seal and paint the exterior, replace window sills and deteriorating wood when the weather permits. Few companies the size of Fresh Paint are fortunate enough to have a 24 hour security guard/caretaker on site. As a result, properties can deteriorate, and they can become victim to vandalism. We would appreciate the ability to avoid such problems. Thank you for your consideration. I'll be happy to discuss plans in further detail, and answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Tho~aJ R.t~S ch~au~sen President/CFO 13 Attachment 6 JZ // c~Ik, b '0~ qO,~ / .LNrV',~ 14 .I. NlYd HS:I~-I Attachment 7 15 o.~oseuu!~ 'pooA',eldD~ 'enue^v S!OA~e-D ~*0 [ INIVd HSI~-I Attachment 8 Attachment 9 ECE V,, Januaw 24,2000 Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 RE: Fresh Paint Office/warehouse Conditional Use Permit - 1055 Gervais Avenue Dear Mr. Roberts: I wish to submit comments concerning the noted CUP under consideration by the City of Maplewood. Originally, I received a letter from Fresh Paint noticing their intent to purchase the property at 1055 Gervais and offering to answer any questions or concerns. I phoned the number provided and left a message that I would like to talk with them concerning their plan. Not receiving a return call, I placed two additional calls, leaving messages each time. To Date Fresh Paint has not returned my calls. Next I spoke with several neighbors and determined that most had not received notice of the pending plans for 1055 Gervais. Lastly, I contacted City Hall by telephone and in person to find out what was occurring and get information about the company's plans. City staff said they had not applied for a CUP and expressed concern that Fresh Paint was "getting the cart before the horse" by completing the purchase without knowing if the City would grant a CUP. To date questions have neither been answered nor has adequate information been provided. Questions concerning Fresh Paint's use of property at 1055 Gervais; 6. 7. 8. 9. 12. 13. 14. It appears that with the removal of the existing garage, the plans could be altered slightly without losing effective use of the property, thus moving the building forward and perhaps avoiding the need for a CUP. Has this issue been addressed? When Fresh Paint refers to trailers and equipment, what does this include? Following up on #3, does Fresh Paint intend to store paints, solvents, thinners, etc. on this property? If the answer to #4 is yes, then what types of paints, solvents, thinners, etc., will be stored on this property, in what quantity, how will waste be disposed and how will the City monitor these materials and operations? If the answer to #~ is no, then what are the Cities provisions to ensure compliance with no storage of hazardous or flammable products? The plan reflects a garage with a "flammable waste trap," please explain the need for this and how this may or may not effect the wet lands in close proximity to this property. The plan reveals a "repair" area, please explain the type, extent, and hours such repairs will be in P_/.~ogress. e plan reveals stairs leading up between the garage and the storage room, why is that area missing from the plans provided to neighbors? What is the purpose of this unknown area and how will this unknown area be used? According to the letter provided, Fresh Paint is currently located somewhere in the Midway area. What is their current address? Has the City been to the Midway property to find out what kind of residents or neighbors Fresh Paint currently is for the Midway community? How much traffic, what type and what hours may we expect this traffic in our neighbor?. I really must repeat City staff's question, why would this company complete the purchase of property for which they will need a CUP to use as planned before applying for or getting CUP approval? Why do we have City Ordinances if variances and CUP are routinely granted? Please provide answers to the above questions and notification of the hearing date before approving this CUP. Sincere/ly,' . 2473 Adele Street Maplewood, MN 55109 651/481-8708 cc: Mayor and City Council 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tom Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments, applied for a conditional use permit to build an office/warehouse facility in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district closer than 350 feet to a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to Bedell Road (Gervais Avenue), the East 150 feet of the South 290 4/10 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 23, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on ,2000. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 18 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 date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. 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 city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. 6. All commercial traffic to and from this site shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall prohibit commercial vehicles going to or from this site from using Cypress Street. 7. The hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2000. 3.9