Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/20001. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 17, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East BOOK 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Public Hearing 7:00 Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) 1. Comprehensive plan change - M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) 2. Zoning map change - M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) 3. Lot-area and lot-width variances 4. Preliminary plat New Business a. Fresh Paint Office/Warehouse Conditional Use Permit (1055 Gervais Avenue) bo Club FTS Conditional Use Permit (1351 Frost Avenue) c. Forest Products Shop (Highway 61 and County Road C) 1. Setback Variances 2, Conditional Use Permit 6. Unfinished Business 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. April 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost b. April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber c. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~,pcagd Revised: 01195 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Dearborn Meadow Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue April 11,2OO0 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to develop five twinhomes (ten units) in a development called Dearborn Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 13-19. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. (See the elevations on page 20 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 15 and 16.) 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 14. 3. Lot-area and lot-width variances for each lot. The city code requires that each lot have 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of width. The proposed lots would be 5,200 square feet and would have 80 feet of width at the building line. 4. A preliminary plat for ten lots for the five twin homes. (See the map on page 17.) 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. City staff also is proposing to change the zoning and land use plan designations for two areas next to the proposed development. These changes would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). 'BACKGROUND On July 22, 1985, the city approved a plan amendment and a rezoning for the property between Castle and Cope Avenues, east of the property at 1930 Castle Avenue. The land use plan change was from RL (Iow-density residential) to BW (business warehouse) and RM (medium- density residential). The zoning map change was from R-1 (single dwellings) and BC (business commercial) to M-1 (light manufacturing) and R-2 (single and double dwellings). These changes were required by the district court after Hillcrest Development sued the city to overturn a zoning map change from BC to R-1 that the council made on September 12, 1983. The court decision is the basis for the current land use and zoning designations in the area. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed plat, Mr. Ackerman wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. These changes would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). (See the existing land use plan map on page 15 and the proposed land use plan map on page 16.) The city intends R-2 areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings. For M-1 areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, day care centers, retail businesses, warehousing and light manufacturing operations. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. They include: . · Provide for orderly development. · Minimize conflicts between land uses. · Provide a wide variety of housing types. · 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. Include a variety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. · Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. . · Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. One advantage of this proposal is that an area that the city once thought would be good for commercial or light industrial development would become residential. This is especially beneficial to the existing nearby residential properties. Having twin homes near existing residences should be better neighbors than a commercial or a manufacturing use that the existing land use and zoning designations would allow. As proposed, the 10 units on the 2.11-acre site means there would be 4.7 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development. In addition, the proposed change would expand the residential uses on a street that is now primarily used by the existing homes in this area. Thus, the proposal meets the goals in the comprehensive plan by having similar uses fronting on the same street. 2 Lot Area and Width Variances The city should approve these variances. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In addition, the city approved similar variances in 1993 and 1994 for the Holloway Pond developments at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 10 units on the 2.11-acre site means there would be 4.7 units per acre (an average of 9,191 square feet per unit.) This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development and is well above the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area that city requires for each double dwelling unit. Maplewood has zoned the properties on the north side of Cope Avenue R-2 (single and double dwellings). This is the zoning proposed with this request for undeveloped land between Cope and Castle Avenues. The city requires each single dwelling lot in this zoning district to have at least 60 feet of frontage and have at least 7,500 square feet. Double dwellings in this district are to have 120 feet of street frontage and be at least 12,000 square feet in area. The existing lots on the north side of Cope Avenue meet or exceed these standards. Public Utilities There is sanitary sewer and water in Castle and Cope Avenues to serve the proposed development. Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading. For this 2.11-acre site, the ordinance requires that at least 21 large trees remain. The plans show the removal of 35 large trees (ash, oak and elm), but they would preserve 17 existing trees and plant 10 maple trees. Refer to the landscaping plan. (As a point of clarification, there would be more than 35 trees removed. Other than the 35 "quality" trees, the applicant would remove many box elder and cottonwoods.) Wetland Ordinance The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the development proposal. (See their comments in the memo on page 21.) They have classified the wetland on proposed Outlot A as a Class Five Wetland. These are the wetlands that humans have impacted the most and have the least diverse types of vegetation and the least community resource significance. This wetland classification does not require a buffer area. However, the building foundations must be at least ten feet from the edge of the wetland. The proposed grading plan would meet the wetland ordinance requirements. 3 Drainage Concerns Several neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. The city should require that the applicant's grading/drainage plan ensures that the runoff from his project will not increase the stormwater flow onto any neighbor's land. Building Design The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with brick veneer on the fronts and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the drawings on page 20.) Landscaping The proposed plans keep many of the existing trees around and near the wetland on the site. As proposed, the developer would plant ten maple trees on the site, primarily at the front corner of each unit near the driveway. The landscaping plan (page 19) also shows the proposed plantings around each unit which will include a rose bush, day lillys and arborvitaes. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to be consistent with Maplewood Ordinance standards. The maple trees must be at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Mr. Ackerman also is proposing to build a six-foot-high wood privacy fence along the entire south property line. This will provide screening between the existing and proposed homes. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Approve the resolution on page 23. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. 4 Bo Approve the resolution on page 24. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjace~nt properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-i (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. Approve the resolution on page 26. This resolution approves lot area and lot width variances for each lot in Dearborn Meadow. The city is approving these variances because: There is an unusual hardship. A homeowners' association will own and maintain the land that the developer would normally use to meet the lot area and frontage requirements. 2. This variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since the project would meet the city's density requirement. 3. Maplewood has approved the same variance for the Holloway Pond Town House developments at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. Approve the Dearborn Meadow preliminary plat (received by the city on March 31, 2000). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarentees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the greding limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. do Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. fo Have NSP install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. go Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan which: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the private street as Castle Place and label Castle Street as Castle Avenue on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. 'E. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. If the developer decides to final plat the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Submitting the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the Director of Community Development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the plans date-stamped March 31,2000 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. 7 (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 ~) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) There shall be no parking on either side of the 24-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. (3) The maple trees must be at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped March 31, 2000, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, all front side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the wetland easement). (6) No landscaping shall take place in the Castle Avenue boulevard and the boulevard shall be restored with sod. d. Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas except for the area within the easement which may be seeded. 8 c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debris or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if' a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks 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. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 9 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 30 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 3 replies, 1 was for the proposal, 1 objected and 1 had comments. For 1. Agree that duplexes are better than manufacturing. Heavy traffic in the neighborhood now, keep the entrance to the new development in Castle. Are these rentals? Would prefer non- rentals. Objections 1. No - please see in your files about drainage problems and building over a natural holding pond - you have all previous maps and letters - also please see your topo maps. (Themnes - Castle Avenue) Also see the letter from Jack Swenson on page 22 for additional comments. 10 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.11 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Home Depot across Highway 36 Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Existing Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 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 11 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. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on March 31, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by May 31, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 1 l\dearborn.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan (Existing) 4. Land Use Plan (Proposed) 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Proposed Utility Plan 7. Proposed Landscape Plan 8. Building Elevations 9. Watershed District Comments 10. Letter from Jack Swenson date-stamped 4-3-00 11. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (M-1 to R-2) 12. Rezoning Resolution (M-1 to R-2) 13. Lot Area and Lot Width Variance Resolution 14. Project Plans (separate attachments) 12 Attachment 1 AV~. AV~.. NORTH SAINT PAUL 1700' 3400' ROSL~IKX~ Art. ,, " 2" SCALE ~OOORK~ I~Pt.~AVF.. NORTH SAINT LOCATION MAP 13 PAUL Attachment 2 AVE ..m ...... II KEY ' = SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLIN( R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MI = LIGHT MANUFACTURING LAURIE (.,~) /32..J~, 14 Attachment 3 ,H ~y 36 ~- 'h- I~'chan R-3~ ,rincipal M-1 1 arterial J= KEY .~ R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS =~ R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS m R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL · R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL Mi = LIGHT MANUFACTURING , W = WATER Attachment 4 .High y 36 liar .Fre$! mrchan rincipal I '?' C~unt R-;II M-1 R2 arterial 0 ~ e KEY .----_ Ri = SINGLE DWELLINGS ~' R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS tu R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL · R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL Mi = LIGHT MANUFACTURING ~ W = WATER Attachment 5 ~RtELIi"'IINIAI~Y' le)LAT/u~lt.h tSrel. ~ra~ln~ CA~"TL 36 REET GRAPHIC SCALE T::,,,,~ T i T I I I PROPOSED PRELIMINARY 17 PLAT Attachment 6 I I I I I ', CAT~D 6 4 25 HIGHWAY ,36 ASTLE STREET 3 At.LEY -[ I 26 I I 27 I I I I I ......___LL I_ _ J_i_' _ _ COPE , 17 1 13 R.F.. i" 1'7 18 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN · 18 Attachment 7 ® ® 19 L MIKE ACKERMAN CONST. ~ 2000 HOME PL&NS INC. UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THIS PI.AN I$ A VIOI. ATION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT Attachment 8 2O o Attachmnet 9 Date: Applicant: Re: Michael Ackerman Dearborn Meadows APR - q 2000 Permit No. 00-12 Dear Applicant: Thank you for submitting your grading and erosion control plan to the District for review. The Watershed District staff has reviewed the plans for consistency with the policies and goals of the Watershed District. The following are changes to your plans which the staff feels are necessary for your project. The staff will be recommending these changes to the Watershed Board in the form of special provisions to your permit. If approved by the Board, these changes will be required. Special Provisions 1. All Iow floors of structures adjacent to the existing wetland shall be a minimum of two feet above the l O0-year flood elevation for that wetland. Drainage calculations supporting this elevation shall be submitted to the District for review. All Iow floor elevations shall also be a minimum of 1 foot above the overland overflow elevation of the wetland. 2. Identify the path and final destination of any overflows from the wetland. The wetland shall contain all 100 year flows without overtopping 21 Attachment l0 April 2, 2000 Kenneth R. Roberts, Associate Planner Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts This letter is a follow-up to our brief meeting on March 30, 2000 about changing the zoning on Castle Avenue to allow a high density residential development. I have met with some of the surrounding homeowners and the Director of Maplewood Care Center. We have concerns about the potential danger to pedestrians on Castle Avenue. There are children using the street every day now, either walking or on bicycles. The residents of Maplewood Care Center also use it. They are old and walk with canes and walkers. Wheelchairs are common on Castle Avenue in the summer time. There are no sidewalks for them to use and the roadway is very nan'ow. There are no present plans to provide sidewalks either. We also have concerns about introducing ten families in such a small location, with no provisions for providing recreational areas for children. There are no parks in that area. There will only be a fenced swamp. Creating this dense of a situation where there is potentially twenty cars or more using a dead end street approximately 300 feet long and ending at Castle Avenue, raises concerns about child safety that are unignorable. We believe any change in zoning should only allow single-family homes. I will attempt to schedule a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss our other concerns. Any written correspondence you have on this subject should be sent to Jack Swenson at 5241 - 130th Street North, White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110. The telephone number is (651) 429- 8231. We thank you for any consideration you give this matter. ~l,,Ck E. Swenson 930 Castle Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 22 Attachment 11 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mike Ackerman and Maplewood City Staff proposed a change to the city's land use plan from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-10 of the proposed Dearborn Meadow) Lots 18 through 22, Block 6, Lots 9 through 13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 3. Lot 4 and the east half of Lot 5, Block 7, all in Dearborn Park, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On April 17, 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 approve the plan amendment. 2. On ,2000, the city council discussed the proposed 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 for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 23 Attachment 12 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Mike Ackerman proposed a change to the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, Maplewood City Staff proposed a change to the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for two undeveloped parcels adjacent to the proposed development. WHEREAS, these changes apply to the undeveloped property on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Dearborn Meadow) 2. Lots 18 through 22, Block 6, Lots 9 through 13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. 3. Lot 4 and the east half of Lot 5, Block 7, all in Dearborn Park, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On April 17, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this change. 2. On ,2000, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. 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 change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 24 5. The owner plans to develop this property for double dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 25 Attachment 13 LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mike Ackerman of Mike Ackerman Construction applied for variances from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, these variances apply to the Dearborn Meadow development plan the city received on March 31, 2000. The legal description is: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-10 of the proposed Dearborn Meadow) WHEREAS, Section 36-88 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that each double dwelling lot have at least 12,000 square feet of area and at least 85 feet of lot width. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing lots with an area of 5,200 square feet and lot widths of 80 feet. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On April 17, 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 variances for the following reasons: 1. There is an unusual hardship. A homeowners' association will own and maintain the land that the developer would normally use to meet the lot area and frontage requirements. 2. This variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since the project would meet the city's density requirement. 3. Maplewood has approved the same variances for the Holloway Pond Town House developments at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 26 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Fresh Paint 1055 Gervais Avenue April 5, 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 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 in 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 staffs interpretation that the city did not intend the code to allow an existing single family home to remain when there is new development. However, the applicant and his attorney believe that one could interpret the ordinance to mean that the residence and a business use on a property are permitted as long as there is connection between the residents and the business. (See the letter from Thomas Hart starting on page 18.) 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 this 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 the 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 Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22. 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: 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. 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. All commercial traffic and vehicles 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 normal 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. 10. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. 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: 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. 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. Get a demolition permit from the city and remove the existing garage and house. If the city council allows the house to stay on the site, then get a demolition permit for the garage. 3. Complete the following before occupying the new office/warehouse building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. bo 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. do 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) 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. f. 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 go 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. h. 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: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 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. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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: Single dwellings , South: Businesses across Gervais Avenue West: A single dwelling that the city has zoned and planned M-1 (light manufacturing) East: 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 21 and 22 for the findings. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board 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. '7 ,3. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. 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. On February 22, 2000, the city received a request from the applicants attorney to delay the city's review of the proposal. On April 5, 2000, we received a request from the applicants attorney to again consider these applications. 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. 4-5-00 letter from Thomas Hart 11. CUP Resolution (2 pages) 12. Project Plans date-stamped January 20, 2000 (separate attachment) 8 Attachment 1 Oervis Lake PLAZA C~ ALVARADO DR BELLECREST ~ CT. B~ AVE.~' COUNTY 1. SU~HIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 3. DULLrTH CT. 4. LYI:)IA AVF.. BEAM KOHLMAN AV~. ¢ GERVAIS ORANDVIE~ ~KING SHERREN AVE. VIKING DR. JUNCTK)N (~) CH~BERS ST y,~L~..R GO~' cO0~S~' SKILL: BEII. WOOD LOCATION MAP 9 Attachment 2 AVE (~) REALTY POND lJ~ll .... HERMANSON DENTAL ~) 1065 1055 1081 ~ \ 10 Attachment 3 ll!!l ~If!, SITE PLAN 11 Attachment 4 GERVAIS AVENUE ~RAI~NG No'rE"S GERVAIS I I I I I I i I i I PLANT LIST AVENUE SANAS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC 850 Hamline Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Attachment 5 January l9,2000 City of Maplewood Community Development Attn: Kenneth Roberts 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 JAN ?. 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 staffwill 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, President/CFO 13 : .I. NlVd HS:a~:I Attachment 6 14 Glbb 'o~q c~(Z" / .L.~l¥c] Attachment 7 -'4] 15 J. NlYd HS~I-I ol §U!Pl~nIB eo!tt0 ,~eN V Attachment 8 16 Attachment 9 Janua~ 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 pend. ing plans for 1055 Gervais. Lastly, I contacted City Hall by telephone and in person to find out what was occumng 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; 1. 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? 2. When Fresh Paint refers to trailers and equipment, what does this include? 3. Following up on #3, does Fresh Paint intend to store paints, solvents thinners, etc. on this property? 4. If the answer to #4 is yes, then what types of pa nts, 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? 5. If the answer to #4 is no, then what are the Cities provisions to ensure compliance with no storage of hazardous or flammable products? 6. 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. 7. The plan reveals a "repair" area, please explain the type, extent, and hours such repairs will be in progress. 8. The plan reveals stairs leading up between the garage and the storage room, why is that area missing from the plans provided to neighbors? 9. What is the purpose of this unknown area and how will this unknown area be used? 10. According to the letter provided, Fresh Paint is currently located somewhere in the Midway area. What is their current address? 11. 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? 12. How much traffic, what type and what hours may we expect this traffic in our neighbor?. 13. 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? 14. 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. Sincerely, ~ 2473 Adele Street Maplewood, MN 55109 651/481-8708 cc: Mayor and City Council 17 FROM WINTHROP & WEINSTINEST Mr. Ken Roberts Associate Plarmcr City of ~plewo~ 1830 ~. Co~ Road B Maplew~, ~ 55109 PAUL 651-292-9347 (WED) 4, 5'00 10'30/ST, 10:25/N0. 4863010687 P 2 WINTHROP & WEINSTINE Attachment lO A PROF-mSSIONAL ASSOCIATION 3200 Minnesota Worm ~-ade Center SO ~ Seventh Scre~ Saint Paul, M.L*mw~a 55t01 Telephone (651) 290-840O Pax (651) 292-9347 $000 Datn Ra,~ ~ 6O South Stxtl~ Street 1Vlinneapoils. Iviinnemota 55402 Tdephm'm (6l~) 347-0700 Fax (612) 347-0600 April 5, 2000 Re: 1055 Gervais Avenue/Application for Conditional Use Permit Saint Paul Dear Mr. Roberts: As you know, our office is representing Sanas Capital InvesUnents ("Sanas"), the owner of the property located at 1055 Oervais Avenue. First of all, we would like to thank you, Pat Kelly, Melinda Coleman and Chris Cavett for meeting with Tom Schaffhausen and the undersigned recently to discuss this matter. Second, Sanas would certainly like this matter to be placed on the agendas of the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the Cio/Council at the earliest opportunity. As you know, Sanas is a partnership, the principals of which arc thc same ~vo individuals who own Fresh Paint, Inc., a commercial painting contractor. Sanas purchased the subject property in September of 1999 from William and Julia Bedell, who had owned thc subject property for many years, aod who had cortstrucl~! the existing single-family residence on thc subject property. Although the existing single- family residence is not a large structure, it has certainly been well maintained by Mr. And Mrs. Bedell over the years. As we have discussed with you, Sanas not only intends to maintain the residence in good condition~ but to invest in improvements to the residence. As we have also discussed with you, current plans would involve removal of the existing garage serving the single-family residence in order to allow appropriate access to thc commercial facility. Prior to purchasing the subject property, Sanas representatives met with you and other members of the City's plauuing staff on more than one occasion for purposes of determining whether the proposed construction of a commercial office fi~cility on the subject property, in tandem with continued use of the existi~ single-family residence, was consistent with thc City's expectations. Based not only on ther~ discussions but also on a review of City ordinances, we understood that existing city ordinances would, subject to the granting of a conditional use permit, permit the construction of the additional office facility 18 FROM WINTHROP & WEINSTINEST lVir. April ~, 2000 Page 2 PAUL 651-292-9347 (WED) 4, 5'00 lO:BI/ST, 10:25/N0, 4863010687 P B and continued maintenance of the single-family residence on the site. This lm'oposal was ,mlquely s~ted to thc ~oposed business interests of Sanas and Fresh Paint. Accordingly, it was with some surprise, that we read yom' planning memorandum dated February 8, 2000, wherein it was first suggested that the single-family residence would have to be removed. At om' recent meeting, Ms. Coleman indicated that this su~estion was originated with thc in~cnt of seeking guidance from the City Council with respect to interpretation of Ordinance Section 36-15i. She further indicated that her primary concern was avoiding a situation wherein the single-family I residence was rented to a party unrelated to the business being conducted in the commercial facility. As Mr. Schafthausen volunteered at the meeting, such is not the intent of Sanas and Sarms would have no objection to inclusion in the conditional use permit of such a restriction, as long as the residential structure is used for residential purposes. In fact, we believe such a restriction is consistent with a dear reading of Section 36-151 which allows as a permitted use within a business commercial district a "dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use". We do not believe that this language requires that a dwelling unit bc attached to the facility in which the business use is located since, if such were the intent, the word "attached" could easily have been used. The absence of the word "attached" seems compelling. Nevertheless, we do believe that thc words "in combination" require some connection between the continued use of the dwclllng unit for residential purposes and the business use. As you know, current plans are for an employee of Fresh Paint to reside in the existing house. This employee will act inpart as a caretaker of the entire property. It is imperative to Sanas that the house be retained on the site as Sanas projects growth not only in the business of Fresh Paint but also in thc investment portfolio of Ss. nas and foresees future use of the residential structure for office purposes in connection with such businesses. We believe that the residence and thc commercial facility will be complementary, both in use and appearance. Hopefully, it is fair to say that we all agree that the site allows sufficient room to accornm-date both structures. Allowing thc single-family residence to be retained will allow future expansion of the existing on-site businesses without need for additional office structures. Certainly, allowing the single-family residence to remain on site will not harm the character of the existing neighborhood, since single-family residences are common in this neighborhood since the neighborhood has been, is now and will continue to be in mix of both residential and commercial uses. Yom' planning report supports Sanas' proposed use of the property, indicating that such use "would be compatible with 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" and that "staff does not have any concern with this proposal and operation". In fact, the only basis under the existing City ordinances for a requirement of Sanas to seek a conditional use permit for its proposed use is thc proximity of the subject property to a residential district. The only "conditions" to be applied against the property should therefore relate to public health, safety and welfare oonccms relating to such residences. In sun~rmry, we believe that th/s particular ~oposal ~I1 not set an undesirable precedent for the City, since (i) thc business usc and the residential use will be compatible and cornpl~an~, and S~mas will agree to a restriction prohibiting rental of the residence for rcsidential purposes to a party unrelated to thc 19 FROM WINTHROP & WEINSTINEST PAUL 651-292-9347 Mr. Ken Roberts April 5, 2000 Page 3 (WED) 4, 5'00 10:31/ST, 10:25/N0, 4863010687 P 4 business being conducted on site. We do not see any evidence in the plain lan~.~as~ of the ordinance whatsoever that would prohibit retention of the single-family dwelling, and in fact, believe that the clear langua~ of S~tion 36-151 expressly allows joint rcsid~nti',d and business use, with no requirement whatsoever that the same be attached. Since there do not appear to be any public health, safety and welfare considerations affecting the nei/hbers to the north, we would respectfully ask that the City Council approve the proposed con~tionn,1 use Sanas Cspital Investments and Fresh Paint both want to be good neighbors, and to introduce a business to the City of Maplewood which will be a positive force both in the neighborhood and the City fol many years to come. We look forward to meeting with the Design Review Comrnit'~e, the Planning Commission and the City Council and to working with you and other members o£ the City staff ~owstrd successful conclusion of this project. We will follow up this letter, as we have discussed, with sugl~sted language changes on certain of the other conditions proposed in your planning report. Should you have ~my questions regarding any or'thc ~'orcgoing, please do not hesitate to call. Very Waly yours, W]NTttROP & WN_.]NS?[INE. P.A. By- 20 Attachment 11 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 ~ r~idential 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 April 17, 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. o 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. 23. 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: 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. 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. All commercial vehicles and 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 normal 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. 10. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2000. ?.2. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit - Club F.T.S. 1351 Frost Avenue April 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION Request/Proposal Ron Michaletz is requesting a CUP (conditional use permit) to operate a coffee lounge in the (former) Miller Meats building at 1351 Frost Avenue. Club F.T.S. (Freedom Through Sobriety) would be an alcohol-free lounge for adults to meet and socialize. Refer to maps on pages 4-5 and the letter on page 6. The applicant would occupy the remaining vacant space in this building located between the Maplewood Bakery and the Senior Recovery Program, a senior citizen chemical dependency clinic. Code Requimment Section 36-155 of the zoning code requires a CUP for restaurants in a BC(M) (business commercial modified) district. According to the BC(M) regulations, the closest description of the applicant's proposal would be a restaurant. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed use is appropriate for this location. The only potential problem staff can see is noise. If complaints arise by the homeowners on Clarence Street due to late night noise (cars starting, patrons talking in the parking lot), the city council may wish to adjust the hours of operation or reconsider this permit. Site and Building Issues Parking would not be an issue since this coffee lounge would have evening hours and not conflict with the daytime hours of the bakery, tattoo parlor and the Senior Recovery Program. There are several site and building problems that should be corrected, however. The parking lot needs restriping, the back of the building is littered with discarded materials, there is a broken window on the "Permanent Skin Art" store front, there should be a gate on the trash enclosure and the canopy over the sidewalk is in disrepair. As a condition of this permit, the city council should require that the property owner restdpe the parking lot and see to these maintenance issues. The clean-up, building maintenance and parking lot striping are required by city code. If the applicant does not proceed with this proposal, or if the city council denies the CUP, the property owner should still be required to do these things. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on pages 7-8 approving a conditional use permit for a coffee lounge at 1351 Frost Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: 1. All construction, renovations and improvements shall comply with the building code. 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year, unless the use is in operation and there have been no complaints or problems. In this event, the conditional use permit shall be reviewed again only if a problem adses. The hours of operation shall be: 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 4 p.m. to 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The city council may review these hours and make adjustments as warranted if there are complaints. Before the city issues an occupancy certificate for this use, the property owner shall clean up the property behind the building, repair the canopy on the front of the building, replace the broken window pane on "Permanent Skin Art," install a 100 percent solid gate on the front of the trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. The property owner shall clean up the property behind the building, repair the canopy on the front of the building, replace the broken window pane on "Permanent Skin Art," install a 100 percent solid gate on the front of the trash enclosure and restfipe the parking lot. These items shall be performed even if the applicant drops his request or if the city council denies the conditional use permit. The deadline for this work shall be two months from the date of this council action. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: .74 acres Existing land use: Maplewood Bakery, Senior Recovery Program and a tattoo shop SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Future Gladstone Fire Station No. 2 Frost Avenue, Mike's LP and Richard's Market Clarence Street and the Webster Dental parking lot Gladstone Fire Station property and Ramsey County trail PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC(M) Zoning: BC(M) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-155(c)(3) requires a CUP for restaurants in a BC(M) district. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 7-8. Application Date We received this application on March 17, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days. City Council action is required by May 17, 2000. p:secl 5\clubfts.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Applicanfs letter date-stamped March 17, 2000 4. CUP Resolution r Attachment GERVAIS SHERR£N AVl[. D~,K)NT AVF- AV~. K~ ~...~ I. okl AVE. COPE AVE. JUNCTION (~) CHAMBERS ST! SKILL NTpN AVF.. FRISBIE AV~ ROSEWO~ AV~. RAUSEY COUNTY NURSING HO~E_ L4~ND FAIR GROUNDS GOODRICH OOLF COURSE AV~. PRICE: AV~. LOCATION 4 MAP Attachment2 -- PARK EDGE · -APARTMENTS .666c GLADSTONE Ri S m FIRE STATION "'" ~I SITE ~u:.',.~ ' (~ 17 ~ ~__ ~ ~ ~YAN o~ ~ ~o :gl :~', ! I I i I Attachment 3 To Whom It May Concern, Club F.T.S. A Non-Profit Establishment Our intended use is to provide a safe, clean, alcohol-free environment for adults, where they can enjoy a cup of coffee or soda, socialize, play a game of pool or darts, listen to jukebox music, and not be subject to a drinking environment. Age requirements would be set for after 9:00 p.m. Our location would be in between a bakery and a senior citizen chemical dependency treatment center, which would help and complement all of our establishments. A place like this is needed to give adults in the community an alternative to the "bar scene". Our hours would be approximately: 4:00p.m.-lO:OOp.m.,Sun.- Thurs.; 4:00p.m.ol:OOa.m., Fri.-Sat. The entertainment would be two pool tables, two dartboards, and a Jukebox. There will be seating for approximately/oo occupants. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ron Michal~z Attachment 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ron Michaletz applied for a conditional use permit for a coffee shop in a BC(M) (business commercial modified) district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: GLADSTONE, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, BLOCK 7 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 17, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. '7 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction, renovations and improvements shall comply with the building code. 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year, unless the use is in operation and there have been no complaints or problems. In this event, the conditional use permit shall be reviewed again only if a problem arises. The hours of operation shall be: 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 4 p.m. to I a.m. Friday and Saturday. The city council may review these hours and make adjustments as warranted if there are complaints. o Before the city issues an occupancy certificate for this use, the property owner shall clean up the property behind the building, repair the canopy on the front of the building, replace the broken window pane on "Permanent Skin Art," install a 100 percent solid gate on the front of the trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Setback Variances, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Forest Products Northeast Comer of Highway 61 and County Road C April 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Conrad Solberg, of Forest Products, is proposing to build an 8,400-square-foot cabinet-shop building at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. Refer to the maps on pages 9-11. (This property includes a 40-foot-wide strip of wooded land on the east side of the frontage road. The applicant would not include this strip in his development. It would remain as is.) The proposed building would be constructed of decorative concrete block with cedar trim. Refer to the building elevations. Requests The applicant is requesting approval of the following: A 22-foot building setback variance from the Highway 61 right-of-way. The code requires a 30-foot setback. The proposed building would be placed at a setback ranging from eight to 20 feet. Refer to the letter on page 13. A seven-foot parking lot setback vadance from the frontage road right-of-way. The code requires a 15-foot setback. A comer of the proposed easterly parking lot would have an eight-foot setback. Refer to the letter on page 14. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build their building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. The nearest residential district is 100 feet to the westmthe center of Highway 61. (The nearest developable property in this residential district is 750 feet away.) 4. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans. DISCUSSION Setback VaHances This site is difficult to develop because of the triangular shape of the lot. This unique shape, along with a very wide highway boulevard (75 feet), provides a basis for variance approval. The typical boulevard width is 12 to 15 feet. The proposed building would end up with a setback from the highway shoulder of 83 feet. This is a much greater setback than would typically be provided. Staff also supports the proposed parking lot setback variance. The small point of parking lot that would encroach into the 15-foot setback by the frontage road would be insignificant. Staff would not support this reduction if the encroachment included the entire length of parking lot. Conditional Use Permit The intent of the code, which requires a CUP for buildings closer than 350 feet to a residential district, is to give the city an opportunity to require additional buffering to protect homeowners. In this case, the residential distdct near the proposed lot is the center of the highway right-of-way. The nearest developable residential land, furthermore, is 750 feet away. The proposed building would be about 200 feet from the nearest homes to the east and south. These homes, however, are on land planned and zoned for M-1 (light manufacturing). Because of the M-1 zoning, the code does not require a CUP for the proximity to these homes. The city council should consider methods like hours of operation, screening and light-glare control to protect these nearby residents from disturbances. Noise The applicant should make every attempt to keep machine noise to a minimum. Work should not be done with the doors open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. Building Design The proposed building would be attractive and would fit the character of this highway-frontage business location. Landscaping The proposed landscaping would be attractive. Staff's only suggestion, however, is that the three Black Hills Spruce trees proposed at the southwest corner of the building be switched with the nine Japanese Red Spirea shown at the southeast comer of the site. Spruce in this location would provide better screening for the homes on this side. Site Lights The applicant should provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture design. The lighting code requires a plan when near homes. The fixtures installed should be a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Shoreland Ordinance This property is within the Kohlman Lake shoreland boundary area. The code allows up to 50 percent impervious-surface coverage, if the applicant provides an on-site method for reducing storm water flow or provides for the treatment of runoff. The applicant is proposing a holding pond at the north end of the site to satisfy this requirement. In 1998, when we reviewed the Delavari convenience store proposal, the planning commission raised a question about compliance with the land coverage requirements in the shoreland ordinance. As mentioned, the ordinance allows the developer to cover 50 percent of their land if they provide a storm-water management control method. The ordinance states, though, that the 2 impervious surface area limits shall be determined using the total developable area of the parcel (above the ordinary high-water level and suitable for development), exclusive of streets and sidewalks. The planning commission felt that the 40-foot-wide stdp of land east of the frontage road is not developable due to setback constraints---it should not, therefore, be considered part of the site. Staff has taken a different interpretation in that the "developable area" constraint refers to land that is undevelopable because it is below the ordinary high-water level and, consequently, undevelopable. All lots have portions that could be deemed undevelopable because of setback requirements. Staff does not believe this is the intent of the ordinance. The city should not permit this 40-foot stdp to be split away from the main parcel since the development on the proposed site would then total 55 percent impervious-surface coverage. As proposed, there would be 42 percent coverage because the 10,311-square-foot stdp east of the frontage road is part of the total property square footage. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 15 approving a 22-foot building setback vadance from the Highway 61 right-of-way and a seven-foot parking lot setback variance from the frontage road right-of-way. The code requires 30 feet and 15 feet. These variances are based on the following findings: Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of the unusual triangular-shaped lot. The lot shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its tapered shape. 2. Approval of the building setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard. Approval of the parking lot setback variance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance because only a point of the parking lot would encroach into the setback area. Bo Adopt the resolution on pages 16--17 approving a conditional use permit to build a cabinet shop that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district at the northeast comer of Highway 61 and County Road C. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance 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 city shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met. o Work should not be done with the doors open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. Approve the plans date-stamped March 15, 2000 for the proposed Forest Products cabinet shop at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. The owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: a. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. An oil skimming device shall be included at the outlet of the holding pond. b. Revised plans showing: (1) ^ handicap-parking space that is eight feet wide with an adjacent eight-foot-wide loading space. (2) Switching the three Black Hills Spruce at the southwest comer of the building with the nine Japanese Red Spirea at the southeast corner of the site. (3) A site lighting plan showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the residents. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space. c. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost part of the building. Roof-top equipment must be screened from view from the homes to the south and east if the roof design does not provide adequate screening. d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. e. Stripe all customer parking spaces at a width of 9 % feet and the employee spaces at nine feet. 4o If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks 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. Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for sign permits with staff. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 23 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received these two replies: 1. I think this would be a good business for this area and would have a small impact on the neighborhood. (Leonard, 2627 Duluth Street) o Who the heck wants a manufacturing business there?!! If the city has previously declined a gas/convenience store, then why approve any other type of business? Absolutely not! Why doesn't the city clean it up and simply make it a "beautiful space" making a small park? (Bertelsen, 2631 Duluth Street) 3. No objections. (Genereux, 2633 Duluth Street) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 33,708 square feet (proposed site) with 10,311 square feet east of the frontage road to be left undeveloped. Total land area is 44,019 square feet (one acre). Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Highway 61 South: County Road C and Lakeview Lutheran Church West: Highway 61 - west of the highway is undeveloped property East: Frontage road and single dwellings PAST ACTIONS March 30, 1998: The city council denied the following requests by Ali Delavari to develop a convenience store with gas sales on this site: 1. A variance to build a major motor fuel station closer than 350 feet to a residentially-planned property line. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build a fuel station and car wash. Mr. Delavari later lost in court in an attempt to overturn the council's action. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 Zoning: M-1 Code Requirements Section 36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. Section 36-28(c)(6)(a) requires that buildings have at least a 30 foot setback from street right-of-way. Section 36-(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots have at least a 15 foot setback from street right-of-way. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 16-17. Application Date We received this application on March 15, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by May 15, 2000. p:sec4\forest.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevation Reductions 5. Variance Request Letter dated March 16, 2000 6. Conditional Use Permit Letter dated March 20, 2000 7. Variance Resolution 8. CUP Resolution 9. Building Elevations date-stamped March 15, 2000 (separate attachments) 8 Attachment 1 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 0 AVE AVE. AY. ('~) CHAMe~S SHERREN Aa:. K~.~__.~ LOCATION 9 MAP Attachment 2 F (mmmmmmmmmmmm / ANGUS MEATS 2694 I I TIMBER & TURF NORTH STAR . AUTO BODY & · STANDARD R1 / ~"~ PROPOSED SITE'"~' ~ L~LI215~ 1227 J~-~".COUNTY R~ AD C ,.;~, , ~~~" ~ '~ 7 - ~ ~-~ - "' .~ .... ', "~ ,, ~' ~ ~¢~: ~" I'~ ~ ,~ ~1210~1216 1 ~KEVlEW '"ELECTRIC~ - m m J.' LUTHERAN -~"~('.-'--- - 1 / h KLINE AUTO WORLD! m ~ '-(~." , / · L. ,------'-' ........ I ,o . Attachment 3 SITE PLAN 11 Attachment 4 03/16(00 15:56 FA/: 6124737058 ~STEI~R D£V~LOPHF. uYI' INC. 1~'002 Attachment $Ieiner Development, Inc. 3610 County Road i01 Wayzata, MN 5-=g391 (612) 473-5650 Fax 473-7(:)58 lVlarcl~ 16, 2000 Tom Bkstrand Associate Planner City of Msplewood I830 Co,tory P, oad Maplewood IVLN 5~ ~ 09 Re: Forest Products Variance Dear Tom: hl conjunction with the Sitc Plan rcvlew process wc are requesting set back v~iances for the Forest Products project. The need for a variance is unique to the size shape and location of the site. The site totals ~4,019 SF but duc to roadvay easements only 33,?08 SF in a triangular shape is suitable to bc built on. In addition the triangular site is isola~ecl from surroundinl buildings and nclihbors by Highway 61 on thc west and north, Maplewood Drive on the east and County Koad C on the south. The 8,400 SF proposed officc warehouse building has a relatively low FAI~ (Floor Area Ratio) of 19% compared to normal metro area standards 0£30%..Bven this relative small buildin~ wi~ it's parking requirmncnts of 14 spaces docs not fit on ~he sim without encroaching into thc building axed parking setbacks. h was determined with stall' that die most benign encroachment would be on th~ tI~hway 61 - west botmdary. This encroachment does not impact any neighboring buildings and is miti~ated by the large right or'way with in thc Hishway dl corridor. This encroachment varies from 10 - 22 1~ Into thc 30 FT setback, while still providin~ approximately a 70 FT set back fi'om r~e Highway 61 cast edge. In addition on the east property line there is an approximate 70 SF (.04% or' the total parking area) parkin8 a~ea encroachment into the 15 irT par'ki~ setback. This encroach.m~t allows two parklllg spaces to have thc proper The variances do not alter the character of the site or n~ighborhood do to thc unique free standard nature of the site combined with relatively ,~i,,;,~l encroachments. We appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, 13 ~,/ o~/zo/oo 15:30 F.~,I 8124737058 STEINER DEVELOPIJENT INC. ~'002/002 Steiner Development, Inc. 3610 C0unt7 Road 101 wayzata, MN 5~-~91 (612) 473-5650 Fax 473-7058 M=ch 20, 2000 Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner City of Maplcwood 1830 County Road Maplewood MN Attachment 6 Re: Forest Produc~ Conditional Use Permit Dear Tom: In conjunction with th~ Site Plan review process we are requesting a Conditional Usc Pcrmi: for the Fox, st Producm Project. The site is zoned M-1 I..i~ht Industrial, but do to residential with/n 350 £cct a Conditional Use Permit is required. Thc surrounding residential is separated to the east by Maplewood Drive and a 10.311 SF out lot ~'een area. The 8,400 SIr proposed o~ce warehouse building has a rchtivcly low BAR (£1oor Axea P~tio) of 19% and th/z relative small building with it's parking requiremeots of 14 spaces should meet thc crit~da of approval of a Conditional Usc Permit. It was determined with stall' that the proposed building does meet the City's comprehcmive phn. it will not change the character or'the surround/rig area and the project should improve property values. For~cst Products will operate a wood working shop, which will have limited retail cuftomcrs in Ihe range of one to four customers per hour. Service vehicles will be panel/flat bed trucks that should average one trip a day. The p~mry us~ will be a wood working shop, wood storage and show room space. This usc w/ll ~ot be h,~zardous, a nuisance, create excessive pollution or be un,sightly. Site access i~ to bc lirnitcd to one curb cut on Maplewood Drive that should provide minin~al traffic on local streets and will not create traffic congestion or unsafe conditionz. Thc site plan indicates substantial landscaping around thc buildin~ and an effort wi]} be made to save the larger existing uccs on the propcrty lines and in the existing road right of way, The proposed project cltlci~ntiy utilizes c~ci.stin$ city services and does not create any additional public costs. W~ appreciate your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, ~ Vice Pr~sid~n~ ~ 14 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Conrad Solberg, of Forest Products, applied for a 22-foot building setback variance to build a cabinet-shop building eight feet from the Highway 61 right-of-way and a seven-foot parking lot setback variance to build a comer of a parking lot eight feet from the frontage road right-of-way. WHEREAS, these variances apply to the undeveloped property at the northeast comer of Highway 61 and County Road C. The legal description is: THE EAST 150 FEET OF THE WEST 394.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 316.30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22; ALSO THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 349.31 FEET OF THE WEST 199.54 FEET AT SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE ORIGINAL CENTER LINE OF WHITE BEAR LAKE ROAD. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(5 and 6) requires that buildings be set back 30 feet from street right-of-way and that parking lots be set back 15 feet from street right-of-way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing that their building have an eight foot setback and that their parking lot also have an eight foot setback at one point. WHEREAS, this requires variances of 22 feet and seven feet. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On , the planning commission recommended that the city council these vadances. The city council held a public hearing on 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 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 variances since: Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of the unusual triangular-shaped lot. The lot shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its tapered shape. 2. Approval of the building setback vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard. Approval of the parking lot setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because only a point of the parking lot would encroach into the setback area. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 15 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Conrad Solberg, of Forest Products, applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building closer than 350 feet to property zoned for residential. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property at the northeast comer of Highway 61 and County Road C. The legal description is: THE EAST 150 FEET OF THE WEST 394.54 FEET OF THE SOUTH 316.30 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22; ALSO THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 349.31 FEET OF THE WEST 199.54 FEET AT SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE ORIGINAL CENTER LINE OF WHITE BEAR LAKE ROAD. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On , the planning commission recommended that the city council the conditional use permit for the proposed building placement. The city council held a public hearing on 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 conditional use permit, because: the above-described 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 16 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. 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 shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met. 5. Work should not be done with the doors open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. 6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on