Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2000BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 5, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. May 1, 2000 b. May 15, 2000 5. New Business a. Zoning Code Change - Business Commercial (BC) Zoning District b. Zoning Code Change - Limited Business Commercial (LBC) Zoning District 6. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. June 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina c. June 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson Staff Presentations a. Reschedule July 3 Meeting? 9. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING O.1= 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: o 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 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Milo Thompson Present Dale Trippler Present III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Ayes--all Commissioner Thompson seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 3, 2000 Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of April 3, 2000, as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. The motion passed. April 17, 2000 Ayes--Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler Abstain--Frost Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of April 17, 2000, as submitted. Commissioner Thompson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler Abstain--Pearson Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 -2- V. NEW BUSINESS A. Sprint PCS Telecommunications Monopole Conditional Use Permit (2500 Hudson Place) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts said the correct street is Hudson Place. Commissioner Trippler asked if it was staff's interpretation, based on the 1996 telecommunications act or a ruling that the city was involved in, that the applicant does not have to demonstrate a need for this tower. Mr. Roberts conceded that this was conceivable but not likely. He said other avenues were checked for antenna location, including 3M, the McKnight water tower and Holiday tnn, but these sites did not meet Sprint's needs. Commissioner Trippler asked if Sprint specifically required a pole and how they showed this requisite. Mr. Roberts said the applicant only stated that they needed an "antenna facility in this location." He said the copies of reports from Sprint's field engineers indicated that the other sites would not be adequate. Commissioner Trippler felt the applicant wanted a pole in this neighborhood and, after looking at various sites, chose this one. He didn't feel that this told him how they arrived at the decision that there was a need for the monopole at this location. Commissioner Frost asked what options the planning commission and the city council have, based on the 1996 law and Maplewood's ordinance. Mr. Roberts said there were "very few, if any" options. Commissioner Pearson asked about the failure rate of towers in the event of storms, etc. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the only incident she heard of was during Hurricane Andrew one tower "crinkled" a small amount. Commissioner Ledvina asked about collocation. Mr. Roberts said Sprint determined that there was not a pole in this vicinity that would meet their needs. He pointed out that these installations were very expensive and didn't think a company would incur that expense if it wasn't necessary. Commissioner Tdppler wondered about church property as a preferred candidate for these conditional use permits in relation to other sites. Mr. Roberts said the #1 preferred site is industrial/commercial. Commissioner Mueller questioned the possibility of these towers causing health problems for nearby residents or interfering with other wireless technology. Mr. Roberts answered that he has not seen any news publications that would indicate a health-related issue. He said that 3M and U.S. West did some testing, in relation to a request a few years ago for a tower by the 3M property, and found no interference. Mr. Roberts felt that 3M did not want the tower on their site because they did not need the revenue nor want the security issues. Brian Barrett was present representing Sprint PCS. He said their first choices for antenna location on existing structures in the area did not fill the requirements of their engineers. According to Mr. Barrett, they are building a 75-foot tower with a capability to reach 100 feet to allow for cotlocation. This is at the request of Mr. Roberts. The monopole will not be lit, will not emit any noise or vibrations, and will be covered by a mature growth of trees. Mr. Barrett said there will be additional plantings to screen the equipment. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Barrett for his opinion on the economic impact if such a tower was placed in his neighborhood. Commissioner Rossbach felt questions about whether a 30- foot tree would hide a 75-foot tower and economic impact were inappropriate. Commissioner Trippler responded that one of the criteria for conditional use permit approval was that the use would not deteriorate property values. Mr. Rossbach said no reports indicate that these towers diminish "property values anywhere across the country." Ms. Coleman referred to the previous tower proposal at another location, about which Maplewood was taken to court, and said testimony was given by a real estate appraiser who felt the property" would be impacted negatively by the tower." This statement was struck by the judge who determined that it was inappropriate for the city to make findings based on this. Mr. Trippler asked if it was Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 -3- inappropriate to question 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 of the conditional use permit criteria. He felt it was useless to have the hearings for a monopole if nothing could be done. Ms. Coleman~believed that this was basically what the commission is ~required to do based on what the federal and district courts have indicated. Ms. Coleman said that some of these issues are very complex and many times county and state courts and federal laws impact and supersede the city's rights. Jean Ashley, 2466 Brookview Drive, described her neighborhood. She said they are requesting two things: 1) move the monopole as far north as possible on the site, and 2) keep the monopole at the 70 feet as originally stated in the letter to the residents. Ms. Ashley felt describing the pole as "diminutive" was a misnomer because "this will be the largest facility of poles on a church in Maplewood." She referred to an antenna located at another church that had "two hummers" and contended that they "do hum." She said this pole will have "three hummers." Commissioner Rossbach asked Ms. Ashley if she had considered the possibility of other poles being placed in this vicinity, even on this same site. Ms. Ashely said they have talked about this and decided there was no other site available and it was unlikely that the church would allow another pole. Mr. Rossbach pointed out that people have "complained vehemently" at every location. He thought Ms. Ashley's requests were "very reasonable." Ms. Ashley showed pictures of various monopoles. Mr. Barrett commented that Sprint's equipment does not hum. Robert Schlenz, a registered professional engineer and employee of 3M, said he came to speak about the impact that this facility could possibly have on their equipment. He was present as a representative of 3M. He said their interest had to do with the "size signal" that reaches 3M equipment from the telecommunication transmitters. Mr. Schlenz was concerned that, if this monopole is constructed as planned, 3M be notified of any changes so they can take necessary steps to protect their laboratories. He said they declined to have this tower located on their property because of its closeness-- signal strengths get smaller as the equipment is located further away. According to Mr. Schlenz, these towers emit approximately a 1900 megaherz signal. If this tower is moved further north on the site, 3M would like to know the amount of power that is going to be transmitted, the kind of antenna, and the modulation that is involved. Mr. Schlenz said the way the antennas were aimed was more crucial than the placement of the pole on the site. Mr. Barrett noted that 3M is actually one of the areas that is requesting this facility. Terry Degraw, chairman of the board of trustees at Christ United Methodist Church, said he has been working on the lease agreement. He said the humming sound comes from a fan unit or air conditioning unit that is used to cool the electrical load that runs the antenna. Mr. Degraw favored moving the antenna to the north. He said he was "kind of shocked" to find out that the tower could go 100-feet-high and the lease agreement was for 75 feet. Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Barrett's opinion about moving the pole further north on the site. Mr. Barrett said it made no difference to them. Mr. Roberts was concerned that moving the pole 30 feet from the northern property line would make it more visible from the houses to the northeast of the church. He said the location choice was picked in order to increase the distance from the homes on Brookview, as well as working with the trees in the area and using the church building as a screen for the Sterling Street homes. Commissioner Thompson thought the community design review board "would have an obligation to be as thoughtful" with shrubbery, etc. Various options for placement of the monopole on the church property were discussed. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 75-foot- tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 2500 Hudson Place. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plans dated April 26, 2000, with the following changes to the location of the pole: the pole shall be located as far north on the property as possible, still being functional for Sprint's uses for communications and incorporating the existing trees and the church property by the northwest corner of their parking lot to help hide the pole. Sprint should still look at installing additional trees and shrubs, placed to block the view as much as possible of the pole from the houses on Sterling Avenue. 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Ledvina asked if there was a concern about collocation because the motion is to reduce the height of the pole. Commissioner Rossbach had no objection to collocation as long as it could be done with a 75-foot monopole. Mr. Rossbach commended the area residents for their ability to "pull its thoughts together into something cohesive" instead of just appearing at the planning commission meeting to object to the monopole. Commissioner Frost assumed that 3M and Sprint would get together to work out the technical specifications of the installation. Mr. Barrett said that typically another carrier can collocate on a 75-foot pole. A pole has to be designed specifically to extend beyond 75 feet and the size of the foundation would need to be increased. There was discussion about the need for another tower in this area and whether the tower should be built with the capability of extending to 100 feet to allow for more collocation. Staff confirmed that, if the monopole was designed so that it could go up to 100 feet but only approved for 75 feet at this time, additional city approval would be needed to allow use of the 100-foot tower. Commissioner Ledvina made a friendly amendment to include: 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. Mr. Roberts pointed out that this item did not address height, only co-location. Chairperson Fischer said this would only be allowed within the 75-foot limit. Commissioner Rossbach accepted the amendment. Commissioner Frost clarified that the motion was that the facility be designed to be able to go to 100 feet, but only currently approve it for 75 feet. If it does go higher than 75 feet, another public hearing will be required. Commissioner Rossbach asked that the minutes of this meeting reflect that the intent was that the monopole would not be raised to 100 feet unless the neighborhood thought this was the best choice at the time. This was not a part of the motion but only thoughts of some commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 The motion passed. -5- Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossvach, Thompson Nays--Trippler Commissioner Trippler stated that he voted against this application because he saw no evidence to show that "this request would not violate Conditions 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 of this conditional use permit resolution." Commissioner Trippler made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the city of Maplewood that they not submit to the commission any further requests for siting any further monopoles since the commission apparently has no authority to approve or disapprove the request. He said this was a total waste of the commissioners' time. Commissioner Rossbach noted that conditional use permits allow uses with conditions but do not allow the commission to stop things from happening. The motion died because there was no second. Carver Elementary School Conditional Use Permit Revision (2680 Upper Afton Road) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the parks and recreation director for Maplewood had reviewed this proposal. Mr. Roberts confirmed that he had and was supportive of the new location. He said the director wanted to make sure that the fields were available for T-ball. According to Mr. Roberts, the police also commented on the proposal. Lt. John Bannick, the supervisor for this south district, said it would improve the safety of the users, increase visibility and improve emergency vehicle access. He was concerned about the loss of future parking area and potential noise from the outdoor basketball court. Commissioner Thompson felt that any additional parking would be a barrier between the school and the playground and would compromise the safety of the children during the school year. Commissioner Trippler asked if anyone had considered rotating the proposed relocated play area 90 degrees counterclockwise. Mark Hayes, of ATS&R Architects, was present. He thought the idea to relocate the play area came from the school principal. Relocation would allow better visibility from the school of what is happening in the play area. Mr. Hayes said that the future parking, referred to in the comments, has already occurred and is the parking provided on the east. He thought 20 parking spaces could be put on the south side of where the play area is currently being proposed. Then the parking would be between the play area and the school. Mr. Hayes suggested looking at additional parking at the time more classrooms or gym space were added. He said the existing soft play area with the pea gravel would be relocated but the existing hard- paved play area at the south side of the building would be kept. Mr. Hayes felt that moving the play equipment to the northwest corner eliminates the need for anyone to be back in the old play area. He thought the basketball backstops would remain in this area. Commissioner Pearson thought this was reason for the problems. Commissioner Mueller was concerned about the durability of the four-foot plastic, vinyl-coated, chainlink fence. He also questioned if there was a way to make the path from the playground to the school obvious. Mr. Roberts thought there might be several monitors on the school site to ensure that the path is used. Commissioner Rossbach commented that chainlink fence is "probably the most durable fence" that could be installed here. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 -6- Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which amends the conditional use permit for playground and play area changes at Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton Road. Approval of this permit amendment is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the plans for building the 1995 building expansion stamped January 18, 1995 and the utility, grading and erosion control plans stamped March 9, 1995. The parking lot expansion shall follow the plans stamped August 14, 1998. The proposed storage room addition, folding-door enclosure addition and loading dock platform expansion shall follow the plans stamped February 19, 1999. The proposed play area relocation shall follow the plans date-stamped April 14, 2000. subject to the applicant providing city staff with a proof of parking plan for the site that shows at least 20 additional parking spaces. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The olay area relocation three ....... : ......... '- must be started within one year after ~il ~pprov~l or th~ p~rmit ~m~ndm~nt ~h~ll ~nd. Th~ ~oundl m~ ~xt~nd thi~ d~dlin~ for one y~r. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Nays--Thompson VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. There were no visitor presentations. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS April 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler will attend this meeting. May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller will attend this meeting. Commissioner Rossbach reported on a seminar he attended where the speaker advocated using narrower streets and a mix of housing to increase density. The speaker also discussed whether cities were helping or hindering themselves with regulations. Chairperson Fischer mentioned a planning workshop on May 17 in Brooklyn Center on advanced zoning applications. IX. Xo Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-00 STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. -7- Set Summer Tour Date--July 31, 2000 Ken Roberts, associate planner, said this date was selected because it was a fifth Monday. There were no objections from any of the commissioners so Mr. Roberts said he would begin planning the tour. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 15, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Rossbach requested the addition of 8.d. Mr. Seeber. This amendment was agreeable to Mr. Frost and Mr. Pearson. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ao 2001--2005 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan Ken Roberts spoke about the capital improvement plan. Ken Haider, the acting city manager, and Dan Faust, the finance director, primarily compiled the plan and were at the meeting to give a presentation and answer questions. There were technical difficulties and, therefore, they were unable to show a video about the plan. Commissioner Frost asked about the proposed projects in the Maplewood Heights area. Mr. Haider confirmed that both sides of McKnight Road and the streets south of Lydia in the Tilsen development are included in the project. Commissioner Rossbach thought the section on undeveloped land (pages 1-16) should be changed to read "in addition to commercial development in this area." He said the city was not necessarily looking at retail development in this area. Commissioner Rossbach questioned why the new bridge being proposed over Highway 36 at Hazelwood Street is thought to be a project which is in line with the land use plan. Ken Haider said the intent was to "connect the city again on a street that was an actual Maplewood street." Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -2- He was "surprised there hasn't been more debate about this." Mr. Rossbach did not see this project as being consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Plan. Chairperson Fischer preferred waiting to see a video presentation of the plan. Commissioner Trippler felt the criteria for choosing the projects didn't seem clear. He remarked on the condition of English Street north of Frost Avenue, which is in poor condition but not included in the plan, as opposed to Hazelwood Street which is in relatively good condition and included in the plan. Mr. Haider explained that residents of the English Street neighborhood met with city staff last year. The consensus of those attending the meetings was that they wanted no improvement to the street. Mr. Haider contended that, unless he brings support from the neighborhood to the public hearing at the city council meeting, there is not a "whole lot of sense in me bringing up an improvement to the city council." Mr. Trippler said he lives a block and a half off English Street and did not get a notice. Mr. Haider replied that they contacted those people who were directly adjacent to English Street and would bear the brunt of the assessments for the project. Commissioner Rossbach was comfortable with the improvement plan but would like to see the video at some future time. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ao Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue): Comprehensive Plan Change--M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Zoning Map Change-M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings; Lot-Area and Lot-Width Variances; and Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, summarized the staff report. Commissioner Frost asked how the city ensures that the drainage plan, which the applicant submits, works as proposed. Ken Haider, city engineer, said many grading inspections are done to make sure the water goes where it is planned to go. However, the city does not "as built" the site where survey measurements are taken. Commissioner Trippler asked the city engineer to address specific aspects of the drainage plan. Mr. Haider explained that D.2.c.(3) was basically saying "when the developer of the Dearborn site establishes the sanitary sewer, they must run an extension to the east property line so that there is access for the property to the east--that undeveloped property." This property to the east is not owned by the City of Maplewood. Mr. Haider said the same applies for storm sewer as identified in a previous condition. He thought the information provided by the developer's engineer addressed the drainage issue, in the city's opinion, from a "qualitative perspective as opposed to a quantitative perspective." Mr. Haider said the city was not sure that all the areas and the analysis were exactly accurate but they are representative of the situation in this development. Mr. Haider explained that a significant area that now drains south and west through this site will be intercepted by the roadway that is proposed as part of this project. Everything east of the roadway will be picked up by a 27-inch storm sewer that this project will connect into. He said that "some of the back ends" of the proposed project will drain to the west and south as they currently do, but the area is "significantly decreased." Therefore, it is the city's opinion that the Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -3- drainage situation will be improved. Before final engineering drawings are approved, the city will want more definitive information from the designer as to how "they came up with these things." Commissioner Trippler thought the driveways, on the house in the northwest corner, that lead out to Castle Street could be in a dangerous location because of limited visibility. The road drops off and curves. He felt it would be better to rotate this unit so that the drives exited to the road within the project. Mr. Roberts said the developer considered this but felt the unit would be getting too close to the wetland. He suggested that the community design review board require driveway turnarounds on this building so it wouldn't be necessary to back out onto Castle Avenue. Commissioner Thompson asked about the discrepancy in classifying the wetlands. Mr. Roberts did not know why it was called a Type II on the plans. He thought it could have been a Type II in a different criteria. Mr. Roberts said it is a Class V by Maplewood ordinance. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the rear yard setback would be in an R-2 zone as opposed to what would be required in an M-1. Mr. Roberts said, in an M-1 (depending on the wall size of the building), the setback would be at least 50 feet up to 100 feet if it is adjacent to residential. In the R-2, it is 20 percent of the lot depth of each townhouse. Mr. Rossbach said the problem he had with this plan is that he thought it "imposes too heavy of an aesthetic burden on the existing neighborhood in that these buildings are too close to the existing houses that are on Cope." He also noted that they sit uphill from the Cope Avenue houses so they will be "big and imposing." Mr. Rossbach referred to the large commercial building that was constructed on Cope Avenue, east of English Street. He felt that allowing this building to be built so close to single-family homes was an error. Mr. Rossbach emphasized that he had no objection to this development being R-2 and no objection if a bigger building was put on this lot. He summarized by saying this "was too big an imposition on the existing neighborhood." Commissioner Frost felt the only issue was that the intent was to have another street between Castle and Cope Avenues (which was vacated at some time). He was satisfied with the drainage issues. Commission Thompson complimented Bill Priebe of the Engineering Department. He said Mr. Priebe "knew every manhole, every catch basin" and he hoped the community appreciated his expertise. Mr. Rossbach rebutted Mr. Frost's comments about the vacated street. He said "we are not comparing where the street is now, we are comparing that it is currently M-1 and that will be under certain standards which would restrict the building's closeness to certain houses on Cope." Rich VanSickle, who worked with Mike Ackerman on this project, was present. He pointed out that they had been working with staff on the drainage and felt the commission was satisfied that the drainage will be improved when the project is built. Mr. VanSickle noted that having this density, which is less than would be allowed under R-2, satisfies some of the Met Council goals. He didn't think the project would be too appealing for families with children because of the single-level floor plans and association taking care of ground maintenance. There were no questions for the applicant. Charles Themmes, 1928 Castle Avenue, claimed that every project that has taken place in this neighborhood during his 40 years of residency has turned into a "nightmare." He contended that Ariel Street down was a "natural runoff" and shouldn't be interfered with. Mr. Themmes was also against this project because of the traffic situation on Castle Avenue. He said that, in spite of what the engineers say, the water cannot be made to run back up the hill and the result of this project will be drainage problems for the three houses near the nursing home. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -4- Commissioner Thompson said there are two intakes to a storm sewer to alleviate some of the ponding problem. Mr. Themmes acknowledged that this does help somewhat when it is not plugged. Richard Oie, 1937 Cope Avenue East, was concerned that the setbacks on the back sides of the homes on the south end of the project were very close to the back of the houses facing Cope Avenue. He said headlights would shine on the homes to the east of his. Mr. Oie did not want a drainage way across his yard. The ground north of his property is about three feet higher than his basement floor. Mr. Oie said he has lived here for ten years and never had water in the basement until the two houses were built to the east of his residence. He maintained that the R-2 was put in as a buffer zone to go from R-1 to M-1. Since there is no longer M-l, Mr. Oie felt these homes should be single family. He said he would prefer M-1 zoning because a commercial facility would shut down for the weekend and evenings. Jim Oswald, 1948 Cope Avenue, questioned why ten units should be put on this site. He advocated single-family homes. Mr. Oswald also mentioned the increase in traffic from this many homes. Commissioner Thompson said that the 2.11 acres in this development would qualify for 7.65 single-family homes. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that even though there was this much acreage, there was not street frontage so it would only be possible to put in four houses to front on Castle. Chairperson Fischer asked staff about attempts to control the water problems in this area. Mr. Haider said there was a drainage swale that came down through these back yards from Ariel Street. A storm sewer project with additional capacity was added after the nursing home was built. He claimed that years of flooding, septic systems and drainfields in this area caused the land to take a long time to dry out. Mr. Haider said it was thought that the city-owned lot on Cope Avenue, between 1937 and 1949, would be filled and sold at some time. Because the homes on both sides of this lot were built Iow, he now feels that this lot will remain vacant to receive localized drainage. Mr. Haider said an option at this time is to clean up this lot and create a sump with some stone or rock in an area in the lowest part of the lot. There would then be a convenient place to put a pump if it was needed. Mr. Haider also said the city would like to put in a little storm sewer pipe but this would require tearing up Cope Avenue which is a relatively new street. Commissioner Tdppler observed that it looked like about four feet of elevation difference between the house on Cope and the elevations of the end of the proposed street. He asked what accommodations would be made to alleviate the problem of headlights. Mr. Roberts said the developed planned to install a six-foot-tall privacy fence along the south line of the site. Commissioner Ledvina thought the development seemed "just too packed in" and would not support the project. Commissioner Thompson asked if the developer would be agreeable to a time extension to work out some of these issues. Rich VanSickle said he was not authorized by the developer to agree to an extension. He also wasn't sure what issues some additional time would resolve. Commissioner Frost suggested voting on a motion, taking the proposal to the city council, and then the applicant could consider his options after that. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Approve the resolution which 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: Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -5- 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. Bo Approve the resolution which changes the zoning map 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 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. C. Approve the resolution which approves lot area and lot width variances for each lot in Dearborn Meadow. The city is approving these variances because: 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 variance for the Holloway Pond Town House developments at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. D. 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 guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -6- 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 shalFbe subject to the city engineer's approval. 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 plar~ 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. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development run off. 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) Design of the sanitary sewer allowing for the unrestricted access to the sanitary sewer in the development from the undeveloped properties adjacent to the site Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -7- (primarily to the east). 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 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. Provide easements to allow for unrestricted access to the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main in the development from the undeveloped parcel to the east. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. o 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. 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. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Chairperson Fischer chose to call for a separate vote on each request. She asked for a vote on the comprehensive plan change from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Thompson Nay--Rossbach Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -8- Ms. Fischer asked for a vote on changing the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Thompson Nay--Rossbach Ms. Fischer then called for a vote on the lot-area and lot-width variances. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Muller, Pearson, Thompson Nays--Rossbach, Trippler A vote was taken on the preliminary plat. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Mueller, Thompson Nays--Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion failed. Commissioner Ledvina said his concerns were that the two southerly units would be "in conflict" with the existing houses and the buildings in the development were "too tightly laid out." Commissioner Pearson also thought it was "too intense a plan for the amount of area." In addition, he was concerned about the drainage. Commissioner Trippler thought "it was cramming too much in too small an area." Commissioner Rossbach said the majority of his concerns had been stated but he "agreed most" with Mr. Ledvina's thoughts. He said if it wasn't for the way the rear two buildings at the south end were located, he would not have as much problem with the proposal. Mr. Rossbach advocated combining units closer together so that there is more open space on the property and "a smaller footprint of buildings." B. White Bear Corridor Study Melinda Coleman, director of community development, referred to the final copy of the White Bear study that was included in the agenda packets. She asked the commission to look for possible implementation steps that can be drawn from the study and incorporated in the review process. Ms. Coleman identified six or seven elements of the study that she thought should be considered. She requested the commissioners to think about the possible use of banners, particularly in the mall area. Ms. Coleman thought gateways could be used in the vicinity of 1-694 and White Bear Avenue and at Highway 36 and White Bear. As an outcome of this study, Ms. Coleman said the city will be working with the property owner of the large parcel by the Maplewood Mall to prepare a request for proposal to "test the market" in an effort to determine what type of interest there is for development of this parcel. She asked the commission to consider whether neighborhood input should be solicited. Commissioner Frost noted that the area west of the Maplewood Mall, near Highway 61 at County Road D, needs to be considered further. Ken Haider, city engineer, suggested connecting the freeway off ramp to County Road D. He described this intersection. Mr. Haider said they envision merging the freeway ramps and County Road D together on either side of Highway 61 so that the ramp would come off on to County Road D and merge to create one intersection at Highway 61, then cross Highway 61 and diverge---one section of the road going Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -9- up to the ramp to enter 1-694 and the other go easterly to become County Road D again. At some point, Mr. Haider said the bridge would need to be replaced, hopefully with a pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Rossbach thought it was a good idea to look at signage to improve our ordinance. Mr. Rossbach and Ms. Coleman discussed the study done by the Maxfield Group that supported a blend of uses on the 80-acre site located northwest of the Maplewood Mall. Mr. Rossbach expressed a deep concern about the thought of additional development without another access route to the mall. Commissioner Thompson addressed signage and emphasized that "the southern portion has to get to where we are before they can go beyond that." There was additional discussion on transportation issues and signage. Based on the commission's discussion of the study, Ms. Coleman will compile a summary report of implementation ideas and bring it back to the commission for their review. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler reported on this meeting. B. May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller will attend this meeting. C. June 12 Council Meeting; Mr. Ledvina will attend this meeting. Commissioner Rossbach asked about Commissioner Seeber's intent in regard to his service on the planning commission. Mr. Rossbach also stated that he once heard it was a commissioner's job to protect the public from staff when reviewing development requests. Something about commissioner's job to protect public from staff??????? IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Zoning Code Change - Business Commercial (BC) District May 11, 2000 INTRODUCTION Request City staff is proposing a zoning code change about dwelling units in combination with business uses. This proposed change is in response to the city council's request from their meeting of May 8, 2000. Background On May 8, 2000, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) and the design plans for Thomas Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments, to build a 5,300 square-foot office/warehouse facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue. Part of Mr. Schaffhausen's request was to keep an existing house on the property for an employee to live in. The city council approved this request and directed city staff to prepare a zoning code change to clarify and tighten the code language about residences in commercial zoning districts. DISCUSSION Section 36-151 (a)(1) of the city code now 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 staff's interpretation that the city did not intend the code to allow an existing single family home to remain when there is new development. However, Mr. Schaffhausen 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. Staff proposes to change the code to clarify that any dwelling unit must be in the same building as the principal commercial use on the site. RECOMMENDATION Approve the code change on page two. This code change clarifies the use of dwelling units with business uses. p:ordbcresid.mem Attachment: 1. Code Amendment Resolution Attachment I , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CHANGING SECTION 36-15'1 (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes Sections 36-151( a )(1) as follows (additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): (1) ^ dwelling unit for one family when inside of or structurally connected to the principal buildin.q of in combln~-tlon '":'~' a business use. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2000. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays - MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Code Amendments - LBC District Regulations May 30, 2000 INTRODUCTION Request Robert J. Tillges, of Tillges Certified Orthotic Prosthetic Inc, is requesting that the city council amend the LBC (limited business commercial) district provisions to allow his business in a new location. This new location would be in an LBC (limited business commercial) district. The LBC requirements list only the following as permitted uses: offices, medical or health-related clinics and day care centers. Reason for the Request Mr. Tillges manufactures orthotics and prosthetics and fits the patient in his clinic. The office and clinic portions of his business meet the code--his lab for constructing orthotics and prosthetics would not meet the code. The code would consider this light manufacturing. Mr. Tillges is wishing to move from his current business location at 1983 Sloan Place to a building currently for sale at 1959 Sloan Place two lots to the south. Refer to the maps on pages 3-4 and his letter on page 5. This new location is zoned LBC where his lab would not be allowed by the code. At his current location, the St. Paul Business Center East, he is an allowed use. This business complex was approved as a planned unit development for office and industrial purposes. BACKGROUND May 14, 1984: The city council amended the LBC requirements. Prior to this amendment, only professional offices and other similar uses were allowed. Any proposals, in fact, had to go before the city council for assurance of compatibility with the neighborhood, much like today's conditional use permit review process. This 1984 amendment allowed medical or health-related clinics and day care centers and deleted the requirement for city council approval as long as the use complied with the code. DISCUSSION The intent of the LBC district is to prohibit commercially-intensive and nuisance-causing businesses next to single dwelling areas. Staff agrees with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, but also feels that it is somewhat restrictive. Mr. Tillges' business is essentially a medical clinic by outward appearance and is not disturbing or objectionable to neighbors. The lab for making orthotics and prosthetics, though technically a manufacturing operation, is not nuisance causing. Nobody would know that this activity is taking place. Staff feels that it is in the city's best interest to amend this ordinance in order to retain a desirable business in Maplewood. To ensure compatibility, staff recommends that the council amend the code to allow uses similar to those permitted if they are not noxious or hazardous. The city is currently using this language in the city code in the BC-M (business commercial- modified), SC (shopping center), BC (business commercial) and CO (commercial office) districts. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the code amendment on page 6. This amendment allows uses of a "similar" nature to those already permitted in the LBC (limited business commercial) district. p:ord\lbc.ord Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Letter from Robert J. Tillges dated May 8, 2000 4. Code Change 2 Attachment 1 ST. PAUL BUSINESS CENTER EAST (MR. TILLGES'CURRENT LOCATION) F~m~l AW~. 1959 SLOAN PLACE (MR. TILLGES' PROPOSED LOCATION) LOCATION3 MAP .1' Attachment 2 ST. PAUL 1~ ~! BUSINESS CENTER EAST I ~,11: '1 I MR. TILLGES' , CURRENT LOCATION~ ,~--~se.e ~ I- --' I FIRE STATION , ~ese SLOA~ PLACE ~ (MR. TILLGES' PROPOSED ~0 1967~ LOCATION "~ ~ HOSPITALI~ PARKSIDE ~ ~ MINNESOTA - St',p geco-<led ~ I - ~1 . ~, ~-,-~ ~, . , _. I!;~, (,,) .'~' ~ --., ~~ ~ ROSELAWN AVENUE: ~ B ~ ";= _. 11 . ~'. ~ ST. PAUL , BOARD OF REALTORS , Attachment 3 TILLGES CERTIFIED ORTHOTIC PROSTHETIC INC. May 8, 2000 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Tom: Thank you for the assistance you have provided as I pursue the possibility of purchasing the building at 1959 Sloan Place in Maplewood. Purchase of this building would provide space adequate to meet the current and future needs of my expanding business, and would allow me to continue my practice in a location familiar to my existing patients. The 1959 Sloan Place site is just two buildings from my current location. This letter is a formal request for a zoning code change for the property at1959 Sloan Place. Although the clinical and administrative aspects of our business are compatible with the current zoning, per our conversation the code presently excludes our lab in the proposed building. The design and fitting of orthotic and prosthetic devices is a highly- specialized medical profession. Our on-site lab enables us to design, develop, adjust and fit orthotic and prosthetic devices for our patients in a clinic setting. We have gone to considerable effort to insure that the lab environment is safe and comfortable. Please consider this request to revise the LBC ordinance to include my lab operation for orthotic/prosthetic construction. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions about this request, please call me at 772-2665. Sincerely, Robert J. Tillges, C.P.O. 1983 SLOAN PLACE · SUITE 7 · MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55117 · 651-772-2665 5 F ORDINANCE NO. Attachment 4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes Sections 36-154 as follows (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Section 36-154(a) Permitted Uses. Offices, medical or health-related clinics and day care centers. Uses similar to the above are allowed if they are not noxious or hazardous. Uses that are not clearly similar shall be reviewed by the city council for a determination of compatibility. Section 36-154(b) Reserved. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2000. Attest: City Clerk Ayes - Nays - Mayor