HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1997BOOK
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 17, 1997
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
October 20, 1997
4. Approval of Agenda
5. City Attorney Presentation - Patrick Kelly
6. New Business
a. Menards Conditional Use Permit Revision - 2280 Maplewood Drive
b. Forest Lawn Cemetery Conditional Use Permit - 1800 Edgerton Street
c. Rezoning (R-1 to LBC) - 1695 McKnight Road
d. Gladstone Area Street Vacations (west of Manton Street, south of Skillman Avenue)
e. Planning Commission Interview- Matt Ledvina
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
a. October 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson
b. November 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach
c. November 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Brueggeman
9. Staff Presentations
10. Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and
ask for the staff report on the subject.
Staff presents their report on the matter.
The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to
comment on the proposal.
This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal.
Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and
then your comments.
After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are
allowed.
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~ocagd
Revised: 01/95
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 20, 1997
I. CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Rossbach called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman
Commissioner Barbara Ericson
Commissioner Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Jack Frost
Commissioner Kevin Kittridge
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner William Rossbach
Commissioner Milo Thompson
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 2, 1997
Commissioner Ericson moved approval of the minutes of September 2, 1997, as submitted.
Commissioner Thompson seconded.
AyesmBrueggeman, Ericson, Rossbach,
Thompson
Abstention--Pearson
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Brueggeman moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Ericson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Utility Easement VacationB1866 East Shore Drive
Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Paul Koreen, the owner of this
property, said the original easement was incorrectly obtained for the west side of the lot.
However, the utility work was done on the east side of the lot. The city now has an easement for
the east 10 feet of the property.
Commissioner Brueggeman moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the
resolution which vacates the utility easement located on the west side of 1866 East Shore Drive.
The easement is the west 10 feet, extending 150 feet north of the East Shore Drive right of way of
the property. The city should vacate this easement because:
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-20-97
-2-
1. It is in the public interest
2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build utilities in this location.
3. The adjacent property has access to utilities.
Commissioner Pearson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
B. Erickson Freedom Center~ondition Use Permit--Beam Avenue and Hazelwood
Ken Roberts, associate planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Roberts also answered
questions from the commission. Paul Strother of Clots, O'Brien, Strother Architects, the architect
for the project, said most of the carwash noise is from the exit area. This door will face Beam
Avenue to help alleviate noise for the neighboring properties. Mr. Strother and Rick Rickel (of
Erickson Oil Products) answered questions from the commissioners.
Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution
which approves a conditional use permit for a fuel station and car wash with a convenience store
and a bank on property zoned M-1 (light manufacturing). This is for the property on the northwest
corner of Beam Avenue and Hazelwood Street. This permit is based on the findings required by
the code and subject to the following conditions:
1. Ali construction shall follow the plans that the city stamped October 8, 1997. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
The proposed construction must be started or the proposed use utilized within one year of
council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this
deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. External speakers shall not exceed the noise standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (code requirement).
The building official shall not issue a building permit for the proposed development until the
city approves a lot division creating this site and the applicant records the new deed with
Ramsey County. Conditions of this lot split shall include the following:
a. Dedication of additional right-of-way for the north one-half of Beam Avenue.
b. Dedication of cross easements between the Erickson site and adjacent properties
because of the proposed shared-access drives.
Commissioner Ericson seconded.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-20-97
-3-
Commissioner Rossbach expressed concern about hours of operation and recommended adding
the following friendly amendment:
6. The facility will open at 6 a.m. or later and close at 11 p.m. or earlier.
Commissioner Pearson approved this amendment and Commissioner Ericson seconded it.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
C. Rezoning (F to BC)--2500 White Bear Avenue
Ken Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the
commissioners. Kevin Fernow, resident of 2500 White Bear Avenue, said he was primarily
concerned about the effect of the rezoning on his property taxes. He also mentioned a double
driveway that was supposedly proposed between his property and the Mogren property to the
north.
Mr. Roberts said, based on information received from Ramsey County assessor's office, there
should be no change in property-tax status as a result of this rezoning, particularly if the house
remains homesteaded. He also said no plans have been submitted for a driveway, but a shared
drive has been suggested at the time this property develops in the future. Mr. Fernow felt that
German Street behind his property has not been vacated.
Commissioner Ericson moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the resolution
which rezones 2500 White Bear Avenue from F (farm) to BO (business commercial) which is
consistent with the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The city should make this zone change
because:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent
to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where
applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewer, police and
fire protection and schools.
5. State law now requires all cities in the metropolitan area to have consistent zoning and land
use plans.
6. The property taxes will continue to be based on residential use until such time as the property
use is changed.
Commissioner Pearson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-20-97
-4-
D. Rezoning (R-1 to BC-M)--2836 White Bear Avenue
Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Ericson requested that
a condition pertaining to property taxes continuing to be based on residential use be made a part
of the recommendation for approval of this rezoning. Mr. Roberts reviewed the list of uses
permitted in BC-M zoning. Bruce Fischer, the property owner at 2836 White Bear Avenue, said
most of his questions had been answered. Mr. Fischer requested that this rezoning be continued
on a month-to-month basis because sale of the property is pending.
Commissioner Ericson moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the resolution
which rezones the property at 2836 White Bear Avenue from R-1 (single family dwelling) to BC-M
(business commercial modified) which is consistent with the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan.
The city should make this zone change because:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent
to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where
applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewer, police and
fire protection and schools.
5. State law now requires all cities in the metropolitan area to have consistent zoning and land
use plans.
6. The property taxes will continue to be based on residential use until such time as the property
use is changed.
Commissioner Brueggeman seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
VII, COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
A. September 8 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting.
B. September 22 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting.
C. October 13 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting.
D. October 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson will attend this meeting.
E. November 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach will attend this meeting.
Commissioner Rossbach asked about the procedure for reconsidering items on which the planning
commission has already voted. Commissioner Pearson suggested an automatic condition that relates
to property taxes be included in the resolutions for rezoning to conform to the comprehensive plan.
VIII.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-20-97
-5-
Commissioner Thompson asked that source of tax information from Ramsey County be specifically
identified in the staff report.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said she received a call from Commissioner
Kevin Kittridge. He has missed three meetings because of family commitments and indicated that
perhaps he should resign from the commission. The consensus of the planning commission was they
preferred to have Mr. Kittridge remain a member.
Ms. Coleman stated that Pat Kelly, the Maplewood city attorney, would be at the November 17, 1997,
planning commission meeting to speak about the comprehensive planning process and the land
planning act. She invited the commissioners to submit questions or topics for discussion that they
would like additional information about.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand -Associate Planner
CUP Revision, Building Setback Variance, Parking Reduction Authorization
and Building Design ApprovaI-Menards
2280 Maplewood Drive
November 12, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Gary Colby, of Menards, Inc., is proposing to build a 43,065-square-foot warehouse building.
Menards would use this building to store lumber and other large items. The present indoor
lumber storage area would be converted into retail space. Access to this area is proposed to be
from an existing curb cut north of the existing building and would route vehicles behind and
south of the store into the outside sales/storage yard. Menards would remove the existing entry
gate. Refer to the maps on pages 11-13 and the narrative on pages 14-15.
The proposed warehouse building would be constructed of precast concrete panels with a
green-colored, metal fascia on the north side. The west elevation would have a green accent
stripe. The applicant would restore the area adjacent to the proposed warehouse with grass and
plant 16 trees. Refer to the site plan on page 13.
Requests
Mr. Colby is requesting approval of:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to enlarge their facility. The code also requires that
the applicant get a CUP for the proposed building since it is closer than 350 feet to a
residential district. Refer to page14.
2. A 25-foot setback variance for the proposed warehouse. The code requires that the
proposed building be set back 100 feet from the south lot line---the applicant is proposing
75 feet. Refer to page 15.
3. A parking reduction authorization for 403 spaces. The code requires 803 spaces on the site;
Menards is proposing 400.
4. Site and building design plans.
BACKGROUND
Refer to the Past Actions on page 8.
occurred in the past three years. There is no way to determine what impact the proposed
Menards changes would have on traffic at this intersection other than we can assume it would
increase as their business increases.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Deny the request for a conditional use permit revision to enlarge the Menards store, 2280
Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons:
The proposed use is not designed in conformity with the city's code of ordinances.
Menards is requesting a 25-foot building setback variance and a substantial (50 percent)
parking-reduction authorization of 403 spaces (code requires 803 spaces; Menards is
proposing 400).
2. The use would change the character of the surrounding area because:
a. The height of the proposed building would be excessive due to the structure's close
proximity to the adjacent residential properties.
All of the traffic going to the outside storage/sales yard and the proposed warehouse
would be channelled past the abutting residential properties concentrating the
resulting noise and commotion to this area.
The proposal would involve activity that would be disturbing or cause a nuisance
because of excessive noise or unsightliness. The proposed changes would concentrate
traffic next to the residential lot lines creating the disturbance of increased noise and
commotion. The building would be unsightly primarily due to its large size and its close
proximity to the residential lots to the south.
Bo
Deny the request for a 25-foot building setback variance for the proposed warehouse
building at Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons:
Strict enforcement of the code would not cause Menards undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could comply with the required
100-foot setback if they made the building smaller or moved it to a conforming location.
There are no physical characteristics unique to the property preventing the applicant from
meeting the setback requirements.
The reason for enlarging the store is to compete better with the competition. The state
law requires, however, that "economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." The
site is presently being fully utilized under the terms of the ordinance.
3. The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because
of the large exterior mass of the building.
4
Do
Deny the request for a 50 percent parking reduction authorization from 803 to 400 spaces,
based on the following reasons:
1. The reduction of spaces by 403 (50 percent) is excessive.
2. The applicant has not provided any justification for this request based on the proposed
square footage, only based on their current building size.
3. There is no opportunity to share parking with neighboring businesses which is a typical
way to justify a parking space reduction.
Deny the building and site plans, unless the city council first approves the conditional use
permit, the 25-foot building setback variance and the parking reduction authorization.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
I surveyed the 35 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of Menards for their opinion of this
request. Of the 14 replies, six were in favor, six objected and two had no comment.
In Favor
1. To be competitive in todays business climate you must always be improving. Plus it looks
like it will be good for the residential area and also the community as it brings more people to
our area. (Countryside Motors, 1180 Highway 36)
2. It expands a high end usage of the corner and will, hopefully, promote further upgrading of
the area. (Ellis and Holmen, 10037 Washburn Avenue, Bloomington)
3. They need it for their business. They are a good neighbor. (occupant, 2228 Maplewood Dr.)
4. Go for it--it will increase business traffic--not be detrimental to residential and increase
property's value---wish Menards good luck. (Embers, Inc.)
Opposed
1. The property is too small for this size and type of development. Residential-friendly
development is preferred (green space, park, etc) (Dupre and Forbes, 1071 Country Rd. B)
2. Too much noise and too much traffic and big trucks. (Bisbee, 1193 Lark Avenue)
3. The area is not large enough to accommodate the proposed expansion. The property
should be turned back to "green space." Plant trees. Give it back to nature. We also have
the following concerns (Valento, 1081 County Road B):
a. The traffic at Highway 61 and County Road B is already too congested. This proposal
would make it much worse.
b. This proposal would concentrate the congestion behind our house. Now, all activity is
spread out.
All the traffic in the outdoor storage/sales yard would be funnelled directly behind our
house. Every car and truck would go past our house.
We do not want any roof-mounted equipment on the building that would cause a noise or
visual nuisance.
e. They should accept the fact that this may simply need to be a smaller Menard store
without the expanded warehouse and retail proposed.
This expansion is too large for the space. The 30 foot high building would be visible and
unsightly to neighbors and devalue the existing residential property. Heavy traffic and
exhaust fumes and noise so close to existing residential property is unacceptable. The tall
unsightly commercial building in the back yard of residents is unacceptable. (Anderson,
1101 County Road B)
Refer to the survey reply on page 16 and the letter on page 17 (Anderson, 2255 Duluth
Street)
6. Refer to the letter on page 18. (Bobick, 1115 County Road B)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 13.48 acres
Existing land use: Menard's outdoor storage/sales area and unstriped paved parking lot
Property Owner: Menard, Inc.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Maplewood Drive and Highway 36 interchange
South: Single dwellings and Citgo Motor Fuel Station
West: Maplewood Drive and frontage road
East: Menard's outdoor storage yard
PAST ACTIONS
March 28, 1988: The city council approved Menard's CUP and granted a parking reduction
authorization.
January 23, February 13, March 27 and April 6, 1989: The council changed the CUP conditions.
The changes were to clarify the screening fence and storage rack height requirements.
March 26, 1990: The council reviewed the CUP.
November 14, 1994, and September 11, 1995: The council amended the CUP conditions.
April 8, 1996: The council amended the CUP conditions because of a request for a seasonal,
outdoor greenhouse and plant sale operation. Refer to the current CUP conditions on page 20.
May 20, 1996: The council again reviewed the CUP and directed Menards, Citgo, staff and the
neighbors to meet and discuss several issues raised by one of the neighbors. These issues
were regarding the need for an additional screening fence, engine noises, fumes, parking and
cross traffic between Citgo and Menards.
August 12, 1997: The council reviewed the CUP again. The previous concerns and problems
have been resolved. The council moved to review the CUP again only if a problem develops;
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M-1
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-187 requires a CUP for building construction in a M-1 district that would be closer
than 350 feet to a residential zone.
Section 36-448(b) requires an amended CUP for any enlargement or intensification of use of an
existing CUP.
Section 36-22(a) requires parking for Menards at the ratios of one space for each 200 square
feet of retail space and one for each 1000 square feet of warehouse space.
Section 25-70 requires that the community design review board (CDRB) make the following
findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the
desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and
that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, 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.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states the city council must base their approval of a CUP on nine standards.
Refer to the ordinance on page 19.
Findings for Variance Approval
State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from
the zoning code:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance.
CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS
Menards should provide a gate and clear access to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as
part of this request.
FIRE MARSHAL'S COMMENTS
The proposed warehouse building must be equipped with an automatic sprinklering system if
there is not full access around the building.
p:sec9\menards.wrh
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line / Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Justification dated October 1, 1997
5. Applicant's Variance Justification dated October 7, 1997
6. Survey Reply from Gordon and Mary Anderson date-stamped October 20, 1997
7. Letter from Gordon and Mary Anderson date-stamped October 20, 1997
8. Letter from Pete and Liz Bobick dated October 26, 1997
9. CUP Ordinance
10. Current CUP Conditions dated April 8, 1996
11. Plans dated September 30, 1997 (separate attachment)
]0
Attachment 1
2880N
2640N
2
.~ UERID~A~ O~
2400N .'.-"
CT.
COUNTY
1. SUMMIT CT.
2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR
,3. DULUTH CT.
4. LYDIA ST. /
KOHL.MAN
ROAD C
NOR ~
SKILL
NToN AVE.
~ iSUMZE~
T~ I~ T-- ........ T
Attachment 2
?~ MENARDS .~
,,.
....... ;:, ~ ~2233
~m~T~,o .~', ~> ~ 2223 ,'
· ~ , ,
.coz-<__',__ ~, ,.~ ,
.... .m,,~ ~,,, . '~ x COU~ ROAD a.
m m ~:L:.:: -- .=
Attachment 3
SCREENING STRUCTURE DETAIL
N
LEGEND
Il/l/Ill/IliA
171111111111111IA
~\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\q
~,ITE PLAN
MENARD$ 'I~RACT
587,033 ~ SQ. FT.
13.48 · ACRES
SITE PLAN
13
, ]~![i'~ Proposed Building
I, I I
Attachment 4
October 1, 1997
City of Maplewood:
RE: Menards Conditional Use Application
Menard, Inc. is proposing to expand its existing home improvement center located
at 2280 Maplewood Drive. This expansion is' necessary to bring this store closer to the
standards of our newer prototype stores and to allow us to compete more effectively with
our competitors.
As a part of this proposal we are proposing many improvements, including:
The existing 28,917 sq. ft. drive through warehouse area will be converted to sales
area. This will allow us to re-merchandise the interior of the store in an effort to
expand our product lines and make the aisles wider.
The existing yard entrance will be relocated to the northeast side of the property
requiring all vehicles to enter the yard from the north. This will reduce the amount
of traffic in the yard area adjacent to the residential areas.
The existing screening fence along the south side of the yard will be replaced with a
new fourteen foot high screening fence. This will greatly improve the appearance of
the existing fence.
The existing welded wire fence along the parking lot will also be replaced with a
fourteen foot high solid screening fence that will help to conceal the yard activities
from the parking lot.
A new 43,065 sq. ft. warehouse will be built at the west end of the outside storage
area. The warehouse will be set back seventy-five feet from the south property line.
From the existing fence line to the west this seventy-five feet will be sodded and
landscaped. The exterior walls of the warehouse will be precast concrete panels
with no openings in the south or west walls.
The remainder of the existing outlot will be sodded and landscaped. This will
eliminate the current traffic situations that exist on the outlot.
Thank you for your consideration.
14
4777 MENARD DRIVE EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625 TELEPHONE (715) 876-5911 FAX: 715-876-5901
Attachment 5
October 7, 1997
City of Maplewood
RE: Building Set-Back Variance and Parking Variance
The proposed Menards expansion of the existing store will require two variances.
The first variance will be a building set-back variance for the proposed warehouse.
Ordinance No. 774 would require a 100' set-back from the south property line. A 75' set-
back is being proposed. As shown on the site plan, the majority of this 75' set-back will be
sodded and landscaped providing for additional screening of the building wall.
The second variance will be a parking variance. Section 36-22 of the zoning
ordinance would require 616 parking spaces. 400 parking spaces is being proposed. There
are currently 361 parking spaces on site. As a part of the proposed expansion 39 parking
spaces will be added. The existing Menards store has been in operation since 1989 and we
have not experienced a parking deficiency in that time. With the additional 39 proposed
spaces we do not anticipate any parking problems after the expansion.
This property is currently zoned for commercial use. The expansion of our existing
store is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit that currently exists on the property.
15
4777 MENARD DRIVE EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625
/ 'T- ..... l l
TELEPHONE (715) 876-5911 FAX: 715-876-5901
? m 'r'- ......'r- .........
Attachment 6
CITY'OF
MAPLEWOOD
1830 E. COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, ,XlINNESOT.4 55109
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
612-770-4560
{.5ORL)L)N & MARY ANDERtSON
2255 DULUTH STREET N.
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
' October 15, 1997
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
This is to get your opinion on an application the city received for property in your neighborhood.
Menards is proposing to build a 43,065 square foot warehouse building on their property. Refer
to the enclosures. To build this structure, they must get a conditional use permit from the city
council. They are alsO asking for a setback variance. The code requires that this building have
a 100 foot setback from the adjacent residential property line; they are proposing 75 feet.
I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city
council. Please write your opinion and comments below. Return only this cover letter (and any
attachments on which you have written comments) to me in the enclosed postage-paid
envelope by October 27, 1997.
If you would like further information, please call me at 770-4563 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. I
will send you a notice of any public hearings on this applicatiOn. Thank you for your comments.
I will give them careful consideration. -~~7 ....
pf
Enclosures -
I am in favor of this proposal because
I have no comment.
if ~[u object, des~'~ below or draw ian'the enclosed map ahy change~ that would
make this application acosptab~. If no .ch~tn.~s~p, ld]d make it acce, p.j~tabl,e, .how h~ ould...
this prol:~rty bexd~eveloped?
(Mena
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
18
Attachn~ent 9
.>
Attachment 10
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
erson or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,
ust, odor, f~es, water or a. ir ~llution_, d.ra!na.ge,. ~wate~r__r_u_n_-_
off, vibration, general unsightliness, e/ectrlcam ln:erTerence
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. Adherence to the site plan dated March 15, i98B, and the
greenhouse plan dated January B, 1996, unless a change is
approved by the City's Community Design Review Board. The
Director of Community Development may approve minor changes.
2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements:
a) The property owner shall continue to have, and keep in
a maintained condition, wooden screening-fences as
fol 1 ows:
1) An eight.foot-tall fence running north-south on
the west side of 1071 County Road B. This
section of fence shall have :no parking' signs
di splayed.
2) An eight.foot-tall fence running east-west from
the northwest corner of 1071 County Road B to
the northwest corner of 1101 County Road B.
3) A 14..foot-tall fence behind 1101 and 1115
County Road B: al so along the west 1 ot 1 ine of
1115 County Road B where it abuts Menard's.
4) A 14.foot-tall fence along the west side of the
outside storage yard.
2O 4-B-96
b)
5)
A lO-foot-tall fence along the remaining south
property 1 ine of Menard' s and northerly along
the east lot line to the point where the
property jogs to the east.
No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence
behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B. shall extend above
the 14-foot-tall fence.
c)
No more than 2-1/2 feet of the 17-1/2~foot-tall storage
racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that
are at street level along County Road B. This excludes
those houses that sit higher on a hill.
d)
Menard's shall be responsible for the safety of the
neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the
height of the fence.
3. Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7:00
A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed.
5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site
security shall be turned off after business hours.
6. The City Council shall review this permit in one year.
7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern
property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property.
8. Menard's shall store all their materials within the fenced
storage area. Plant displays shall be permitted outside the
greenhouse.
9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menard's for the
employees.
IA Condition 10 to read: 'The owner or operator shall provide
proof of all state and local permits required, valid and
displayed.'
11. Greenhouse hours of operation shall coincide with those of
Menard's.
I~. Condition 12 to read: 'The greenhouse structure~ shall be
temporary. The owner or operator shall remove the
greenhouse after each three-month season. Owner shall
designate on a sign where majority of products are grown.'
21
I I)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review-Forest Lawn Memorial
Park Crematory Addition
1800 Edgerton Street
November 5, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Don Rundquist, of Forest Lawn Memorial Park, is proposing to build a crematory addition at
their facility, 1800 Edgerton Street. Refer to the maps on pages 6-8 and the project description
on page 9. The applicant also informed us of three sites in the twin cities where the proposed
metal-shingle siding has been used so that we may see it in use. Refer to page 10.
Requests
The applicant is requesting approval of:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the expansion of their crematory. The city code requires
a CUP for cemeteries, crematories and mausoleums.
2. The building and site plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The city council should approve this permit. The proposed expansion would meet the code
criteria for a CUP. Forest Lawn has been a good neighbor and a compatible use with this
neighborhood.
Building Design
Staff does not feel that the proposed metal-shingle siding is appropriate for this expansion.
When reviewing plans for building additions, the city always strives for designs that have an
exterior compatible with the existing building. The proposed metal siding would be too different
from the stone of the original structure and the brick of the last addition. Staff realizes that using
stone would be cost prohibitive, but there are alternative materials available that would tie in the
design of addition closer to the existing structure.
The building could be designed with an exterior of brick, stucco, rock-face concrete block,
E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish systemBa stucco-look product), stone or manufactured stone
as examples. Perhaps a combination of aggregate or concrete material(s), such as those listed
above, could be used. The proposed metal-shingle siding could even be used as an accent
material much as it was used on the two towers at Metro State University.
T 'il ' T~ ...... T
Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the exterior of the proposed addition for approval
by the community design review board (CDRB) in consideration of these comments.
Roof-top Equipment Screening
On October 27, 1997, the city council gave first reading to an ordinance change regarding the
screening of roof-mounted mechanical equipment. The proposed amendment would drop the
screening requirement unless the equipment would be visible from residential properties. The
proposed building addition would have a substantial setback from any neighbor. Staff does not
feel screening is needed in this instance.
Parking
Forest Lawn does not have a parking lot for their mausoleum and crematory, only for their office
at the south end of the site. Their facility does not need one to operate, however, since visitors
park along their internal streets. The zoning code does not have parking criteria for cemeteries
or mausoleums.
There is no need for striped parking. If a problem occurs in the future, the city council can
require a parking lot through the CUP review process.
Landscaping and In-ground Lawn Irrigation
Forest Lawn is nicely landscaped. The additional trees proposed would be an attractive
supplement to the existing landscaping.
The code requires that the applicant install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the
expansion. The code, however, allows the council to waive this requirement if the property
owner has "suitable alternative irrigation arrangements." Forest Lawn's grounds are always
kept in excellent condition. Because of the applicant's track record, and their ability to water with
hoses, there is no reason to require in-ground lawn irrigation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on pages 11-12 approving a conditional use permit for the crematory
addition at Forest Lawn Cemetery at 1800 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the
findings required by code and subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Approve the site and landscape plans (date-stamped October 22, 1997) for the crematory
addition at Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 1800 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the
findings required by the code and subject to the property owner doing the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall
Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval before obtaining a building permit. The erosion control plan shall be meet
all ordinance requirements.
b. Resubmit the building elevations to the community design review board for approval
showing a building exterior that is compatible with the existing building.
3. Paint all roof-top mechanical equipment if placed on the addition. The color shall match
the building color. Screening is not required.
4. Keep the lawn and plantings around the proposed addition watered. Based on Forest
Lawn's lawn maintenance practices, there is no need for in-ground lawn irrigation.
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any
unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the
winter or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished
work.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 44.93 acres
Existing land use: Forest Lawn Memorial Park
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Roselawn Avenue and single dwellings
South: Gateway Trail and Single dwellings
West: Edgerton Street and single dwellings
East: Single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: CEM (cemetery)
Zoning: F(farm residential)
Ordinance requirements
Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for cemeteries, crematories and mausoleums.
Section 36-448(b) requires a CUP to enlarge or expand a use that requires a CUP.
Section 25-70 requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans:
That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the
desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and
that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and
attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal
plan.
That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
CUP-Criteria for Approval
Section 36-442(a) requires that the city council determine specific findings to grant a CUP.
Refer to these findings listed in the resolution on pages 11-12.
p:sec17\forest, lwn
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Narrative
5. Letter from Steven C. McDowall dated October 21, 1997
6. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
7. Plans dated-stamped October 22, 1997 (Separate Attachment)
5
Attachment 1
1
LITTLE CANADA
~ VIKING DR.
LAU~E CT.
FTJ~TON AVE.
S~ne/
Joke
SKILLMAN AVE.
KIT. VERNON
DOWNS AVE.
BELLWOOD AVE.
SUMMER AVE.
SKIL/MAN
LN.
w~
BURKE
AV.
SAINT
PAUL
LOCATION
6
MAP
Attack~ent 2
,ROSELAWN AVENUE, · _-' .... - "i-~.~z..~
' -:: ~ s~s F
;' ': ' ~ 581 '
~~8o
~a~~- A ~) FOREST LAWN
~~~I:~ ~ / ~ CEmTER~ ~
i
3~..~.[ II ', E'~=,~,. ~ '1
.'
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 1 [~
· 7 .
Attachment 3
SITE
PLAN
Forest Lawn Crematory Improvements
Project Description and Approach
Current and projected trends indicate that the public is selecting more and more, cremation a their choice
for their disposition at the time of death. Responding to a very competitive market, Forest Lawn is seeking
to meet this need with modifications to their existing facility. The significant component in this effort will be
an addition measuring approximately 35 feet wide by 60 feet long. This addition will house new equipment
that will make the cremation process cleaner, more efficient and more considerate by allowing family
members to observe the process if desired. This addition will also provide for the addition of equipment in
the future and eventually eliminating the need of the existing units.
Architecturally, the interest for the new addition is to recall aspects of the original mausoleum structure in
terms of massing, proportion and detail. The goal of the addition is to 'help "camouflage" the existing
chapel/crematory addition built in the 1950's. Through architectural massing and landscaping, the effort is
to screen the majority of that brick structure. The use of metal shingles is in response to budgetary
concerns. The rectangular modules of the shingles with a painted white finish is an attempt to emulate the
stone components of the original mausoleum.
At this time it is not expected that any significant rooftop mechanical units will be used. A 1'-6" - 2'-0" high
parapet is proposed to help visually conceal the presence of equipment (if any). The new crematory
chamber requires a 10'-0" high exhaust stack. Due to manufacturer's requirements a clearance height
must be maintained; therefore, increasing the height of the parapet will require the height of the stack to
be increased.
Landscaping/Site Work
All landscaping proposed is to give a general intent of what new plantings may entail. All new landscaping
will be selected and installed by Forest Lawn's grounds staff. The general goal is to use planting materials
to screen or direct views around the new structure. The layout is generally based on a formal
organization, incorporating existing materials or arrangements to appear as an extension of the existing
direction used around the mausoleum and on the cemetery grounds.
Drainage will be surface directed to the existing pond within the cemetery boundary, directly in front of the
mausoleum. At this point no tiling or piping systems are being proposed or considered.
The main objective is to visually separate crematory activities from the activities (chapel, mausoleum
visitation and services) of the general public. Staff and service functions will now have dedicated
entrances opposite the public (Edgerton Streetfront) side. A new, more accessible entry plaza and
entrance is proposed to accommodate general public visitation. This plaza and entrance will face
Edgerton.
October 21, 1997
Attachment 5
Commercial ~~al~''~ Contractors
Ette ranz
Mr. Don Rundquist
Forest Lawn Memorial Park
1800 Edgerton Street
Maplewood, MN 55117
RE: METAL SHINGLES
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your interest in our "stamped" sheet metal shingles. There are three (3)
locations in the metro area that these shingles have been installed on. However, no
prefinished colored shingles are on these buildings.
WCCO TV - 16 oz. copper shingles
90 - 11th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Minnesota Farm Bureau Center - 24 ga. galvanized iron shingles
3080 Eagandale Place
Eagan, MN 55121
Metro State University -
700 East 7th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
16 oz. lead coated copper shingles
Also, I am enclosing three (3) stamped sample shingles so that you can get a better
idea of what they look like up close.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
Steven C. McDowall
C.E.O.
fofstlwn
2222 R,,bbins 511'ecl * St. Paul, MN 55114 · Tel. 6]2.646.4811 * Fax 612.646.2776
10
Attacbnent 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Forest Lawn Memorial Park applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a
crematory addition at their facility.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1800 Edgerton Street. The legal
description is:
THAT PART OF THE WEST 1503.15 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, SECTION 17,
TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, LYING NORTH OF THE SO0 LINE RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-
WAY, INCLUDING ST. PAUL CEMETERY PLAT AND 3 FOREST CEMETERY PLATS IN
THE SOUTHEAST 1/4.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On November 11, 1997 the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
On ,1997, 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 would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
3.1
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline
for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1997.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
City Staff
Chad Bergo, Community Development Intern
Rezoning - Site 11
1695 McKnight Road
City Staff
November 10, 1997
INTRODUCTION
City staff is proposing a rezoning from R-1 (single dwelling) to LBC (limited business commercial)
for the property located at 1695 McKnight Road. Please see the maps on page 6. Maplewood is
proposing this change as part of our review of the comprehensive plan.
BACKGROUND
State law requires all cities in the metropolitan area to update their comprehensive plans by
December 1998. The law requires that a municipality's comprehensive plan and zoning must be
consistent with each other. This is one of several sites where city staff has found that the
current zoning and the land use plan designation are inconsistent. As such, city staff is
proposing to change the zoning of this site from R-1 to LBC (limited business commercial).
DISCUSSION
The current NC (neighborhood commercial) land use designation for this area is not consistent
with the existing R-1 zoning. To resolve this inconsistency, staff is proposing a rezoning from
R-1 (single family residential) to LBC (light business commercial). Maplewood intends the LBC
zone to be an area of transition between commercial uses and Iow or medium-density residential
areas. Maplewood may require restrictions on building height, setbacks, orientation, parking lot
location, or location of building entrances to ensure the compatibility of commercial development
with abutting residential uses.
Findings
The proposed change to LBC (limited business commercial) will be consistent with Maplewood's
Comprehensive Plan and the adjacent businesses located along McKnight and Larpenteur
Avenue. The proposed change will allow a commercial business along McKnight Road.
Currently, there are two businesses adjacent to the site, a day care center to the north and a strip
mall to the south. Screening and setbacks will buffer the single dwelling to the west from any
additional development. The development of this site as a commercial property will be consistent
with the adjacent businesses and zoning and with the comprehensive plan land use designation.
The site is already served with public water, sewer, police and fire protection.
Property Taxes
City staff talked to Kent Smith in the Ramsey County Assessor's Office about property taxes for
this site. Mr. Smith is a commercial property appraiser for the county. He told staff that the
appraisers classify properties by uses and set the value of properties. The value of property is a
large factor in determining the property taxes that an owner will pay. A more valuable property
(either residential or commercial) will pay more in property taxes than a less valuable property.
Mr. Smith explained to staff that the classification of the property relates to the use of the
property. That is, is the owner using the property for residential, commercial, institutional or
another type of land use? For setting the value of a property, Mr. Smith told staff that appraisers
consider several factors including what is the highest and best use of the site. Specifically, they
consider uses that are physically possible on the site, what uses are legal or possible with the
zoning and what uses work economically. They also consider if there is enough value in the site
to tear down any existing structures for redevelopment to another use. However, he also said
that the county bases the property taxes for a site on the use of the property and not by the
zoning of a property. He said in the case where a property has a homesteaded single dwelling,
the county would base the taxes on the residential use and on the value of the land.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution on page 7. This resolution changes the zoning for the property at 1695
McKnight Road from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to LBC (limited business commercial). The
city should make this zone change because:
o
The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
The 'proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the
property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately
safeguarded.
The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community,
where applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewer, police
and fire protection and schools.
State law now requires all cities in the metropolitan area to have consistent zoning and
land use plans.
The Ramsey County Assessor's Office said that the zoning change should not affect the
property taxes of the site.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
City staff surveyed the 24 property owners within 350 feet of the proposed site. We received five
replies. Of these, four were for the proposal and one was against.
FOR
I would not want to buy that parcel and house on it. I would refuse to live in a house in a
commercial area. (Martinson-1684 McKnight Lane)
1965 (McKnight) is already sandwiched between two commercial properties. (Resident -
1960 McKnight Road)
AGAINST
This zoning change will cause increased traffic flow on an already over-burdened roadway.
Develop the lot to accommodate new construction of a single family home. I do not wish to
appear negative but years ago when the Tom Thumb mini-mall was built we sort of questioned
whether it was needed as the 7-11 mini-mall was on the other corner. We were concerned about
vacant spaces. Well now as you can see they are half empty and generate more litter in our
Townhouse Area than you can imagine. They are an unmaintained nuisance who sell products
and their customers throw their lottery scratch-off tickets away to blow into our property, cigarette
packages, candy wrappers etc. Trespassing is also a problem relative to these businesses and
any future ones. Between the newly approved housing development at the end of Myrtle Street
and the Maplewood Apts., we are constantly being violated as we are the shortcut to the corner.
(Gordon Berggren - 1732 McKnight Road )
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: .436 acres
Existing land use: A house with a detached garage
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Day Care Center
East: Automobile Service Station
South: Stdp Mall
West: Single Dwelling
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation:
Existing Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
NC (neighborhood commercial)
R-1 (single dwelling residential)
LBC (limited business commercial)
Zone Change - Findings for Approval
Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to
rezone property:
The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the
property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately
safeguarded.
The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community,
where applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewer, police
and fire protection and schools.
Commercial and Industrial Development Policies
The following are the city's commercial and industrial development policies from the
comprehensive plan:
· Group compatible businesses in suitable areas.
Provide attractive surroundings in which to shop and work.
Require adequate off-street loading facilities.
Avoid disruption of adjacent residential areas.
Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to
ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any
adjacent existing or planned residential uses.
Restrict commercial development which will result in traffic volumes which are beyond the
capacity of the road systems or generate excessive noise or pollution as defined by state
standards.
p:/secl 4/site 11 .mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Zoning Map Change Resolution
RD.
;EY COUNTY
G HOME AND
GROUNDS
NORTH SAINT PAUL
(.. st. p.)
1. MARYJOE L.N.
2. TIERNEY AVE.
5. MEADOW DR.
4. RIPLE'Y AVE.
GOODRICH
GOLF
COURSE
RIPLEY AVE:.
KING'G'TON
P~CE AVE.
KNOLL CIR.
AVE:.
7
1440N --'--
NEBRASKA AVl[.
2 ~
4 E
5 7 ;
LOCATION MAP
5
Attachment 2
CoB
rehensive Plan
.... ,~-- ¢ ~ I~, ~~,~.,,
~ J o
724 ~ z.o ~.
171 ~_m I
:.'%~ ~
~ .1702 ~ 1709
2243 2251 ~_..,~
Larpenteur Avenue
[ 1, 700 1
'221-9.2223
ZONING & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIFFERENCES
Hillside Neighborhood
Zoned - R-1 Planned - NC
6
Attachment 3
REZONING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, city staff applied for a rezoning from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to LBC
(limited business commercial).
WHEREAS, this rezoning applies to a .436 acre tract at 1695 McKnight Avenue. The
legal description of the property is:
Subject to east avenue the north 88 feet of the south 264 feet of the east 247 5/10 feet of
the southeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22 in Maplewood, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this rezoning is as follows:
The planning commission reviewed this rezoning on November 17, 1997. They
recommended that the city council approve the rezoning.
The city council held a public hearing on The city staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an
opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered
reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-
described rezoning for the following reasons:
The'proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the
zoning code.
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use
of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is
adequately safeguarded.
The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,
and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water,
sewer, police and fire protection and schools.
State law now requires all cities in the metropolitan area to have consistent zoning
and land use plans.
The Ramsey County Assessor's Office said that the zoning change should not
affect the property taxes of the site.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,1997.
7
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Chad Bergo, Community Development Intern
Street Vacations
Between Frost and Skillman Avenue and west of Manton, east of Clarence St.
October 22, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Maplewood city staff is asking the city council to vacate several unused street right-of-ways.
These are west of Manton Street and between Skillman and Frost Avenues. They include parts
of Ryan Avenue, Birmingham Street, and Ide Street between Skillman and Frost Avenue. Refer
to the maps on pages 2 and 3.
DISCUSSION
The city is requesting these vacations because it has no plans to develop these streets. Robin
Hood Park is adjacent to the vacations north of the Gateway Trail and the Gladstone Community
Center is adjacent to the vacations south of the trail. Because of these parks, it is not necessary
for the city to keep these right-of-ways. The city must keep a utility and drainage easement over
the vacated right-of-ways south of the trail for possible future storm sewers.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution starting on page 4. This resolution vacates the unused portions of Ryan
Avenue, Birmingham Street, and Ide Street between Skillman and Frost Avenue, west of Manton
and east of Clarence Street. The city should vacate these street right-of-ways because:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build streets or alleys in these
locations.
3. The adjacent properties have street access.
This vacation is subject to the city keeping a utility and drainage easement over all of the vacated
Ryan Avenue right-of-way and over that part of the Birmingham Street right-of-way south of the
Gateway Trail.
p:sec15/gladst.vac
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Street Vacation Map
3. Vacation Resolution
Attachment 1
1
OERVA/S
~' ORANDVIEW AVE.
SHERREN AVE.
~ke
AVE.
AVE. ~ LARK
¢~,~
¢
~ JUNCTION
'~'~ (1) CHAMBERS ST"
AVE.
ROSEWOOD AVE. IN.
13~ F1~ISBIE AVE.
Street Vacation
Map
Attact~ent 2
Skillman Avenue
Trait
Avenue
~B ~11
I !!
Struct[xes
Proposed Vacations
N
Attachment 3
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, City of Maplewood applied for the vacation of the following-described right-of-ways:
The portion of Ide Street right-of-way that is between the south right-of-way of Skillman
Avenue and the north right-of-way of the vacated Claire Street, in Section 15,
Township 29, Range 22 in Maplewood, Minnesota.
The portion of Birmingham Street right-of-way that is between the south right-of-way of
Skillman Avenue and the north right-of-way of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Gateway Trail, in Section 15, Township 29, Range 22 in Maplewood,
Minnesota.
The portion of Birmingham Street right-of-way that is between the north right-of-way of
Ryan Avenue and the south right-of-way of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Gateway Trail, of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22 in Maplewood,
Minnesota.
The portion of Ryan Avenue right-of-way that is between the west right-of-way of Manton
Street and the east right-of-way of Ide Street (Donna Senty Drive), of Section 15,
Township 29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows:
On November 17, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the vacations.
On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice
in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting 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.
WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest in the property will go to
the following abutting properties:
Lots 1-9, Block 19, and Lots 11-18, in Block 18, Gladstone Addition of Section 15,
Township 29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota.
Lots 1-10, Block 18, and Lots 12-22, in Block 10, Gladstone Addition, of Section 15,
Township 29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota.
Lots 1 & 2, Block 20, and Lot 1, Block 17, Gladstone Addition, of Section 15, Township
29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota.
Lots 30 & 1, Block 21, and Lots 1 & 30, Block 16, in Section 15, Township 29, Range
22, Gladstone Addition, in Maplewood, Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
vacations for the following reasons:
It is in the public interest.
The city and the applicant have no plans to build streets or alleys in these locations.
The adjacent properties have street access.
This vacation is subject to the city keeping all utility and drainage easement over the Ryan
Avenue and Birmingham Street right-of-ways that are south of the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Trail.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,1997.
5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Melinda Coleman, Community Development Director
PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
November 4,1997
INTRODUCTION
The planning commission has a vacancy created by the resignation of David Kopesky. This term
ends on December 31, 1998. Mr. Matt Ledvina, a member of the community design review
board, as applied to fill this vacancy. Please see his application materials on pages 2-5.
BACKGROUND
The planning commission's rules of procedure state that the commission shall recommend
candidates based on qualifications and a representative geographical distribution of members.
(See the planning commission membership map on page 6.) Staff ran notices three different
times in recent months to recruit applicants for the planning commission. We had no success in
getting new applicants from the notices. Mr. Ledvina is the only person to express an interest in
serving on the commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Interview Mr. Ledvina for the planning commission vacancy.
p;/misc/pcappt, mem
Attachments:
1. Matt Ledvina Application
2. Planning Commission Membership Map
Attachment 1
October 30, 1997
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Director of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Coleman:
This letter is sent to express my interest in the position that is available for the Planning Commission.
Responses to items 4) through 6) of the Applicant Information Form are included in this cover letter. I
have enclosed the Applicant Information Form and my professional resume for your review.
I am interested in all aspects of the Planning Commission. I would like to see that development and
redevelopment of sites within the City of Maplewood occur with a high degree of environmental
sensitivity. This includes preservation of landforms, pollution prevention and ecosystem management. I
believe that the concepts of sustainable development can be more explicitly integrated into many aspects
of planning decisions.
My wife and I moved to Maplewood in March of 1995 and I became a member of the Maplewood Design
Review Board in February 1997. I served as a Planning Commissioner for the City of Chanhassen for
three years until the time we moved to Maplewood. I also served as Planning Commission liaison to the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority as well as a member of the Bluff Creek Corridor Preservation
Task Force. ! invite you to contact the City of Chanhassen Mayor Nancy Mancino (474-3861 ) or Planning
Director Kate Aanenson (937-1900, ext. 118) if you would like more information regarding my
involvement with the City of Chanhassen.
I believe I can make a significant contribution to the community by providing careful review of, and
creative input for, the various projects, that are undertaken within the City of Maplewood. My educational
and professional experiences have enabled me to develop a broad perspective on many complicated issues
which must be decided by the City Council with support from the various advisory groups.
Thank you for your consideration regarding the available position.
Matthew L. Ledvina
w:\go\form s\00001 \1t971029.doc
,lAME
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM
PHONENO. Work: ¢6'q-142-% Home:
DATE
1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood?
2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes ~
Comments:
ZIP l
No X
3)
On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check)
~ Community Design Review Board __ Park & Recreation Commission
__ Housing & Redevelopment Authority X Planning Commission
~. Human Relations Commission __ Police Civil Service Commission
4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities?
5)
List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant:
6)
Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC.
FORMS~BRD&COMM APL 3
! O/g~J
MATTHEW L. LEDVINA, P.E.
EMPLOYMENT:
B. A. Liesch Associates, Minneapolis, MN
Environmental and Engineering Consulting firm.
1987 - Present
J. M. Montgomery and Associates (formerly E.A. Hickok and Associates), Wayzata, MN.
Environment"al and Engineering Consulting firm.
1984 - 1987
EDUCATION:
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN
Master of Business Administration
May 1992
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, WI
Graduate Course Work in Environmental Science
1982 - 1984
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering
May 1982
EXPERIENCE:
Corporate Safe~y: Served as a Corporate Radiation Safety Officer. Served as a member of the
corporate Heal~ and Safety Commi~ee. Conducted in-house radiation safety tTaining refresher
seminars. Dra~ed corporate operating procedures and policies for construction site safet"y.
Prepared numerous site specific safety plans for investigation and work on contaminated sites.
Industrial Soild Waste Manaqement: Prepared numerous Management Plans for Industrial Solid
Wastes received at landfills and incide~"ators. Characterization, evaluation and tTeatmen~J
disposal/processing recommendations for paint wastes, ashes, resins, PCB wastes, food
processing wastes, empw containers, asbestos, paper mill sewage studge and Iow level
radioactive wastes.
Enqineerinq Oesiqn: Preparation of complete engineering plans for landfill liners with leachate
collection from the development of conceptual design and MPCA permit'ting through
construction. Economic analysis for alternative landfill liner materials and soil borrow studies
for landfill sites. Prepared and implemented closure plans and reports including design of landfill
gas venting systems, terrace systems for erosion control and drainage control structures.
Conducted investigations of alternative final cover materials such as water treatment lime
sludge, paper mill sewage sludge and synthetic membranes.
4
Resume
Matthew Ledvina
Page 2
EXPERIENCE: (continued)
Assisted in the development of engineering plans for ground water removal and treatment
systems, soil vapor extraction, in situ groundwater sparging systems and waste water
treatment lagoons.
Rules and Administral;ive Orders: Proficient in the interpretation and applicability of State and
Federal Rules including: RCRA Subtitle D, RCRA Subtitle C, RCRA Subtitle I, CERCLA, Clean
Air Act Section 111 B, NPDES, OSHA 29CFR 1910.120, NRC Title 10, MERLA, MN Solid Waste
Facility Rules, MN EQB Rules and WDNR Solid Waste Facility Rules.
Assisted in regulatory negotiations of Request for Response Actions, Consent Orders,
Stipulation Agreements and Closure Orders. Served as Project Engineer for conducting remedial
investigations, feasibility studies and remedial action plans. Prepared solid waste facility cost
estimates and developed mechanisms for complying with regulatory requirements of financial
assurance for closure, long term care and contingency actions.
Site Remedial;ion. Conducted studies to define landfill leachate quality and quantities for on-site
treatment by aeration lagoons and off-site treatment by publicly owned treatment works.
Performed economic analyses of waste water treatment alternatives to identify the most cost
effective technique(s). Prepared remedial action plans for landfill and industrial sites to mitigate
ground waters contaminated with dissolved metals and volatile organics. Supervised the
successful excavation and manifesting of 1,000 tons of hazardous wastes and contaminated
soil at an industrial site.
Construction Administration: Prepared design specifications and contract documents for
administration of landfill liner/leachate collection system construction, landfill closure
construction, and water supply well rehabilitation. Conducted all contract administration tasks
for construction projects with budgets up to $850,000. Involved in surveying and grade
staking of liners, closure covers and borrow areas. Quality control work for clay liner placement
and "as built" report preparation for construction certification.
Hydroqeqloqic Investiqation: Developed and supervised the undertaking of numerous
hydrogeologic investigations at solid waste landfills and industrial sites in various types of
glacial and bedrock formations. Implementation of environmental monitoring systems in the
evaluation of the magnitude and extent of groundwater contamination. Conducted hydraulic
testing of monitoring wells and pumping wells to define aquifer characteristics.
REGISTRATION:
Professional Engineer, States of Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Jersey.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:
Industrial Council on Environmental Management
MPCA Solid Waste Facility Financial Assurance Task Force
American Society of Civil Engineers
National Societ~ of Professional Engineers
References Available on Request.
(612) 770-4500
LEQEND
Attachment 2
13,