HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2000BOOk
1. Call to Order
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 19, 2000, 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
Public Hearing
a. Highpoint Ridge (County Road D and Highway 61)
1. Comprehensive plan changes:
R-1 (single dwellings), R-lS (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light
manufacturing) to R-3(M) (residential medium density)
- drop planned minor collector street
2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD)
3. Preliminary plat
4. No parking for one side of private streets and driveways
New Business
a. Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse Conditional Use Permit (1820 Van Dyke Street)
b. Amusement City Conditional Use Permit Revision (1870 Rice Street)
Unfinished Business
a. Zoning Code Change - Business Commercial (BC) Zoning District
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a, June 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina
b. June 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson
c. July 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach
9. Staff Presentations
10. Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING O.r: 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.
o
This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal.
Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and
then your comments.
o
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.
8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision.
All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council makes the final decision.
jw/pc~pcagd
Revised: 01/95
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Highpoint Ridge
South of County Road D, west of Highway 61
June 14, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Frank Frattalone, representing Frattalone Excavating, is proposing to develop a residential
planned unit development (PUD) called Highpoint Ridge. It would be on a 45-acre site on the
south side of County Road D, west of Highway 61. (Please see the maps starting on page 19.)
Requests
To build this project, Mr. Frattalone is requesting several city approvals including:
1. Changes to the comprehensive plan. These would be from I:{-1 (single dwellings), 13,-1S
(single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-3(M) (residential medium
density) for the site. (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 20 and 21 .)
The developer also is proposing that the city drop the planned minor collector street that
would go through the site from County Road D on the north to Highway 61 on the east.
2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 216-unit
housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the existing F (farm
residence), 13,-1 (single dwellings), 13,-1S (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light
manufacturing) zoning districts limit the uses to single dwellings in a typical or standard
subdivision or to commercial uses near Highway 61 in the M-1 zone. (See the property
line/zoning map on page 22.) As proposed, this project would have 34 single dwellings, 60
town houses and 122-units of apartments. Having a PUD gives the city and developer a
chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard
zoning requirements would normally allow. The F and M-1 zoning districts also do not
alioa~ twin hDmes, 't~a/n flDuses or other multiple dwellings.
3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the.enclosed maps on pages
23 through 26 and the enr. Josed project plans.)
4. Having no parking for one side of private streets and driveways.
BACKGROUND
Carey Addition
On July 13, 1998, the city council made several approvals for the Carey Addition. These included a
land use plan change and a zoning map change from R-1 (single dwellings) to 13,-15 (single
dwellings - small lot) for the north one-half of the plat and approval of the revised preliminary plat.
This proposal was for the property along Carey Heights Drive, south of County Road D. The plat
approval was subject to nine conditions.
Mining Permit
June 14, 1999: The City Council approved a revision to the mining operation conditional use permit
to allow the operation to continue until December 1, 2001.
DISCUSSION
Land Use Plan Changes
To build the proposed plat, Mr. Frattalone wants the city to change the land use plan for the site.
These changes would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential), R-1S (single dwellings - small lot)
and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-3(M ) (residential medium density) for the site. (See the existing
and proposed land use maps on pages 20 and 21.)
The city intends R-3(M) areas for a variety of housing including single dwellings, town houses or
apartments of up to six units per gross acre. For R-1 areas, the city intends to have primarily single
dwellings on 10,000 square-foot lots with a density of up to 4.1 units per gross acre. The city
intends R-I(S) areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings. For M-1 areas, the city
plans for offices, clinics, day care centers, retail businesses, warehousing and light manufacturing
operations. The developer also is proposing that the city drop the planned minor collector street
that would go through the site to connect County Road D on the north with Highway 61 on the
east.
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. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general
land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including:
· Provide for orderly development.
· Minimize conflicts between land uses.
· Provide a wide variety of housing types.
The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that
relate to this project. They include:
Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative
economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
YVhenever 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 men-made or natural barriers.
The city supports the improvement, replacement Dr redevelopment Df substandard or
incompatible development.
· The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each ~eighborhood.
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.
· Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate
buffering and separation.
The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should
consider with this development. They are:
- Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are
to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional
households.
- The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and
price ranges through its land use plan.
This is a good site for a mix of housing styles and densities. It is on a major arterial street
(Highway 61) and close to a minor collector street (Walter Street/Beam Avenue). The project
should be a good neighbor to the nearby homes. There would be single dwellings near most of
the existing single dwellings and the proposed town houses would be a transitional land use
between single dwellings and the proposed apartments near Highway 61. The city's long-term
stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so,
the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle
of housing needs.
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 single dwellings near the 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 216 units on the 45-acre site means there would be an average of 4.9 units per
gross acre. The proposed overall development density would be consistent with Maplewood's
medium density standards and with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan
Council for housing in first-ring suburbs. That is, they want to see residential development with at
least three units per gross acre.
Collector Street
As I noted earlier, the developer is proposing that the city drop a planned minor collector street
from the land use plan. This ~-eet would have connected County Road D with Highway 61. After
reviewing the area, the developer'dete~ that this street would not have worked well with the
site topogT-aphy, the poweflines and pipelines near the center of the site and the proposed street
pattem.
The existing land use plan shows Highway 61 as a major al'tefial street and Walter Street/Beam
Avenue as a collector street. These streets are designed and built to carry larger volumes of traffic
than the local or neighborhood streets. The proposed PUD has the main east/west street (Lydia
Avenue) intersecting with Highway 61 at the southeast corner of the site. (See the proposed
intersection detail on page 29.) This street layout should direct most of the traffic from this
development onto the highway (an arterial street) and not onto the local or neighborhood streets.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development
(PUD) for the 216-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP because the existing F
(farm residential) and M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning designations limit the land uses to single
dwellings and commercial (near the highway). As proposed, there would be a mix of single-family
homes, town houses and apartments in the PUD. The developer intends to sell all the lots for the
single dwellings and town houses while the apartments would be for rent.
As proposed, the 216 dwelling units would be on about 44.5 acres for an overall project density of
4.9 units per acre. For a comparison, the comprehensive plan allows developments with single
dwellings to have up to 4.1 units per gross acre. As such, on a 44.5 acre site, there could be up to
178 single-family homes.
Preliminary Plat
Density and Lot Size
As proposed, the single-family lots range from 15,000 square feet to 42,481 square feet with an
average lot size of about 23,000 square feet. The city requires each lot in the R-1 (single dwelling)
zoning district to have at least 75 feet of frontage and have at least 10,000 square feet. All of the
proposed single dwelling lots would meet or exceed the city's R-1 zoning standards.
Block 3 on the north part of the site would have 36 town houses on about 12.8 acres (2.8 units per
acre). These units would be on their own 28-foot-wide private cul-de-sac that would provide
vehicle access to and from County Road D for these town houses.
Public Utilities
There are sanitary sewer and water in Carey Heights Drive, Duluth Street and County Road D to
serve the proposed development. The developer will extend the water main from the north end of
Carey Heights Drive and Duluth Street and from near Walter Street along the south side of County
Road D into and through the site. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the water plan.
Trees
-=- ,- ,,,,~ --,,,-=,,,,= ua=. ~o== me [tee ]m/entory p~an on page 27.)
Maplewood's tree ordinance requires the developer to replace each large ~ that the contractor
would remove with two new trees. As such, the developer will need to plant at least 242 trees
within the project site to replace the removed tr----==s. The developer has prepared a plan for the tree
planting (see the proposed plan on page 28.)
There are several problems with the proposed plan, however. Tree planting in the front yards of
the single-dwellings is difficult, if not impossible, to coordinate with the home construction. If the
contractor puts the trees in before the homes, then they often end up in the way of the driveway or
the utilities. Putting the tree in after the contractor has finished the house requires much
coordination with the homeowner and their landscaping.
4
As an alternative, staff recommends that the developer revise the proposed tree planting plan to
bunch the new trees together in groups. These planting areas should be around the ponding areas
and along the common property lines between residences. There also could be trees along all of
the proposed trails, not just along the trail between Block One and Block Three. In addition, the
revised plan must show the developer planting at least 242 trees after the site grading is done.
Trails
The developer's plans show three walking paths in the development. These include a path along
the north side of the lots on Carey Heights Drive (under the power lines), between Lots 4 and 5,
Block One (connecting Carey Heights Drive and the trail under the power lines) and a path from
the north cul-de-sac (Block 3) to the west toward the city park. (These are shown on the site plan
on page 23.) To prevent any confusion about ownership and property rights for trails, the county
recommends that the city have the developer locate the trail in a right-of-way on the plat. The west
end of the proposed trail in Block 3 however, needs to be changed or moved. As proposed, it
would run into the rear part of the privately-owned property to the west of the project site. This trail
should connect to the proposed east/west trail that would be under the power lines by moving the
west end of the trail or by moving the trail to the east between Lots 8 and 9.
For paved off-street paths, Maplewood requires 8-foot-wide bituminous paths centered in a right-
of-way that is at least 10 feet wider than the trail. As such, the trailway for the trail between Lots 4
and 5, Block 1 and in Block 3 need to be at least 18 feet wide to meet this code requirement. The
developer should build a two-rail split rail fence on both sides of each paved trail within this plat.
The city should require the developer to install the trails and fences with the street and before final
plat approval. This is to ensure that the lot buyers know that the trail is there.
Drainage - Watershed District
Most of the site drains to the south and east toward Highway 61 and to the pond behind LaMettry's
Body Shop. A concern of several neighbors with this proposal is storm water drainage. The
developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed and existing ponds as storm water
detention facilities, the development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site.
That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels.
The RamseyANashington Metro Watershed District has been working with the developer on the
proposed project plans. Mr. Frattalone or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed
district before starting grading or construction.
Dan Solar, the Ramsey County'bafrm engineer, said thatthe applicant should dedicate ten
additional feet of fight-of-way along County Road D. This is because the Ramsey County right-of-
way plan requires a total fight-of-way width of 86 feet (43 feet on each side) for County Road D.
On-Street Parking Standards
The applicant is proposing street widths from 28 feet to 32 feet in the development. I had the Fire
Chief and Fire Marshall review the proposed streets and their widths. According to Article 9,
Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code, all fire access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not
less than 20 feet. As such, the 28-foot-wide streets may have parking on one side of the street and
the 32-foot-wide streets may have parking on either side of the street.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the resolution on page 32. This resolution changes the land use plan for the
Highpoint Ridge residential development, south of County Road D, west of Highway 61.
These changes are from R-1 (single dwellings), R-1S (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1
(light manufacturing) to R-3(M) (residential medium density) for the site. This resolution also
drops the planned minor collector street between County Road D and Highway 61. The city is
making these changes because:
1. The development would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
The town house and apartment sites in the development are proper for and consistent
with the city's policies for medium and high-density residential uses. These include:
a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing and proposed Iow density
residential and commercial land uses.
b. It is on an arterial street and is near a collector street.
3. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because:
a. The proposed single dwellings will separate the proposed town houses and apartments
from existing homes.
b. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local
residential streets.
4. Neither the city or the developer plan to build the proposed collector street between
County Road D and Highway 61 because of the existing and proposed grades, the
existing power lines and the existing pipelines makes it difficult to build a street in this
area.
Bo
Approve the resolution starting on page 33. This resolution approves a conditional use
permit for a planned unit development for the Highpoint Ridge housing development. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific
findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions:
· -"], ~,~ ,~---~ ~-,,.-,~j~-'~. ~ ~ =ty council"may approve,major changes. The director ~
community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed cons~uction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree and driveway
and parking lot plans.
The design of the ponds shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The
developer shall give the city an easement for this pond and shall be responsible for
getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements.
6
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove the debris, junk, garbage and travel trailers from the site.
This approval does not include the final design approval for the duplexes, townhomes or
for the apartment buildings. The developer shall submit the final building, landscaping and
site plans for these to the community design review board (CDRB) for approval by the
CDRB.
The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code
requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots for any outlot
in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit.
8. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Approve the Highpoint Ridge preliminary plat (received by the city on May 26, 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.
Co
Have NSP install Group V rate street lights in at least nine locations - primarily at street
intersections and street curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city
engineer's approval.
d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs.
e. Provide all required and necessary easements.
f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage at 1170 County Road D, and all
other buildings, scrap metal, debris .and junk from the site.
Cap and seal all wells on site'that 1he ownem are ~ot using; remove septic systems or
drainflelds, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. Within one year of the contractor
installing the sanitary sewer, the owners of the existing houses on Carey Heights Drive
shall connect their houses to the sanitary sewer.
ho
Complete all the curb and gutter on Duluth Street and on Carey Heights Drive on the
south side of the site. This is to replace the temporary cul-de-sac, repair the cul-de-sac
pavement and restore and sod the boulevards.
i. For the trails, complete the following:
(1)
Construct an eight-foot-wide paved walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing
between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, between the street and the proposed east/west
(2)
trail in Block 3, and along the north side of the lots in Block One (in the
easement area) as shown on the plat date-stamped May 26, 2000. The
developer shall extend the west end of the trail in Lot 3, Block One into the city
park to connect to the existing park trail. ,All trails between lots shall be in a 18-
foot-wide trailway or pedestrian way or in easement areas.
The
and
trail.
developer shall install a two-rail split-rail fence on both sides of each trail
posts at the end of the trails to prevent motorized vehicles from using the
(3) The developer shall build the trails and fencing with the streets.
(4) The city engineer must approve these plans.
j. Install signs where the driveways for the twin homes and for the town houses intersect
the public streets indicating that they are private driveways.
2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk 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 show:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save
large trees.
(4)
(5)
(s)
(7)
The proposed street and trail grades as allowed by the city engineer.
All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve
the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than
3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the sk)pes shall be ~ a~ith
wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no maintenance vegetation and be
s~abilize, d before ~ r.,ity apl:~ Ih~ ~ plat.
All retaining walls on 1rte plans. Any retaining walls taller'than 4 feet require a
building permit Trom ~he city.
Sedimentation basins or ponds as required bythe water=; ~1 board or bythe city
engineer.
(8)
(9)
No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from
the affected property owner(s).
A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water elevation
(NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the
NWL shall not exceed four feet.
8
c.* The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) 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.
(3) 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, ash, lindens and sugar maples. The coniferous trees
shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other
species.
(4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed planting plan and material list.
(6) Be revised to group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be
around the ponding areas, on the steep slopes, along the common property lines
between residences and along all of the proposed trails. The developer may use
the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences.
(7) Show the planting of at least 242 trees after the site grading is done.
d. The street, trail and utility plans shall show:
(1) Paved walkways and two-rail split-rail fences in a trailway or pedestrian way as
shown on the proposed plans. This shall include the trail between Lots 4 and 5,
Block 1, in Block 3 (as revised), between Block 1 and Block 3 (under the power
lines), connecting to the existing park trail to the west of the site and on the east
side of English Lane (Ridge Lane) to connect to the proposed apartment site.
The parks and recreation director shall approve their locations and design.
(2) The public streets shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight
percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two
percent.
Afl public street TigM-O~-~ shaft beat least b~-~eet.-wide.
{4)
(5)
(6)
The completion of the cud3 and gutter on the north end of Duluth Street and the
existing Carey Heights Drive cul-de-sac, the repair or replacement of the cul-de-
sac pavement and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards around the cul-
de-sac.
A connection between the proposed water main in Block 3 and the proposed
water main system on the southerly part of the plat. The developer also shall
make a connection between the proposed water main on Lydia Avenue at
Highway 61 and the existing water main on the west side of Highway 61, south
of Guldens.
9
(7)
The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and
requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Available fire
flow analysis shall be determined for the water system at the proposed
apartment complex as well as through the existing 8-inch and 12-inch crossings
of Highway 61 at Beam Avenue. Fire flow requirements shall be verified with the
Maplewood Fire Department.
(8)
All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within
easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be
outside the project area.
(9)
A reduced number of sanitary and storm sewer manholes and water main bends
by "cutting corners" with the utility alignments. The developer's engineer shall
verify with the SPRWS the acceptable water main alignments and crossings.
Manholes may be offset from the street centerline if the result lessens the
number of structures.
(10) Provisions for public utilities and service(s) to the vacant or undeveloped
properties on the south side of the proposed Lydia Avenue.
e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-
off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels.
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. Revise the lot lines in Block One and Block Three so there is a 18-foot-wide trail or
pedestrian way between Lots 4 and 5, Block One and between Lots 6 and 7 or between
Lots 8 and 9, Block Three to accommodate the proposed trails.
d. Show the existing pipeline and the NSP and pipeline easements on the final plat.
e. Sha~ all public: street fight-of-~ at 60 feet 'a~le.
papenmcu~ar t~ me saaet right-Df-ways.
g. If necessary, increase the lot widths for the lots next to the pipeline to ensure that the
house pads will be at least 1t30 feet away from the pipeline. (code requirement)
h. Change the street names as follows:
Carey Heights Drive shall be used only in Block 2 (Phase One) of the project.
The north/south street between Outlot A and Outlot B shall be Duluth Street.
Highpoint Court shall be called Ridge Place.
10
3. English Lane shall be called Ridge Lane.
4. The cul-de-sac in Block 3 shall be called Highridge Court.
i. Show the extra ten-feet of street right-of-way for County Road D.
Secure and provide all required easements for the development including:
o
a. Any off-site drainage and utility easements.
b. Any necessary easements for the dedication and construction of Lydia Avenue.
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.
6. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowners association documents.
A deed restriction prohibiting the construction of a dwelling or its attachments within 100
feet of the Williams Brothers pipeline. This affects Lots 3 through 6, Block 1 and Lots
7 through 18, Block 3 of the proposed preliminary plat the city received on May 26, 2000.
The developer also shall notify the purchasers of the pipeline location.
c. A deed dedicating 10 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road D for future
street widening with the final plat. The applicant shall submit the language for this
dedication to the city for approval before recording.
d. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits the driveways on
Lots 1, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 36, Block 3 from going onto County Road D.
A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots
or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the
city council.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city
for approval before recording.
~z~tain a pan'nit f~rn 1he Ramsey-Washingtcm ~ W-a~rshed District for grading.
-l'he ~ of ~e pmpeflJes at 1174 and 1176 County Road D shall changethe addresses
of their properties to Carny Heights Drive addresses within 30 days of the contractor
installing the base bituminous course for the new public street in front of their homes.
If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of =ommunity
development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or
approves the final plat.
Adopt the resolution on page 36. This resolution is for the on-street parking standards and no
on-street parking requirements for the Highpoint Ridge PUD south of County Road D and west
of Highway 61.
11
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 70 properties within 350 feet of this site and received 15 written replies.
Of those who replied, 14 were against the project (primarily the apartments) and one was for the
proposed plan.
We are very much opposed to the apartment complex - It is currently zoned commercial and the
expectation of people who bought into this neighborhood is that it would remain commercial
property. It would be unfair to add (potentially) 244+ people and cars to Duluth Street to access
an apartment building. We bought into a single-dwelling neighborhood - the traffic would be
brutal to the current residents. It is also not fair to place apartments (with 20 percent Iow income
housing) in such close proximity to higher income dwellings, where people have paid to be here.
(Bradt - 1236 Summit Court)
I am strongly opposed to the development plan including apartments. Single family homes and
moderately priced town homes OK. I think the future home owners of this new development
would not appreciate apartment buildings next to their property as do I. This will reduce property
values, increase traffic in areas which will not be able to handle the abundance of cars. There
is also no way for this traffic to go north from this plan, except to use Duluth, my road to
Summit. I do not wish to have my property and street used as a turn around - this is very
dangerous for kids!! I also foresee longer bus rides for our kids. This is a single home area - lets
keep it that way and not degrade the neighborhood. (Johnson - 1216 Summit Ct.)
We like these plans with the exception of the 122-unit apartment complex! This will depreciate
the value of the homes in the neighborhood. This neighborhood is not Iow to moderate income
housing! The apartment complex will produce heavy traffic on Duluth Street - this poses a
serious safety hazard for the many small children who play in the neighborhood! The people
who now live in this neighborhood payed top dollar for their lots and homes. We also pay high
taxes! To mix an apartment complex with $350,000+ homes makes no sense. The 122 units will
create 200+ additional cars driving up and down Duluth Street on a daily basis~ (Jurgens - 1225
Summit Court) ·
We strongly oppose the 122-unit apartment complex and twin-home in the new proposal. We
want an alternative solution for connecting Duluth Street to the new Lydia Avenue. Looking at
the proposed layout, the new residences would have to go to Highway 61 north via Beam
Avenue. There are small children waiting for school buses on Duluth Street. We do not want
any unsafe conditions to the children because of this heavy traffic. It would be better for ~he ne~v
residences to exit directly to Highway 61 north and south by using the unconnected Lydia
A,~enue or using County Road D. (Nguyen- 1226 Summit Court)
I am very concerned with hav'mg apartment buildings in this immediate area because crime
usually comes with them. Our homes are prime targets especially since they are more costly
than many nearby, i do not favor apartments built here by Frattalone. (Osell - 2970 Duluth St.)
The connection between Carey Heights and Duluth makes good sense- be sure to allow path
easement through 1 or 2 yards on cul-de-sac to connect to park path under power lines. The
duplexes/town houses also are priced accordingly to neighborhood and would be a good fit with
County Road D housing. No access through our neighborhood. The apartment complex is not
a good fit. Typically apartment dwellers have 2 cars per unit. That is 244 cars extra on
Duluth/Carey Heights loop depending on drivers destination (south to connect to light and go
north or out back entrance to head west on County Road D). Also renters usually do not have
12
10.
11.
the stability of homeowners or town house owners. Many negative statistics are relative to
apartment complexes. We already have a large saturation of apartments on County Road D (in
Vadnais Heights) to meet the quota of balance between housing of single and multiple ratios.
Please do not add anymore apartment complexes. (Esch - 2993 Carey Heights Drive)
We object to Carey Heights Drive connecting to this new development. We already have two
openings to this development. Carey Heights Drive is an independent street and we do not want
it connected to High Point Ridge. (DeYoungs - 2964 Carey Heights Drive)
We feel the larger "home shoe" of single family homes is a welcome, positive and well planned
addition to our neighborhood. Even the town homes by Masterpiece are well done. The one
objection we have would be the apartments - since there already are so many on the north side
of County Road D. (Schroeder - 3007 Frank Street)
As far as the city of Maplewood should be concerned, the welfare of its residents should come
before personal interest of private enterprises. The city should demand that the original plan of
building single family homes must be maintained to assure that the value and appearance of
the neighborhood is maintained. When we built our homes in the 1990's, developers like
Frattalone and Mogrens assured us that this area will have single family homes in the 2,000
square-foot- plus range. Since then, we have already witnessed that both parties did not keep
their promise and allowed smaller homes to be built. The only line of defense for the residents
is the Mayor and the city council. We are now relying on you to assure apartment buildings are
not built in this area. The informational meeting already indicated to us that they plan to rent
apartments to Iow and moderate income people. This is an invitation to increase crime in our
area. The city council must reject this proposal in the best interests of its residents. (Pohlkamp -
2990 Edward Street)
Keep the bottom-right "leg" of the project zoned commercial since commercial use already in
place north and south of it. A large apartment complex would double the traffic in the
neighborhood (Kohlman Lake Overlook) since 120+ units about the same as the number of
homes in place right now. Traffic use design not set to handle this amount. A more logical place
for apartment expansion in the area is along County Road D between White Bear Avenue and
Beam Avenue. There are several spots open along 1-694 in this area. To me the apartment
complex does not fit into the planning "flow." Down the hill right now it goes single-family homes
down to businesses next to Highway 61. One could put in a row of town homes to soften the
transition. We already have several apartments in the immediate area on County Road D, west
of Highway 61, off 1-694. Do not see the need for another at this location.
Use wildftoa~wmix~~ Tmn-w~3wable slopes on ~he grading pla~. (Put a) S~I! ~ pa~
do~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ O~ B a~. D~ n~ s~m ~masonable to make ~is mod~fion
sin~ e~ inch fig~ now is ~g ~ed o~ for reside~ial sa~. ~y n~ ~ a ~all
~n~ion ~ mc~ ~e ~ds ~ ~e ~ ~ighbom? Poli~ ~ ~la~g ~oved ~s.
Obviously moM, ff n~ all, ~ ~11 ~ ~ken o~ by mawr ~d~g ~ ~ ni~ ff ~ ~
could ~ ~osen ~m native v=i~s - mom oak and ~ss grin ash. I like ~e ~F~sac for
~ 36 ~ ~o~ comp~x- ni~ design! S~ ~ t~ around. ~ al~dy ~ place ~ ~e
end of Carey Heig~s Drive now, k~p this e~anded o~ and p~ in a ~er boulevard ~ ~ees
to slow ~c com~g do~. Ni~ to do at ~ end ~ Dul~ Str~ too. (Hunt~y - 3020 Edward
St.)
I am opposed to the 122 multi-housing medium-density (apartments). I don't think it would be
a good location. Too many occupants and the danger of overbuilding. Also opposed to the light
manufacturing in a residential area. The noise factor was not addressed adequately. Please look
13
more closely at natural sound barriers. Also opposed to additional town houses in Outlot D (24
units). Do you do any environmental impact studies? This whole development seems to be an
overload on the land involved. I am also concerned about the road access during construction.
We live at 1176 County Road D and the entire road access will be affected. (Owner - 1176
County Road D)
12.
We are strongly opposed to any type of apartment complex in this development. Secondly, we
are concerned about the increase in traffic which maybe a result of such high density housing.
We would sympathize with the thought and feelings of our neighbors who are directly affected
by this proposal (those on Summit Court - on the north side and the homes directly at the end
of Duluth Street). (Herold - 1247 Countryview Circle)
13. Looks like a well thought out plan and layout to me. (Rosell - Stillwater)
Also see the letters on pages 30 and 31.
I also received several telephone calls from nearby residents. They expressed concerns about storm
water drainage, the proposed housing mix (including the proposed town houses and apartments),
possible assessments and increased traffic on Duluth Street.
14
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 45 acres
Existing land use: A mining operation and accessory buildings from the former farm
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Houses and apartments across County Road D in Vadnais Heights
South: Houses on Carey Heights Drive, Duluth Street, Summit Court and Gulden's
West: Houses on Carey Heights Drive, Frank Street and Maplewood city park
East: Highway 61 and frontage road
PAST ACTIONS - Carey Heights Drive and Carey Addition
1. June 1964: The village council approved a preliminary plat for this area.
2. 8-13-64: A second preliminary plat was approved by the council. Council also approved a
building permit for Mr. Carey at 1174 County Road D, subject to an agreement between himself
and the village that he will not request any village maintenance on his private driveway, nor will
he object to the construction of, and assessment for, a standard village street in the future.
3. 10-21-66: The city issued a building permit to Richard Barrett at 1176 E. County Road D.
4. 11-9-66: Richard Barrett signed an agreement waiving his right to a village street or
maintenance of the private drive to his property and agreed to construct and maintain a private
drive to his property.
5. 11-10-66: The village engineer reported to the council that the private drive did not meet village
street standards and was not constructed to approved plans. Council authorized a building
permit to be issued to Mr. Barrett subject to Mr. Barrett complying with the conditions in the
engineer's report.
6. 11-17-66: The planning commission recommended approval of a preliminary plat for Richard
Barrett consisting of four lots on the west side of Carey Heights Drive and the half streets
required by council action of 11-10-66.
7. 11-1T-66: Counc~~apmliminan]TdatfortheCamyAddition- This ~tat comprised only
part of the Carey property including right-of-way for Carey Heights Drive, Woodlynn Avenue and
Lydia Avenue.
8. 4-4-77: The planning commission recommended that the council table consideration of
variances requested by Mr. Novak (build on a substandard lot, withoutfrontage to a dedicated
public street) to allow the applicant an opportunity to pursue the matter of dedication of the right-
of-way (Carey Heights Drive) and pursuing a variance to standards of street and utility
construction.
9. 9-1-77: Mr. Carey petitioned the city to improve Carey Heights Drive from County Road D
southward approximately 1,500 feet.
15
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
9-28-77: Council ordered a feasibility study for the improvement of Carey Heights Drive with
public street and utilities. The study showed that the project would be cost-prohibitive.
1-26-78: Council approved a lot area variance but denied two street access variances as
requested by Mr. Richard Novak, based on the following findings:
1. The street access variances do not meet the "spirit and intent" of the ordinance.
2. A precedent would be set for similar lots in other areas of the city.
3. There may be times of the year when emergency services could not get access to the
property.
4. There is no hardship that is "unique to the individual property under consideration."
On April 20, 1978, city staff recommended that the council declare the Carey Heights Drive
improvement project not feasible and go no further with the project. Council tabled
consideration to allow Mr. Carey "to contact his own source in regard to providing utilities on
Carey Heights Drive."
On December 18, 1980, the city council approved a lot split request of Aaron Rupert to create
a 13,500 square-foot lot on the east side of the private Carey Heights Drive.
Mr. Rupert, however, never created the lot as approved by the city council.
On October 26, 1987, the council initiated a public improvement project for the construction of
Carey Heights Drive, between Kohlman Lake Overlook plat and County Road D.
On February 27, 1989, the council held a public hearing about building Carey Heights Drive from
Kohlman Lake Overlook development to County Road D. At this hearing, the council decided
that the project was advisable, expedient and necessary and ordered the city engineer to
prepare the plans for the project. However, the affected property owners did not want to provide
the necessary public street right-of-way to the city. As such, the city never built the project.
On May 27, 1997, the city council considered the Carey Addition preliminary plat. The council
tabled action on the plat until June 9, 1997 so the applicant and city staff could research four
items. These included the:
1. Location of the pipeline and the pmpesed lot layout.
2. Need for a variance for lots that would be less than lO, OD0 square feet in area.
3. Possibility of adding traffic calming features and signage w'rth the plat.
4. Possibility of adding stop signs to intersection of Carey Heights ]:)rive and F]'ank Street.
On June 9, 1997, the council again considered the proposed plat. The council tabled action on
the plat until June 23 or July 14, 1997.
Frattalone Mining Operation
June 28, 1982: The City Council approved a conditional use permit and three variances to mine this site.
The CUP was subject to nine conditions.
July 25, 1983: The Council renewed the permit for five years, subject to the original conditions.
16
October 10, 1988, and October 20, 1989: The Council renewed the permit for one year, subject to the
original conditions.
October 22, 1990: The Council renewed the permit for three years, subject to the original conditions.
March 25, 1991' The Council denied a permit change to add a material crushing/recycling operation to
this site.
January 10, 1994: The Council revised the conditions of approval for the permit and renewed the mining
approval for five more years. A condition of this approval was that the permit would end in five years (in
January 1999).
PLANNING
Existing Land Use Plan designations: R-1 (single dwellings) and M-1 (light manufacturing)
Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) and M-1 (light manufacturing)
Proposed Land Use Plan designation: R-3(M) (residential medium density)
Reasons for the Requests
This proposal needs a land use plan change because:
1. State law does not allow a city to adopt any regulation that conflicts with its comprehensive plan.
2. One of the findings required by code for a CUP is that the use is in conformity with the city's
comprehensive plan.
The land use plan shows this site for R-1 and M-1 uses, which do not include multiple-family housing.
The developer is applying for a CUP because the zoning on this site is F (farm residence) and M-1 (light
manufacturing). The F zoning allows farms and single dwellings and the M-1 zoning allows for a variety
of commercial and light manufacturing land uses. The developer chose to apply for a CUP, rather than
a zone change. A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific use and site plan. A rezoning to R-1 (single
dwellings) and to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of single dwellings and a variety
of multiple-dwelling uses and plans.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
There are no spec'~c criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be
consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan.
Section 36 *?.2(a) states ~at~ city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 33 through 35.
Section 25-70 of the cay code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve
plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic
hazards or congestion.
17
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment
for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition,
materials, textures and colors.
kdp:lsec41highpont, mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map (Existing)
3. Land Use Plan Map (Proposed)
4. Property Line/Zoning Map
5. Proposed Preliminary Plat
6. Proposed Site Plan
7. Proposed Grading Plan
8. Proposed Utility Plan
9. Tree Inventory Plan
10. Proposed Tree Plan
11. Proposed Intersection Detail
12. 5-21-00 letter from Jorgenson (1235 Summit Court)
13. 5-23-00 letter from Lambert (2986 Duluth Street)
14. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-l, R-I(S) and M-1 to R-3(M))
15. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Resolution
16. No Parking Resolution
17. Project Plans (separate attachments -including 11x17s and full-size)
18
Attachment 1
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
LOCATION MAP
19
County Rd. D
Vadnais
694
prir. cipal arterial
Attachment 2
interchange
r~
: minor colleclor
Little Canada
OS
minor
Collector
Ave.
ty Rd. C
El
OS
PROJECT SITE
;11
~jor collector
LAND USE MAP
(EXISTING)
20
R-1 = S1NGLE DWELLINGS
R'-3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
OS = OPEN SPACE
M-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
\
Gervais
Attachment 3
Coumty Rd. D
Vedneis Heights
694
iai
~ Interchange
Little Canada
R-1
OS
R-3(M)
minor
collector
iBeam Ave.
ty Rd. C
OS
R1
--
R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
R-3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
OS = OPEN SPACE
M-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
major collector ~
\
Gervais
LAND USE MAP
(PROPOSED)
2975
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
PARK
PROJECT SITE "~
I
i
' NSP POWER LINES ...... ,--r~ .~ --~--_l- ..
PROJECT SITE
2970
GULDENS
2999
,'~j
IIIIIII
d.~ /~.~
· FUTURE AUTO USE
!
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
22
Attachment 4 ~
2980
GDJ-F CDURSE
BEAM AVENUE
.... Attachment-5
........... . ........ ,...., ........... .............../. ,,-~ .','
...~....:~v....:......~..v... ........ ::.:..~ :...'....:. · ... /
· ..:."....::. ~f:':'~2.::::::'::.; '" ': "'"'"'~' "" "':'""':""~':'"~:'~"'
::-.:.:.:.:.:.:::;...~.: ...;... . i ..' /
,- .....,~, __~':':';':' :':: :: '.:-::: '122 :Ul~(l:: ':.:::":-}.':' .:':.:.':'.-' '.-"...:
.... '"Z::': ':.:~:::::::::' ::: ......
:.': :':: .....~....v.....= ...:;.=...........:;.......: .........
SITE
PLAN
24
Attachment 6
CU~.I~..ENT ZONING. MIXED
FEOFO~ED Z. ONIN[} ~= F.U.D
~INGLE FAMILY=
MINIMUM LOT A~A
MINIMUM ~ AEEA
I "!
i i
I I
Attachment 7
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN
Attachment 8
./
t-
Attachment 9
TREE INVENTORY PLAN
27
OVERLDI~4 T
Attachment 10
I
SUMMI ~ '
II
PROPOSED TREE PLAN
28
Attachment
?~opoeed Irvceree.,cl;ion
of Lydi~ Av~. and Highw~:y 01
(Approx e~al~ 1" 50')
(EXISTING)
/PROPOSED NEW Dr
/
EXISTING PARKING LOT
"~ -~LP
,/
HWY 61
Fropoe~
^lignmont,
PROPOSED INTERSECTION DETAIL
29
Attachment 12
BRENT R. JORGENSON
1235 Summit Court
Maplewood, MN 55109
H: 612-481-7825 W: 612481-4076
May 21, 2000
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 East County road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Roberts:
I have read the Neighborhood Survey letter you sent and I also attended the recent
meeting that the Development Team had in Gulden's Restaurant. I am a homeowner and
my property is adjacent to the South Side of the Proposed Development. There are a
couple of areas of great concern with this proposal.
Our strongest objection is the proposed Apartment complex. Apartments in general have
a negative impact on property values. This complex also calls for a portion of it to be
allocated for Low-Moderate Income housing, which would further erode property values.
The high density of this proposal will significantly increase the traffic in our
neighborhood to an unacceptable level. Traffic from the majority of the development
South of the power lines will be forced to drive down Duluth Street to access North
bound Highway 61.
The properties adjaeem to the project site are currently zoned RI with a small portion
being MI. We would suPtxm developmem with a majm'ity of the prope~ being zoned
R1 anda strip of M1 along Highway 61.
Thank-you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ann Jorgenson ~--r,~r,,~~
30
Attachment 13
May 23, 2000
Community Development Dept
City of Maplewood
1830 E County Rd B
Maplewood, MN 55109-2797
In reference to this proposed building plan offered by Mr
Frattalone, we are very concerned about the following issues:
1. We DO NOT OPPOSE the 34 single houses on Carry Drive nor
the 36 unit Townhome complex. The 34 single homes would
add value to the existing homes on Duluth St and the Cul
de Sacs leading off Duluth St
2. We DO OPPOSE the 122 unit apartment complex for the
following reasons;
a. Lower the value of current homes on Duluth St and Cul
de Sacs to include the proposed 34 single family homes.
b. With the current traffic flow on Rte 61, a burden of
traffic volume would increase on Duluth St via Lydia
Ave to include Jcts Beam Ave and Rte 61.
3. We DO OPPOSE Lydia ave between Duluth St and proposed
English Lane for obvious traffic volume on Duluth St.
4. We Attended a meeting with Mr Frattalone and his
associates and they could not address the traffic problem
that will occur on Jcts Lydia ave and Rte 61 nor the Jcts
of Beam Ave and Rte 61. Mr Frattalone was also not clear
as to the traffic flow during the construction by
of To~ota 4ea/ership an~ LemetxT~ ~Y Sh~p ~n Rte 61.
1. The ~neral~opinion of the neighborhood on Duluth St an~
Cul de Sacs were opposed t~ the con~truct/on- T~ey were
const~e~.
2. We understood that To~ota dealership would refrain of
having their employees parking on Beam ave and off loading
veh/cles on Beamave. SITUATION REMAINS TO ~XTST with the
parking and off loading.
Comparing the Toyota dealership and Lemetry construction,
what are we to believe with the Frattalone construction.
- 31
Attachment 14
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Frank Frattalone proposed changes to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single
dwellings), R-1S (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-3(M) (residential medium
density) for the site.
WHEREAS, this change applies to property for the Highpoint Ridge PUD south of County Road D
and west of Highway 61 in Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested a change to the land use plan to drop the planned minor
collector street between County Road D and Highway 61.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On June 19, 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 not approve the plan
amendment.
On , 2000, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan changes. 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 changes
for the following reasons:
The development would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
The town house and apartment sites in the development are proper for and consistent with
the city's policies for medium and high-density residential uses. These include:
ao
Creating a transitional land use between the existing and proposed Iow density
residential and commercial land uses.
b. It is on an arterial street and is near a collector street.
The proposed single d~e~gs will separate the proposed tx)am houses and apadments
from existing homes.
There should be no significant b-a~u increase from this development on existing local
residential streets.
o
The city nor the developer plan to bund the proposed collector street between County Road
D and Highway 61 because the of the existing and proposed grades, the existing power lines
and the existing pipelines make it difficult to build a street in this area.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2000.
32
Attachment 15
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Frattalone, representing Frattalone Excavating, applied for a conditional use
permit (CUP) for the Highpoint Ridge residential planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this change applies to undeveloped property for the Highpoint Ridge PUD south of County
Road D and west of Highway 61. The legal description of these properties are:
PID:
Description:
04-29-22-12-0009-5
PLAT.03032 SECTION 4 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 EX E 160 FT THE S 100 FT OF N 358
FT OF E 9 ACRES OF NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 4 TN 29 RN 22
PID: 04-29-22-12-0008-2
Description: PLAT.03032 SECTION 4 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 EX E 160 FT THE S 202 FT OF N 560
FT OF E 9 ACRES OF NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 4 TN 29 RN 22
PID:
Description:
04-29-22-12-0001-1
PLAT.03032 SECTION 4 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 E 100 FT OF N 158 FT OF NW 1/4 OF
NE 1/4 (SUBJ TO RD) IN SEC 4 TN 29 RN 22
PID:
Description:
04-29-22-12-0002-4
PLAT.03032 SECTION 4 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 EX N 158 FT LYING E OF CAREY
HEIGHTS DRIVE AS SD DRIVE IS DESC IN DOC NO 1634533; THE N 1443.8 FT OF
PART OF NW 114 OF NE 1/4 LYING ELY OF WLY LINE OF SD DRIVE. ALSO, E 130
FT OF PART OF SD 1/4 1/4 LYING S RN 22
PID:
Description:
04-29-22-12-0010-5
PLAT.03032 SECTION 4 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 SUBJ TO CO RD AND WITH RD ESMT
AND EX E 160 FT THE N 258 FT OF E 9 ACRES OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC 4 TN
29 RN 22
PID:
Description:
04-29-22-12-0006
PLAT.03032 SECTION 4 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 S 100 FT OF N 1044 96/100 FT OF
PART WLY OF CL OF RD ESMT IN DOC 1634533 OF E 9 ACRES NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4
(SUBJ TO ESMTS) IN SEC 4, TN 29, RN 22
04-29-22-11-0006
1/4. OF SEC-I-ION 4, I uvvmonir
QUARTER (NE ). D AND
661.6 FEET OF THE NORTH 1,006 FEET, AND SUBJECT TO COUNTY RDAD ,
SUBJECT TO A GAS PIPF. DNE EASEMENT LOCATED THEREON
PID:
Description:
04-29-22-11-0005
TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 322, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AND THE SOUTH 401.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1006.{)0 FEET OR THE EAST 661.80
FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, EXCEPTTHE NORTH 676.00 FEET OF THE
~=OLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THENCE WEST,
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER, 5.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTHERLY 741.30 FEET TO A POINT 15.00 FEET
WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
33
WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, 15.00 FEET TO SAID
EAST LINE: THENCE NORTH, ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PID:
Description:
All in Section
04-29-22-12-0007-9
THE SOUTH 224 96/100 FEET OF THE NORTH 834 96/100 FEET OF THE EAST 9
ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 4, TOWN
29, RANGE 22, EXCEPT THE EAST 160 FEET THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH AN
EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS BY FOOT AND BY VEHICLE TO AND
FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY OVER AND ALONG THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO WIT: THE WEST 60 FEET OF THE EAST 160 FEET OF
THE NORTH 834.96 FEET OF THE EAST 9 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22
4, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On June 19, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council
permit.
this
2. On ,2000, 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 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 a/ould not change the existing or planned character of the,.surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
.4. The use would ~ 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 mn-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.
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.
34
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:
All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 26, 2000, except where the city
requires changes. The city council may approve major changes. 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 end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree and driveway and parking
lot plans.
The design of the ponds shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer
shall give the city an easement for this pond and shall be responsible for getting any needed
off-site pond and drainage easements.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
ao
Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove the debris, junk, garbage and travel trailers from the site.
This approval does not include the final design approval for the duplexes, townhomes or for
the apartment buildings. The developer shall submit the final building, landscaping and site
plans for these to the community design review board (CDRB) for approval by the CDRB.
The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code
requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable ~ f~ any ~utlot in
the preliminary plat.before tho city will issue a buildir~ ~
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
2000.
35
NO PARKING RESOLUTION
Attachment 16
WHEREAS, Maplewood has approved a residential PUD and preliminary plat known as Highpoint
Ridge.
WHEREAS, the developer wants to have reduced street right-of-way widths and reduced street
pavement widths in this development.
WHEREAS, the city has approved reduced street right-of-way widths and reduced street pavement
widths in the development, subject to on-street parking restrictions.
WHEREAS, Section 29-52(b) of the city code allows variations from the city code standards if they do
not affect the general purpose of the city code.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Maplewood prohibits the parking of motor
vehicles on both sides of all public streets less than 28 feet wide and prohibits parking on one side of the
public streets that are 28 feet to 32 feet wide in the Highpoint Ridge PUD south of County Road D and
west of Highway 61 in Section 4-29-22.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2000.
36
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Goodrich Golf Course
Clubhouse
1820 Van Dyke Street
May 31, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Kevin Finley, of Ramsey County Parks and Recreation, is proposing to build a 1,700 square-foot
addition onto the Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse. Refer to the maps on pages 4-7 and the
letter on page 8. The exterior of the clubhouse would be cultured stone, board & batten siding,
horizontal lap siding and dark green asphalt shingles. The building would be green, beige and
natural wood color. Refer to the plans.
The proposed, enlarged clubhouse would have locker rooms, a banquet room, snack bar, and
outdoor patio.
Requests
Mr. Finley is requesting the following:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a public building. Section 36-437 of the city code
requires a CUP for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district.
2. The building design, site and landscape plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The city council should approve this permit. The proposed, enlarged building would be attractive
and would improve the appearance of the clubhouse. This would benefit the county by improving
their golf facility and the neighborhood as well. There is a substantial amount of parking
available so parking would not be a problem.
Landscaping
The applicant proposes to add landscaping around the proposed building expansion in the future.
None has been shown on the plans yet, however. The applicant should submit a landscape plan
to staff for approval.
Code requires that the developer or owner install an in-ground sprinkler system for any new
landscaped areas. The sprinklefing requirement can be waived if there is an alternative method
for watedng plantings. The golf course is essentially a lawn and landscaping maintenance
operation. An in-ground lawn irrigation system is not needed since the grounds would be
properly maintained as they always have been.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the resolution on pages 8-9. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for
the Goodrich Golf Course and clubhouse expansion at 1820 Van Dyke Street. The council
bases the permit on the findings required by code and it 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 applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Bo
Approve the plans (date-stamped May 26, 2000) for the Gooddch Golf Course Clubhouse
addition, subject to the findings required by the city code. The developer shall do the
following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. ,S~jbmit a grading, drainage and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval
pri~pr to getting a building permit.
3. Subr~it the landScape plan for plantings around the building to staff for approval.
4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 40,000 square feet
Existing land use: Existing Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
East:
South:
West:
Goodrich Golf Course
Goodrich Golf Course
North St. Paul Road and the future Woodland Hills Church
Goodrich Golf Dome
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: P (park)
Zoning: F (farm residence)
CUP Findings
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed
in the resolution on pages 8-9.
p:sec14~gooddch.cup
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's letter dated May 26, 2000
5. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
6. Plans date-stamped May 26, 2000 (separate attachment)
3
Attachment 1
NORTH SAINT PAUl
Attachment 2
G~.O
GOODRICH
~o~ oo~
,.~.~..
= ,., SOUTH ..~.
!
, CHINA
GOODRICH
GOLF COURSE
CLUBHOUSE
:WOODLAND
HILLS CHUR~
COUNTY - GOt. F COUR$I='
F
SINGLE DWELLINGS
~KING
PRICE
IT
18th
Gr~a
4
Attachment3
/
/
/
SITE
PLAN
6
Attachment 4
Parks and Recreation Deparanent
Gregory/~. Mack, Director
2015 N. Van Dyke Street
RAMSEY COUNTY Maplewood, MN 55109-3796
May 26, 2000
Tel: 651-748-2500
Fax: 651-748-2508
~.co.ramsey.mn.us
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Coleman:
Ramsey County is requesting approval from the City of Maplewood to remodel the existing
Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse and construct a 1,700 square foot addition. The
remodeled and expanded clubhouse will be operated in a similar manner as it is now and will
provide more seating space for golf tournaments, meetings and other events.
The existing clubhouse was constructed in the late 1960's and the golf course has been in
operation since the mid-1950's. The building will improve the character of the surrounding
area' and will not depreciate property values in the area. The use of the clubhouse will not
create nuisances and will have no impact on current vehicular traffic on local streets. The
public facilities will not be impacted in terms of cost or burden on the systems. The site of
the clubhouse will be enhanced by incorporating the natural and scenic features as part of
the public golf course. The clubhouse will cause no adverse environmental impacts and will
continue to be used by the public as a recreation facility. The clubhouse operation will
comply with all city ordinances.
This statement accompanies the application and documentation as required by the City.
Enclosed are design plans prepared by HCM Architects. There are also documents provided
by the Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue Department that list the property
owners and addresses for properties within 350 feet of the Goodrich Clubhouse site and the
legal description for Goodrich Golf Course.
Ramsey County intends to follow all of the standards established by the City of Maplewood in
the development and use of the Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse. Ramsey County requests
that the City of Maplewood approve the remodeling and expansion of the Goodrich Golf
Course Clubhouse. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Director of Operations
KCF/jjh
Enclosure
7
Mtnnesota*8 First Home Rule County
printed on revered paper with a minimum of i~ post~)nsumer content
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
Attachment 5
WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit for the Goodrich Golf Course
and to add onto 1he clubhouse.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1820 Van Dyke Street. The legal
description is:
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, SUBJECT TO STREETS AND AVES AND
EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EXCEPT PART OF N % OF SW 1/4
SOUTHEASTERLY OF NORTH ST. PAUL ROAD AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF HAZEL
STREET AND EXCEPT THE WEST 810 FEET OF NORTH % OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND
EXCEPT THE WEST 810 FEET OF THE SOUTH 235 8/10 FEET OF SOUTH % OF
NORTHWEST 114 AND EXCEPT THE WEST 870 FEET OF THE SOUTH ½ OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 LYING NORTH OF SAID SOUTH 235 8/10 FEET THE NORTH ~ OF
SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTH ½ OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 ALL IN SECTION 14,
TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On June 19, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
2. On , the city council held a public headng. City staff published a notice in the
paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone
at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
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 applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
9
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit Revision - Amusement City Expansion
1870 Rice Street
June 2, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Dan Betts, owner of Amusement City, 1870 Rice Street, is requesting approval to enlarge his
facility to the south. He is proposing to extend his existing race track, add a new smaller track
and put in a paint-ball field. Mr. Betts is also proposing to remodel the inside of a building
currently used for video games as a pizza restaurant. Refer to the maps on pages 5-7 and the
letter on page 8.
Requests
Mr. Betts is requesting that the city council approve a revision to his conditional use permit (CUP)
to expand his facility and convert an existing building into a pizza restaurant.
BACKGROUND
Refer to the Past Actions on page 4.
DISCUSSION
CUP Revision I Facility Expansion
Staff does not object to the proposed expansion. The property is best suited for a use such as
Mr. Bett's proposal. This land is marginal due to its limited size, limited frontage and constraints
due to the wetland.
Wetland
The wetland on the site is a Class 5 Wetland. This is the least significant wetland described in
the wetland ordinance. The applicant does not have to provide any wetland-protection buffer, but
must not encroach within it with the expansion. The plans show that the expansion would not
encroach.
Vehicle Complaints
One continual problem at Amusement City and the Jerry Anderson Car Sale Lot on the south
side of Roselawn Avenue is the parking of cars on the grass. Staff has given orders to the new
owner of the car lot to remove all cars from the grass by July 1, 2000. Mr. Betts also has some
vehicles parked on his property currently. I have informed him that these must be removed also
by July 1, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution on pages 9-11 to revise the conditional use permit for Amusement City at
1870 Rice Street. This revised permit is for the proposed facility expansion and the addition of a
pizza restaurant in an existing building. The following revisions are based on the findings
required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and
deletions are crossed out):
Th~ c;;'a~r$,'c,p~ratc, ra ,,f th~ d~vln~ .... ~,~,,av~, ,,4 CC,,T, pli=~ '""'" "- ,,
..... ~ .... , ....ddv[n~ ....
The suspension of the ddvin9 range shall be in effect until a public headng has been held and
the suspension by the ci~ ~uncil ended. The ~nditional use pe~it for the remainder of the
facili~ is still in effe~. The pmpe~ o~er shall ~mply with the following revised ~nditions of
approval:
1. Comply with the approved site plan dated ~ ,",'c,w,T,b~r 30, 1993, with the
exception of the driving range which is hereby terminated.
2. Maintain the following site improvements:
a. A refiectodzed stop sign at the Rice Street driveway.
b. A stdped parking lot with at least 94 parking spaces as shown on the approved plan.
The applicant shall have four handicap parking stalls and handicap-parking signs for
each stall. There shall be at least one van-accessible space. (Americans with
Disabilities Act requirement)
c. A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash dumpsters.
d. Direct or shield the lights so the bulbs are not directly visible from any public street.
(code requirement)
2
3. All cars shall be removed from the non-paved areas. Specifically. all cars ~)arked on the
0Id driVinq ran(~e site must be removed bY July 1, 2000.
4. Future revisions to the approved site plan must come before the city council for their review
5_. The applicant must not encroach into the wetland with this expansion.
6~ The 45 "new" parking spaces shown on the plan must be paved, striped and have
continuous concrete curbing around the entire parking lot, unless breaks are reouired by
the city_ engineer for drainage reasons.
PAST ACTIONS
November 17, 1977: The city council approved the CUP for the amusement facility.
October 22, 1981: Staff approved a racetrack addition.
March 9, 1982: The design board approved the bumper boats, mini-golf and batting cages.
Apdl 25, 1994: The council revised the CUP to include the ddving range.
October 11, 1994: Staff approved a siding change for the equipment building.
May 22, 1995: The council extended the CUP for one year.
May 20, 1996: The council extended the CUP for another year.
October 29, 1996: Ms. Carolyn Wilkerson submitted a petition, signed by 128 people, requesting
that the city council close Amusement City's ddving range.
November 25, 1996: The city council "moved to set a public headng to formally review the CUP
to determine whether there are valid safety issues which should result in amending or revoking
the permit.'
March 10, 1997: The city council held a public headng to review Ms. Wilkerson's request. The
council renewed the CUP, but required the owners of the ddving range to do the following:
1. Increase the height of the netting to 65 feet along the north side of the ddving range.
2. Aim the tee boxes, where practical, toward the southeast comer of the ddving range.
3. Cease stodng vehicles on the ddving range.
4. Provide verification that the business is using only Iow trajectory golf balls.
5. Submit a statement indicating how they will process claims for damages.
The council also moved to review this permit again in one year.
June 23, 1997: The city council amended the CUP to suspend the operation of the ddving range
portion of this amusement facility because of complaints about golf ball damage, the stodng of
vehicles on the site without the proper approvals and violation of CUP requirements that
pertained to the ddving range. The CUP for the rest of the amusement facility is still in effect.
March 30, 1998: The city council reviewed the CUP and authorized review again in one year.
p:secl 8~amucityS.cup
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Letter of Request
5. CUP Resolution
4
Attachment
LFFTLE C~NADA
~ ~IKING DR.
I.,~,L/RIE CT.
lET.
DOWNS
BELL.WOOD AVE.
SUMMER AVF..
tE3.MONT LA.
PROPOSED
o);, Pi~OPERTY OWNED
DAN BETTS
;.- ~ ~, . :: ~
'; :;
-AMUSEMENT CITY - -.;:
ROSELAWN 'AVENUE
EXPANSION AREA
PUIvl PIN,G
(I
(5.5o ,~z..)
PROPERTY NE/ZONING MAP
6
Attachment 3
EXISTING AMUSEMENT FACILITY
CHALET LOUNGE
RICE STREET
PROPOSED
EXPANSION AREA
SITE PLAN
AMUSEMENT CITY
7
· ' Attachment 4
L.B. AMUSEMENT CITY, INC.
1870 RICE ST.
ST. PAUL, MN 55113
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Amusement City, Inc. located at 1870 Rice St., Maplewood, MN is expanding its operation.
Which would include a Pizza Restaurant located in the front building. Also in addition to this we
will be adding a third go cart track and a splat tag field.
Sincerely,
Dan Betts
8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
Attachment 5
WHEREAS, the city council approved a conditional use permit for an amusement facility at
1870 Rice Street on November 17, 1977 and amended it several times since.
WHEREAS, the property owner is requesting approval of a conditional use permit amendment
to expand his amusement facility to the south onto vacant property and to convert an existing
building into a pizza restaurant.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the following described property:
EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO ST AND
AVE AND VAC STS AND ALLEYS ACCRUING, THE FOL A TRACT LYING NWLY OF SOO
LINE RY R/VV OF THE FOL; LOTS 4 THRU 10 BLK 1, LOT 7 BLK2, LOTS 5 THRU 32
BLK 4, LOTS 12 THRU 25 BLK 6 AND ALL OF BLK 3.
AND
EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO HWY
THE FOL VAC ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 33 THRU LOT 39 BLK 4.
AND
EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN. VAC ST AND ALLEY
ACCRUING AND LOTS I THRU 4 BLK 4.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. On ,2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
2. 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 revise the above-described
conditional use permit revision, based on the following reasons:
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.
9
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 oltter nuisances.
The use would generate onJy minimal vehicular :.~,c on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
The suspension of the driving range shall be in effect until a public hearing has been held and
the suspension by the city council ended. The conditional use permit for the remainder of the
facility is still in effect. The property owner shall comply with the following revised conditions of
approval:
1. Comply with the approved site plan dated May 16, 2000, with the exception of the driving
range which is hereby terminated.
2. Maintain the following site improvements:
a. A reflectorized stop sign at the Rice Street driveway.
b. A striped parking lot with at least 94 parking spaces as shown on the approved plan.
The applicant shall have four handicap parking stalls and handicap-parking signs for
each stall. There shall be at least one van-accessible space. (Americans with
Disabilities Act requirement)
c. A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash dumpsters.
d. Direct or shield the lights so the bulbs are not directly visible from any public street.
(code requirement)
3. All cars shall be removed from the non-paved areas. Specifically, all care parked on the
old driving range site must be removed by July 1, 2000.
4. Revisions to the approved site plan must come before the city council for their review.
5. The applicant must not encroach into the wetland with this expansion.
10
6. The 45 'new' parking spaces shown on the plan must be paved, striped and have
continuous concrete curbing around the entire parking lot, unless breaks are required by
the city engineer for drainage reasons.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2000.
11
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Zoning Code Change - Business Commercial(BC) District
June 12, 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.
BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2000, the planning commission considered a proposed ordinance amendment for this
matter. The commission had some concerns about the proposed ordinance and tabled action on
the proposal to give staff time to draft changes.
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 the BC (business commercial) zoning district. However, there
is some question about the c'~y'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:ord~bcresid.mem
Attachment:
1. Code Amendment Resolution
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING SECTION 36-161 (BUSINESS coMMERCIAL) DISTRICT
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of O~dinances:
Section 1. This section changes Sections 36-151( a )(1) as follows (additions are underlined and the
deletions are crossed out):
(1) A dwelling unit for one family when inside of the principal buildin.q of in co~b~n&t~on ~vlt,~ a
business use. The dwellin.q unit and the principal business use must be in the same structure.
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 -
2