The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/03/1997BOOK 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes January 21, 1997 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 3, 1997 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 4. Approval of Agenda o o Public Headngs 7:00 Auto Service Center (West of Highway 61, north of Beam Avenue) Land Use Plan Change (R-1 to M-l) Zoning Map Change (R-1 to M-l) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (auto-service related building) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (auto-service related building) Ponding Easement Vacation Lot Division Unfinished Business Commercial Property Study 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. January 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman b. February 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost 9. Staff Presentations Date of Next Meeting (was to be February 17 - Presidents Day) February 187 10. Adjoumment wELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name 'and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION '1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JANUARY 2'l, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Barbara Ericson Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Kevin Kittridge Dave Kopesky Gary Pearson William Rossbach Milo Thompson III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. November 18, 1996 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of November 18, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Ericson seconded. Ayes--Ericson, Fischer, Frost, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson Abstention--Brueggeman, Kittridge The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda as submitted. AyesBall Commissioner Ericson seconded. The motion passed. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Bradley Street and Kingston Avenue Street Vacations Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts and Melinda Coleman, director of community development, answered questions from the commissioners. Scott Farinella of 1760 Bradley Street, the applicant, was present. Mr. Varinella said he was requesting the vacation because his family has maintained this property for years. He also would like to somewhat restrict access from the Gateway Trail. He mentioned that there has been an increase in vandalism and people parking in the area due to the proximity of the trail. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-21-97 -2- Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which vacates the Bradley Street right-of-way south of Kingston Avenue. The city should vacate this street right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage, utility and pedestrian easement over the east 40 feet of the right-of-way. Bo Adopt the resolution which vacates the Kingston Avenue right-of-way east of Bradley Street. The city should vacate this street fight-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage, utility and pedestrian easement over the south 40 feet of the right-of-way. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Commissioner Thompson said this is essentially the only access to the Gateway Trail between Arlington and Frost Avenue. By vacating this land, Mr. Thompson felt area residents would be forced to trespass on private land to enter the trail at this location. Commissioner Rossbach suggested that they use the city-retained easement at this site for access. Commissioner Thompson asked that the. motion be tabled until confirmation was obtained from the city or the Department of Natural Resources that entry to the trail would be possible from this easement. Commissioner Rossbach thought there would be sufficient access and asked the motion be amended to include pedestrian in the easement descriptions. AyesmBrueggeman, Ericson, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach Nays--Thompson The motion passed. B. Zoning Map Change--Minneapolis Radiation Oncology Clinic (3004 Hazelwood Street) Associate Planner Ken Roberts presented the staff report. Larry Martin of Larkin, Hoffman, Attorneys was present for the applicant. Mr. Martin estimated that the clinic would have about 30 patients per day. He felt there was a need for the clinic in this area because now the closest cancer treatment center is downtown St. Paul. Clare Malmin, the clinic manager, and Gunnar Unger, the architect, were also present. Mr. Unger said the owner would consider reversing the location of the clinic and parking area. A smaller number of parking stalls was also discussed. Commissioner Kittridge moved that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which changes the zoning map from R-1 (single-family residential) to BC (business Planning Commission Minutes of 01-21-97 -3- commercial). This rezoning is for the property at 3004 Hazelwood Street for the proposed Minneapolis Radiation Oncology Clinic. The city bases this rezoning approval on the findings required by the code and that it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This approval shall be in effect for one year. If the owner or developer does not get a building permit for a medical clinic within one year of the zoning change approval, the matter shall come back to the city council. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission send a note to the Maplewood Community Design Review Board indicating that the Planning Commission, at this meeting, discussed reducing the parking requirement and also the possibility of positioning the parking lot and building differently on the site. This revised placement would offer additional sound protection for the residents to the north. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. C. Conditional Use Permit--Used Motor Vehicle Sales Lot (1225 Frost Avenue) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions. Mike Bergeron was present representing the applicant. Mr. Bergeron said there are two shared driveways to the building. Commissioner Thompson was concerned about the traffic patterns and snow storage on the lot. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adopt the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a used motor vehicle sales lot at 1225 Frost Avenue. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year. If there is not enough parking on the site, the operator or property owner shall reduce the number of vehicles for sale on the site or shall arrange to park employee vehicles elsewhere. 4. The operator shall not allow parking on Frost Avenue. 5. The hours for vehicle sales shall be Monday-Saturday, 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. There shall be no vehicle sales on Sundays. (State Law) 6. The operator shall get a license for the sale of used motor vehicles. 7. The owner or operator shall install stop signs at each driveway and a handicapped parking space and signage on the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-21-97 -4- 8. The owner or operator shall stripe all vehicle display and parking spaces. All spaces shall meet city size standards. The owner or operator shall only park the vehicles for sale in the front of the building on the bituminous area. The operator shall keep the displayed vehicles at least 10 feet back from Frost Avenue. 10. There shall be no exterior storage of inoperable vehicles or vehicle parts on the site. Approve a 12 stall parking reduction authorization for George's Auto Body shop at 1225 Frost Avenue. This approval shall be subject to reconsideration by the city in the future if a parking problem develops. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. AyesBall The motion passed. D. Tax-Forfeited Properties Associate Planner Ken Roberts presented the staff report. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission: Ao Adopt the resolution which requests that the county convey Site One to the city for drainage and ponding purposes. Adopt the resolution which requests that the county convey Site Two to the city for parks and open space purposes. Adopt the resolution which requests that the county convey Site Three to the city for drainage and ponding purposes. Commissioner Ericson seconded. AyesBall The motion passed. E. 1996'Annual Report The staff report was introduced by Ken Roberts, associate planner. Commissioner Thompson said the focus of the proposed 1997 activities was on the Phalen Watershed and he was concerned about watershed-related issues in other areas of the city. Commissioner Kittridge suggested that an addition be made to the 1997 Activities section of the report to "direct staff to arrange presentations from representatives of the other two watershed organizations present in the City of Maplewood." The commissioners discussed the annual Maplewood tour. Commissioner Rossbach suggested that Item 1 be changed to add "to finalize and adopt the necessary code changes." Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said she and Ken Haider, city engineer, have been meeting with other communities that are part of the Ramsey-Washington Watershed. They discussed buffer-setback issues and problems these other cities are experiencing. Cliff Aichinger of the Ramsey-Washington Watershed Board, is putting together a survey to identify the remaining ~difficult" parcels throughout the district. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-21-97 -5- Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission's 1997 Annual Report with revisions to the1997 Activities section to read as follows: 2-7 8. Commercial Property Study--follow closely and work with the city council to finalize and adopt the necessary code changes. (Remain the same as in the staff report.) Direct staff to arrange presentations from representatives of the other two watershed organizations that are present in the City of Maplewood. o Commissioner Frost seconded. The motion passed. Election of Officers Review the wetland buffer ordinance. Ayes--all Chairperson Lorraine Fischer presented the staff report. Both Chairperson Fischer and Vice- chairperson Jack Frost indicated they were willing to serve another year. Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission elect Lorraine Fischer as chairperson and Jack Frost as vice-chairperson of the Maplewood Planning Commission for 1997. Commissioner Kopesky seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--Brueggeman, Ericson, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson Abstention--Fischer VII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS VIII. A. November 25 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting. B. December 9 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting. C. December 23 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting. D. January 13 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting. E. January 27 Council Meeting: There were no planning items scheduled for this meeting. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Commercial Property Study January 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION On August 12, 1996 the city council directed staff to proceed with the actions outlined in summary format in the August 5, 1996 staff report on the Commercial Property Study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between commercial and residential zones and the possible methods to control the intensity of uses of commercial properties. Of the ten actions proposed by staff and the planning commission, seven suggest amending particular ordinances relating to parking, landscaping, zoning and the amortization of nonconforming commercial uses in residential areas. One recommendation prompts the city to adopt the city of Chanhassen's landscaping standards on a trial basis for one year. Another recommendation suggests that the planning commission study the intensity of commercial development. This would be to define what intensity means, whether the city needs to control intensity and, if so, ways that the city can control the intensity of commercial development. The recommendation about lifting a moratorium on new or expanding clinics has already been accomplished. At this time, city staff addresses the first six recommendations for action. These recommendations do not require any further research or investigation by staff. The four recommendations that are not considered for action in this report are, according to the recommendation numbers in the summary staff report dated August 5, 1996, (7) parking set- asides, (8) the BC(M) intent statement, (9) the amortization of nonconforming commercial uses in residential districts, and (10) further study of commercial development intensity by the planning commission. City staff will continue to work on Recommendations 7-10 as our time allows. BACKGROUND On November 18, 1996, the planning commission reviewed several proposed code changes for the commercial property study. The commission suggested changes to the code about landscaping and screening. It was the consensus of the commission to table action on this item for more information about building size and exterior wall area. The commission also wanted to include rules about pawn and gun shop regulations. DISCUSSION 1. "Initiate an ordinance that changes Subsection 36-27(a) of the city code to require trees and shrubs in addition to grass, but allow the CDRB to waive the requirernent where the adjacent owners object." This. section requires a landscaped yard of not less than twenty feet in width. Since the planning commission felt that landscaping could mean just grass, they recommended that the council change this subsection to require trees or shrubs besides grass. The community design review board (CDRB) was concerned that this would limit flexibility, especially when neighbors do not want or need screening. Staff recommends a compromise by which staff would add screening as a purpose for the 20-foot-wide area, with the provision that the CDRB may waive the requirement if it is not appropriate or not necessary. Refer to the resolution on beginning on page 6. 2. "Initiate an ordinance that states the city may require landscaping with any required · screening fencing." Subsection 36-27(c) and (d) specifies how screening, if required, shall be satisfied and states that a developer may use a combination of screening options to satisfy the screening requirement. The addition of the wording in the above recommendation to Subsection 36-27(d) explicitly gives the CDRB the option to impose additional landscaping requirements to screening fences. However, the planning commission wanted different language in the code that requires additional landscaping unless the CDRB deems it not appropriate or not necessary. Refer to the resolution beginning on page 6. 3. Ulnitiate an ordinance that changes Subsection 36-28(c)(6). This change would increase the maximum setback for large and tall buildings from 75 feet to 100 feet." The impetus for this recommendation stems from the impacts of tall or large buildings next to homes. The CDRB noted that several smaller commercial buildings fit well into their residential surroundings and would not require an increase in the minimum setback. Thus the city should keep the minimum setback of 50 feet, while increasing the maximum setback to 100 feet. Refer to the resolution beginning on page 6. 4. Ulnitiate an ordinance to change the uses in the commercial districts to conform to the planning commission's list on page 5." The planning commission has recommended making the following changes in commercial uses by zoning district. Within the Business Commercial (BC) district, staff proposes that the following permitted uses be at least 350 feet from any property that the city is planning for residential use: on-sale liquor that is not part of a restaurant, motor vehicle sales (new only or new and used), CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (Liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities (limited capacity), and check cashing businesses. A craftsman shop, currently a permitted use, shall require a CUP if within 350 feet of a residential use. The following conditionally-permitted uses in the BC district are proposed to be at least 350 feet from any property that the city is planning for residential use: the sale of used cars and major motor fuel station, vehicle wash or maintenance garages, pawn shops and retail gun shops. Refer to the resolution beginning on page 8. Within the Light Manufacturing (M-l) district, staff proposes that the following conditional use be restricted to at least 350 feet from any property that the city is planning for residential use: mining or material recycling. Refer to the resolution beginning on page 12. City staff is not proposing any changes to the permitted uses in the M-1 zone. The current zoning standards (requiring a CUP if within 350 feet of residential) with the proposed increased building setbacks (page 7) should provide residential areas with enough protection. Staff also proposes to add helistops as an accessory use to a hospital, if it is not within 350 feet of any property that the city is planning for residential use. Helistops are places for one helicopter to land or take off, but does not include maintenance or fueling operations. Refer to the resolution on page 14. 5. "Uti the moratorium on new or expanding clinics." This has been done. 6. "Use the monetary standards, vehicular, foundation and aesthetic plantings, etc., from the Chanhassen ordinance for a one-year trial period. At the end of one year, the CDRB shall recommend whether the city should add all or some of the Chanhassen ordinance to the Maplewood code." The community design review board members are currently using the Chanhassen standards and are evaluating their usefulness. 7. "Initiate an ordinance that allows the city to replace some of the required parking with reserved land in conjunction with a mechanism for actually getting more parking built ff the need arises." The purpose of a parking set-aside policy is to preserve greenspace, enhance landscaping and reduce harmful and environmentally degrading runoff effects from unnecessary impervious parking surface. Much like a parking reduction authorization, parking set-asides would reduce the amount of land that a developer would pave for parking. The amount of parking would depend on the expected business volume and predicted traffic flows generated from the business. The developer or contractor would grade and prepare any land set aside for future parking but landscape the area with sod or other impermanent plantings. If parking demands increase to warrant additional parking, the city would require the business to expand the parking as needed up to the full amount required in the initial site plan. Staff needs to research this issue further before the city takes action on it. The one point of concern would be the creation of a mechanism to require the developer or owner to build all or part of the set-aside parking area should the need arise. City staff should contact other cities to get different perspectives on this issue. 8. "initiate an ordinance that would drop the first sentence of the intent section of the BC(M) zoning district." Staff needs to reevaluate this recommendation in terms of what the city intends the BC(M) zoning district to achieve. 9. "Initiate an ordinance to amortize nonconforming uses in residential zones. The city code defines a nonconforming use as "^ building, or use of land or of a building, existing at the effective date of any provision of this chapter which does not conform with the requirements of such provision of this chapter, or a use authorized under Article III of this chapter." In other words, a nonconforming use is a use that was legal, but no longer conforms to the current zoning laws because of a change in the law. The code allows a legal nonconforming use to continue if it does not expand or end for one year or more. The city may allow a nonconforming use to expand by approving a conditional use permit. Zoning ordinances are not retroactive. Existing land uses that do not conform to a new ordinance can continue as a nonconforming use. For example, if the city rezoned a welding shop to single-family residential, the welding shop could continue as a nonconforming use. Most communities do not allow an expansion of a nonconforming use that would prolong its use. This is because a nonconforming use may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3 Maplewood requires a conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a nonconforming use. If natural causes destroy a nonconforming building, the owner has one year to reconstruct it or he must rebuild on the site following the current rules. If the owner abandons or does not use a nonconforming building for one year, then the building or use must conform to the current ordinance and standards. Before the city takes action on this recommendation, staff needs to first gain an accurate assessment of the number of such nonconforming uses in the city and gain an understanding of the legal implications of creating an amortization provision. To accomplish this, staff will consult with the city attorney about the legal aspects of such an action, survey surrounding cities to seek out and examine comparable ordinances and possibly request guidance from the League of Minnesota Cities. 10. "Direct the planning commission to study the intensity of commercial development." The study should define what intensity of commercial development means and decide whether the city needs to control the intensity of commercial development. If the commission decides that the city needs to control intensity, it should recommend ways to do it. The commission could consider regulation of maximum lot coverage and floor area to lot area ratios. COMMISSION ACTION On November 12, 1996, the community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of design-related code changes. These proposed changes were slightly different from those now proposed in Recommendation A. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution beginning on page 6. This resolution revises Subsection 36-27(a), Subsection 36-27(d) and Article (6) of Subsection 36-28(c) of the city code about design standards. B. Approve the resolution beginning on page 8. This resolution revises Division 7 of Article II of Chapter 36 of the city's code of ordinances, Subsection 36-151 about the business commercial (BC) zoning district. C. Approve the resolution beginning on page 13. This resolution revises Division 9 of Article II of Chapter 36 of the city's code of ordinances, Subsection 36-186 about the fight manufacturing (M-l) zoning district. D. Approve the resolution on page 15. This resolution revises Article V, Section 36-437 of the city's code of ordinances about conditional use permits (CUP) and adds Helistops to the list of definitions in Section 36-6. P:~...~,liscell\comstudy.-4 Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Recommendations 2. Landscaping and Screening Resolution 3. Business Commercial Zoning Code Resolution 4. Light Manufacturing Zoning Code Resolution 5. Conditional Use Permit Code Resolution Attachment 1 PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL USES BY ZONING DISTRICT CUP: A use that should have a conditional use permit (CUP) if within 350 feet of a property that the city is planning for residential use. 350 feet: A use that should be at least 350 feet away from a property that the city is planning for residential use. BC (Business Commercial) Permitted Uses: On-sale liquor that is not part of a restaurant--350 feet Craftsman's shop---CUP Motor vehicle sales (new only or new and used)--350 feet CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities (limited capacity)--350 feet Add check cashing businesses--350 feet Conditional Uses: Sale of used cars--350 feet Omit heliport (see below) Major motor fuel station, vehicle wash or maintenance garages~350 feet M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Permiffed uses: Contractors' shops~350 feet Manufacturing, assembly, or processing of products--350 feet Conditional use: Mining or material recycling--350 feet Other Changes Gun shops (or sales)~prohibit anywhere in the city Add helistop as an accessory use to a hospital, if it is not within 350 feet of a residential district. Define helistop as a place for one helicopter to land or take off, but does not include maintenance or fueling operations. Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 36 OF THE CITY CODE ABOUT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes the following part of the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-27. Landscaping and screening. (a) A landscaped and possible screened area ef not less than twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where: (1) A nonresidential use abuts a residentially-zoned property. (2) A multiple dwelling abuts a property zoned for single or double dwellings. The community desi,qn review board (CDRB) shall require shrubs or trees in this area unless they deem it not appropriate or not necessary. [(b) and (c) remain unchanged.] (d) Screening may be satisfied with a screening fence. A screening fence shall be attractive, compatible with the principal building and surrounding land uses, at least six (6) feet in height, and provide a minimum opaqueness of eighty (80) percent. The city shall require landsca;)inQ, includin.q trees and shrubs, with any screening fence unless the CDRB deems it not ao;)ro;)riate or not necessary. Section 2. This section changes the following part of the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-28. Additional design standards. [(a) and (b) remain unchanged.] (c) The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: [(1) through (5) remain unchanged.] (6) Construct all buildings, except single- and two-family homes, with the following minimum setbacks: a. Thirty (30) feet from a street right-of-way. bo Fifty (50) feet from a residential lot line. This setback shall be increased up to ...... ,,. ~,,,../-/m one hundred (100) feet based on the more restrictive of the following ~''~ "~ %' ~1 requirements: 1. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two (2) feet for each one (1) foot the building exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height. __ 2~ Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residentially-zoned property, the wall setback from the residential lot line shall be as follows: Wall Area Minimum Setback (square feet) (feet) 0 - 1999 50 2000 - 2999 75 3000 or more 100 [(7) through (14) remain unchanged.] Section 3. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1997. 7 Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING DIVISION 7 OF ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 36 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, SUBSECTION 36-151 ABOUT THE BUSINESS COMMERCIAL (BC) ZONING DISTRICT. The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes the Maplewood City Code as follows (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-151. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses: The city shall only permit the following uses by right: (1) A dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use. (2) Hotel, motel or tourist cabins. (3) Retail commercial rental activities "~"' ......' .... '~ ~; ..... "' or , .~...s~.~, ~.,,.~ ~.,, ~._,~. ,,~l.V, ...~,, ,~. ~ office, clinic, studio, bank, personal service, day care center, mortuary or funeral pador, restaurant or on-sale liquor business (subject to license). All on sale liquor business not associated with a restaurant shall be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property that the city is plannin.q for residential use. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building. (4) For motor vehicles, the followinR activities if not within three hundred fifty (350) feet of any property that the city is plannin,q for residential'use: a_. The sale or leasin.q of new motor vehicles. b_. The sale or leasinR of new and used motor vehicles when all such activities are on the same property. c_. The rental of motor vehicles as an accessory use to the sale or leasing of new motor vehicles. (5) Publishing, photocopying or printing establishment. (6) Indoor theater. (7) Laundry. (8) Bakery or candy shop, which produces goods for on-premises retail sale. (9) Parking lot as a principal use. (10) Motor vehicle accessory installation center. (11) CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities. Tanks shall not exceed a water capacity of one thousand five hundred (1,500) gallons for those dispensing facilities whose primary purpose is to produce power and light for nonvehicle uses, such as at 3M, NSP's facility on Century Avenue, or for temporary use on construction sites. (Refer to the licensing requirements in Chapter 17.3.) (12) CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) retail dispensin.q facilities-limited capacity. Tanks shall not exceed a water ¢~pecity of one thousand (1,000) gallons for dispensing facilities as an accessory use to a motor fuel station or convenienc~ store, the primary purpose for which is the filling of LPG tanks for recreational vehicles, portable heaters and gas grills. These limited capacity dispensing facilities shall be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is planning for residential use, ·-~l,-~,, ~,,v~., ~1,.,,~ ,,,v~, ,~v, ~,v,,~ v, ,,,~,,,~,,~,,~ ;~,~v~. · t,, ~,,,~, ~,~:S~ ~, ~,~,.,~.~ v~vv~.~ ~,~,,~ ~,,M ~"~''~"'~:h ~''~" ~v ,,, ~ v,v~v~ ~,,~,,,;~. (13) Check cashing business, if at least three hundred fifty feet (350) from any property the city is planning for residential use. "¥;"" ~-~ , , (14) Repair shop, except motor fuel stations or maintenance garages. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building ~ · ~,~,.-.~1~,~1~. ~,,1~1~.~, &,,~ &l-~ I;,~.~,;,-.q ,,1 (15) Organized athletic activities, such as dance, physical fitness or karate, that am, conducted indoors. Any .... (16) Itinerant camivals, subject to the licensing requirements in Chapter 6, Article VI. (17) ,Any use that would be similar to any of the above uses, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (b) Conditional Uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (1) All permitted uses in the R-3 district. (2) Processing and distributing station for beverages. (3) Place of amusement, recreation or assembly, other than an indoor theater, indoor athletic activity or itinerant carnival. (4) The exterior storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials, but not including a junkyard, salvage automobile, or other wrecking yard. The city may require screening of such uses pursuant to the screening requirements of Clause 6(a). {5) For motor vehicles, the following activities if not within three hundred fifty (350) feet of any oroDerty that the city is planning for residential use: a~ The sale or leasin,q of used motor vehicles. b. The storage or rental of motor vehicles. (6) Metal storage buildings, if the building meets the findings for a conditional use permit and the findings below: a. No more than twenty (20) percent of the building would be visible from streets or the highest topographical point of the nearest residential lot lines. b. The building would not be of lesser quality than the surrounding development. If the screening is removed or dies and the owner does not replace it, the city council may require that the owner remove the building. If the value of the building exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), the city council shall allow a five-year amortization period. (7) Craftsman Shop. (8) Reserved. (9) Motor fuel stations, motor vehicle wash or maintenance garages, if they meet the findings for a conditional use permit and the findings below: a. The setback of any overhead canopy shall be at least fifteen (15) feet from the street right-of-way line and five (5) feet from a nonresidential property line. b. The setbacks to a residential lot line in Section 36-28(c)(6) shall include motor vehicle washes, fuel dispensers or canopies. c. All parts of major motor fuel stations, motor vehicle washes or maintenance garages shall be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is plannin.q for residential use. = d. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises for more than forty-eight (48) hours, except in storage areas that are fully screened from public view. e. All trash, waste materials and obsolete parts shall be stored within an enclosed trash container. f. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance shall occur within an .enclosed building, except minor maintenance. Minor maintenance shall include work such as tire replacement or inflation, adding oil or wiper fluid replacement. g. The city must approve the location and type of outdoor storage in the conditional use permit. h. No parking space(s) shall be within the line of vision between self-service fuel dispensers and the attendant's window. ]0 i. Noise from operations, including external speakers, shall not exceed the noise standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. j. No motor fuel station or maintenance garage within three hundred fifty (350) feet of a residential lot line shall be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. k. Fuel station dispenser islands, parking areas, and ddves shall be screened from residential lot lines in conformance with Section 36-27(c) and Section 36-27(d). I. Parking shall be limited to paved areas. m. All new or replacement underground fuel storage tanks shall meet the standards of Minnesota Statutes and the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Such tanks shall also have a UL listing appropriate for their use. In addition, installation plans shall be submitted to the State Fire Marshal's office for approval. n. There shall be leak detection equipment on all new and existing tanks according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) schedule deadlines. Leak detection facilities shall include electronic (in tank) monitoring equipment as well as manual daily measurement and recording of tank levels. Records of daily tank levels, fuel purchases and fuel sales shall always be available on site for inspection by the Fire Marshal. o. Vents from an underground fuel storage tank(s) shall be two hundred (200) feet from a residential lot line. The city council may approve a lesser setback if the developer can prove that the topography or existing or proposed buildings will prevent fumes from reaching a residential lot line. p. Motor vehicle washes shall be subject to the same conditions as stated for motor vehicle fuel stations, with the following additional conditions: 1. Water from a motor vehicle wash shall not drain onto a public street or access. A drainage system shall be installed, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. There shall be stacking space for at least four (4) vehicles. (10) Privately-owned minin,q or material recycling facility. The processing of recyclable materials shall be in an enclosed building and be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any oroDerty the city is planninR for residential use. (11) Any use that would be similar to any of the above uses, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (12) Any building or outside use, except parking, that is within seventy-five (75) feet of a residential building. (13) Pawn shop if it is at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is plannin!:l for residential use. All pawn shops and pawnbrokers are subiect to city licensing as re,qulated in Section 22 of the city code. ]! (14) Retail firearms sales if the business, store or shop is at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is plannin,q for residential use. All such businesses are subject to all applicable state and federal licenses. Section 2. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1997. Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING DIVISION 9 OF ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 36 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES ABOUT THE LIGHT MANUFACTURING (M-l) ZONING DISTRICT. The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section adds the following to the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-186. Permiffed Uses. The city shall permit the following uses by dght: (1) Any use listed as a permitted use in a BC_(Business =nd Commercial}. District. (2) Wholesale business establishments. (3) Custom shop for making articles or products sold on the premises. (4) Plumbing, heating, air conditioning, glazing, painting, paper handling, roofing, ventilating and electrical contractors, blacksmith shop, carpentry, soldering or welding shop. (5) Bottling establishment. (6) Manufacturing, assembly or processing of: a. Canvas and canvas products. b. Clothing and other textile products. c. Electrical equipment, appliances and supplies, except heavy electrical machinery. d. Food products, except meat, poultry or fish. e. Jewelry, clocks or watches. f. Leather products. g. Medical, dental, drafting equipment, optical goods. h. Musical instruments. i. Perfumes or pharmaceutical products, rubber products and synthetic treated fabrics. j. Small products from the following previously prepared materials: cork, feathers, felt, fur, glass, hair, horn, paper, plastics or shells. (7) Carpet and rug cleaning. (8) Dyeing plant. (9) Laboratory, research, experimental or testing. ]3 (10) School. (11) Warehouse. (12) Accessory use on the same lot with and customarily incidental to any of the above permitted uses. (13) Adult Use Principal, Sexually-Oriented Businesses and Adult-Use Accessory subject to the requirements in Chapter 17. Section 2. This section changes the Maplewood City Code as follows (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-187. Conditional Uses. (a) The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (1) Any conditional use in the BC (Business Commercial) district, subject to the same conditions. (2) Any use of the same character as a permitted use in Section 36-186. (3) Trucking yard or terminal. (4) Privately-owned mininR or matedal recycling facilities, f=c!!!t¥ if at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property the city is planninR for residential use. (b) No building or extedor use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within three hundred fifty (350) feet of a residential district without a conditional use permit. Section 3. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the Official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1997. ]4 Attachment 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, REVISING THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES ABOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section adds the following definition to the Maplewood City Code (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-6. Definitions. Helistop. A place for one helicopter to land or take off, but does not include fueling or maintenance operations or facilities. Section 2. This section changes the Maplewood City Code as follows (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Sec. 36-437. Conditional uses. The city may issue conditional use permits for the following uses in any zoning district from which they are not permitted and not specifically prohibited: (1) Public utility, public service or public building uses. (2) Mining. (Refer to the requirements under Article IV of this chapter.) (3) Library, community center, state licensed day care or residential program (unless exempted by state law), church, hospital and a helistop as an accessory use to a hospital, any institution of any educational, philanthropic or charitable nature, cemetery, crematory or mausoleum ^' :ny "'~-~- -,"-~ ~,-- ,~.~ ,~-'~p..~, ,., ~ ~ ..... .~..., (4) An off-street parking lot as a principal use in a commercial or industrial zoning district. (5) Part of an apartment building for commercial use, intended for the building's residents, such as drugstore, beauty parlor, barbershop, medical office or similar use. (6) Planned unit developments (PUD). (7) Construction o._~.n ef an outlot. Section 3. The ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1997. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Auto Service Center Highway 61, North of Beam Avenue January 29, 1997 INTRODUCTION Project Description Richard LaMettry, of LaMettry's Body Shops, and Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, are proposing to develop 11.23 acres of land with two automobile-repair buildings. This project would lie between Beam Avenue and Gulden's Roadhouse on the west side of Highway 61. Refer to the maps on pages 16-20. (The corner property at 2889 Highway 61 is not part of this proposal.) This development would have these three parts: 1. Mr. McDaniels would build a 7,440-square-foot building on Lot One, the proposed southerly lot. He would use this building for automotive repair, a car wash and automobile detailing for Maplewood Toyota's operation. Mr. McDaniels is also proposing to install an access driveway on his lot at 1241 Beam Avenue (see page 20). This building would have tan face brick on all four sides. The building would have a ' prefinished tan-colored metal canopy. There would be mirrored glass on the windows and overhead doors on the front and side elevations. 2. Mr. LaMettry would build a 25,790-square-foot body shop on Lot Two, the proposed middle lot (see page 20). This building would also have an adjacent rental.space for a tenant such as a tire-installation shop. This building would have light and medium brown face brick on all four sides. There would be a prefinished blue metal canopy. There would be mirrored glass on the windows and overhead doors on the front and side elevations. 3. Mr. LaMettry would sell Lot Three, the lot directly south of Gulden's, to another developer for future construction. There are no specific plans for this lot at this time. The building shown on the site plan is conceptual. Shoreland Ordinance and Buffer Requirements The applicant's have proposed a large undeveloped area west of the proposed parking lots. They needed to do so for two reasons. First, the shoreland ordinance requires that 50% of the site remain undeveloped ~or rain absorption. To be allowed to develop 50% of the property, the applicant must provide a method for reducing storm water flow or for treatment of runoff. Second, automotive-repair buildings must be at least 350 feet away from the residential property to the west. Requests The applicants are requesting approval of the following: 1. A land use plan change from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to M-1 (light manufacturing) for the .84 acre parcel at 1241 Beam Avenue. Refer to the map on pages 17-18. 2. ^ zone change from R-1 to M-1 for the same property. 3. Conditional use permits (CUP) for two auto-service related buildings. The code requires a CUP for uses such as car washes and auto repair facilities. 4. Vacation of the ponding easement at the south end of the property and the rededication of a new reconfigured easement. Refer to pages 19 (existing) and 21 (proposed). 5. A lot division to split the existing acreage into three lots as shown on page 21. 6. Site, landscaping and building design plans. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change and Rezoning for 1241 Beam Avenue The development policies in the land use plan allow commercial development next to residential property. These policies, however, specifically require "adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential uses." substantial screen should be provided between the proposed development and the existing homes to meet this requirement. The applicant should provide a more elaborate and detailed landscape plan showing a screening plan that is at least six-feet-tall and 80% opaque as the city code requires. This screen should be accomplished primarily by a decorative wood fence and evergreen trees. Nei,qhbors' Concerns The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 9 to discuss their proposal with the surrounding land owners. Some of the residential neighbors abutting this lot opposed the proposed driveway on this parcel. Based on their concerns, the applicant revised their plans to move the proposed driveway as far to the east, away from the homes, as possible. The applicants are also proposing to screen the proposed driveway with landscaping. They are presently preparing this plan. Being that this lot would not be built upon, it seems that the driveway would be the least offensive use if the parcel is properly screened for the abutting neighbors. Conditional Use Permits Lots One and Two There were many objections to this proposal. Most of the neighbors surveyed did not want any development to occur on this site. However, the city expects this property to develop. Many of the possible uses allowed by the zoning code would not need to provide a 350-foot setback from the abutting residential property. This proposal has the advantages of providing this substantial setback. With proper screening and site/security lights installed, the proposed buildings should not cause any problems. Any unforeseen problems that may develop once these buildings are operating can be addressed at future reviews of the CUPs. Staff is recommending that Lots One and Two have their own CUP since they will be individually owned. Lot Three The city should not consider a CUP for Lot Three until we receive a specific development proposal. A driveway to the Gulden's Roadhouse-parking lot, however, should be constructed at this time for better ingress/egress opportunities and to aid traffic flow. The owner of Gulden's is in favor of this connection. Cross easements are needed to allow this connection. The future building on Lot Three should match those proposed for Lots One and Two in building design, materials and colors. The developers should also be aware that the amount of land coverage for Lot Three will depend on: (1) compliance with the shoreland ordinance regulations applicable at the time of that proposal in the event the requirements change, and (2) calculation of all the impervious surface area for Lots One, Two and Three as a whole since this entire area is considered as the total development. Ponding Easement Vacation and Drainage Concerns Staff agrees in concept with the proposed vacation and pond rededication. We have the following concerns, however: 1. The applicant must provide runoff calculations to ensure that the proposed pond provides the required holding capacity of 8.67 acre feet with a 48 CFS (cubic feet per second) outflow. 2. The site drainage must connect to the existing 44-inch outlet pipe at Beam Avenue. 3. There should not be any drainage onto the Highway 61 right-of-way, unless allowed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 4. Final plans must show compliance with all city drainage requirements. Vacation of the existing ponding easement should be made contingent upon the construction of the pond in its new location before the resolution is recorded vacating the current easement. Sl'ioreland Ordinance Considerations The shoreland ordinance requires that the applicants provide an on-site facility to reduce storm water flow or to treat runoff for nonpoint source water pollutants to qualify for an impervious surface area bonus. The applicant must provide such measures to develop up to 50% of the 3 site. Without doing so, the applicant could only develop 30% of the site. Such a method must be in addition to the holding pond which is needed by the city's drainage plan for runoff quantity control, not for water pollution control. The water pollution control method must be designed by a civil engineer and is subject to the approval of the city engineer. Utilities The plans show s a watermain extension along Highway 61 to be provided by the city. The applicants should install this watermain as part of their development. Lot Split The owners of the three proposed lots should grant cross easements for the cross flow of traffic. The deeds creating these lots should be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. Design ConsiderationS/Concerns Traffic Many of the neighbors did not want a driveway connection to Beam Avenue. They were concerned about the potential hazard of additional traffic in their neighborhood. Joel Hewitt, the Maplewood Fire Chief, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), however, feel two means of access are needed. Chief Hewitt recommends an access to Beam Avenue as another means of access for fire emergencies or paramedic service. MnDOT recommends the Beam Avenue access to alleviate some of the traffic at Highway 61. Their goal is to keep traffic moving along the highway 61 as unimpeded as possible. MnDOT is also recommending that the applicant install a right-turn-lane along the highway. Parking Lots and Driveways The triangular-shaped island at the proposed Highway 61 driveway should be deleted. These structures cause problems for snow plowing, cars hit them when covered with snow and it is not needed since only right turn exits are allowed. The north/south drive along the highway frontage should connect with Gulden's when the first building of this project is constructed. This connection should not be delayed until Lot Three is developed. 3. All parts of the north/south drive along the highway frontage and all parts of the parking lots must be set back at least 15 feet from the highway right-of-way. 4. The parking lot plan must be revised to clearly show handicap parking spaces and ramps in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. o The parking space dimensions must comply with city code. The code requires nine-foot- wide spaces for employees and 9 1/2-foot-wide spaces for the rest, with the exception of the wider spaces required for handicap-accessible spaces. 6. The curb projections in front of the body shop building by the Highway 61 access driveway should be deleted. The north/south driveway should be straightened. 7. The body shop building has an overhead door opening onto a grass area. This must be addressed and revised. 8. The landscaped island between the buildings on Lots One and Two should be deleted. This driveway should then be narrowed to 24 feet. 9. The driveway from Beam Avenue should be relocated on the east side of the site. Lighting The applicants should provide a detailed lighting plan to the city before the issuance of building permits to ensure that the site lights on the back of the buildings or in the rear parking lots do not cause problems for adjacent properties. Landscaping and Screening The proposed screening plan is inadequate. The applicant should resubmit the landscaping/ screening plans for review and approval. These plans must provide screening on the west side of the parking lot and the Beam Avenue driveway that meets code requirements. Code requires a visual screen that is at least six-feet-fall and 80% opaque upon installation. This plan should be submitted for approval by the community design review board (CDRB). Very little landscaping is proposed on the highway side of the buildings. The applicant should revise the landscape plan for this area as well. This plan should take into account, and clearly show, a tree removal/tree preservation plan for the existing evergreens on the site and the right- of-way. Roof-Equipment Screening The city code requires that the applicant screen any rooftop equipment. The code, however, allows the CDRB to waive the screening if doing so would not affect property values and if screening would not improve the appearance of the buildings. In this instance, the neighbors to the west will be looking down onto the rooftops. Screening will not improve their view. Furthermore, screening eventually needs repair and becomes unsightly. The code requires that the roof-top equipment be painted to match the building if the CDRB waives the screening requirement. The CDRB recently waived the screening for the Maplewood Imports addition and for the new Lexus dealership north on Highway 61. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 38 approving a land use plan change from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to M-1 (light manufacturing). Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. With proper screeni.ng, it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. 5 2. With the proposed driveway, this site would serve as a transitional use between the abutting single dwellings to the west and the light manufacturing property to the east. 3. The M-1 classification would be compatible with the commercial development to the south and east. 4. The applicant does not propose to construct a building on this lot. 5. Building construction on this lot cannot take place without the city council granting a conditional use permit because of the proximity to residential property. B. Adoption of the resolution on page 39 approving the zone change from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to M-1 (light manufacturing). Approval is based on the findings required by code in addition to the following reasons: 1. This site would serve as a transitional use between the abutting single dwellings to the west and the light manufacturing property to the east. 2. The M-1 classification would be compatible with the commercial development to the south and east. 3. The applicant does not propose to construct a building on this lot. 4. Building construction on this lot cannot take place without the city council granting a conditional use permit because of the proximity to residential property. C. Adopt the resolution on pages 40-41 approving a conditional use permit for construction of a building for automotive repair between Gulden's Roadhouse and Beam Avenue (referred to as Lot One on the plans dated December 13, 1996). Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The property owner shall record cross easements before obtaining a building permit. These cross easements shall be between the owners of Lot Two, Lot Three and Gulden's Roadhouse. 5. There shall be no refuse or vehicle parts of any kind (new or old) stored outside unless in a screening enclosure. Plans for screening enclosures shall be submitted to staff for approval of placement and design. 6 6. There shall not be any outside storage allowed of any new materials without city council approval, except the parking of new vehicles. 7. The deed must be recorded creating this lot before the conditional use permit resolution can be recorded and considered valid. Adopt the resolution on pages 42-43 approving a conditional use permit for construction of a building for automotive repair between Gulden's Roadhouse and Beam Avenue (referred as Lot Two on the plans dated December 13, 1996). Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall record cross easements before obtaining a building permit. These cross easements shall be between the owners of Lot Two, Lot Three and Gulden's Roadhouse. There shall be no refuse or vehicle parts of any kind (new or old) stored outside unless in a screening enclosure. Plans for screening enclosures shall be submitted to staff for approval of placement and design. There shall not be any outside storage allowed of any new materials without city council approval. 7. The deed must be recorded creating this lot before the conditional use permit resolution can be recorded and considered valid. Eo Adopt the resolution on page 44 vacating the ponding easement north of 2889 Highway 61. It is in the public interest to vacate this easement. This vacation is subject to the property owner meeting the following conditions: 1. Rededicating a new easement configuration that fits in with the proposed land development. 2. Submitting a drainage plan for the new pond location that includes the following items: a. Runoff calculations to ensure that the proposed pond provides the required holding capacity of 8.67 acre feet with a 48 CFS (cubic feet per second) outflow. b. Connection' of the site drainage to the existing 44-inch outlet pipe at Beam Avenue. '7 Preventing any drainage from going onto the Highway 61 right-of-way, unless allowed by a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. d. Compliance with all city drainage requirements, subject to the city engineer's approval. Dedicating a new ponding easement and constructing the pond before the city issues a building permit for this property. These items must be completed before the city records the vacation resolution for the old easement. If the pond is not built, the property owner must provide escrow to ensure its construction. The city engineer shall determine this amount. Approval of the lot split creating Lots One through Three as shown on the site plan date-stamped December 13, 1996. This lot split approval is subject to: The property owners of each lot recording cross easements for traffic flow before obtaining a building permit. These cross easements shall be between the owners of Lots One, Two and Three and Gulden's Roadhouse. The deeds must be recorded creating these lots before the conditional use permit resolutions can be recorded and considered valid and before building permits will be issued. Approval of the plans date-stamped December 13, 1996 for two automobile-repair facilities (Lots One and Two as shown on the plans). (These conditions of approval apply to both buildings, unless otherwise noted.) Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the property owners doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall comply with ordinance requirements. The grading/drainage plan shall comply with all city drainage requirements and include the following: Runoff calculations showing that the proposed pond would provide the required holding capacity of 8.67 acre feet with a 48 CFS (cubic feet per second) outflow. (2) Connection to the existing 44-inch outlet pipe at Beam Avenue. (3) No drainage shall be shown onto the Highway 61 right-of-way, unless allowed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 8 b. Provide a plan for the city engineer's approval that provides for a significant man- made facility for reducing storm water flow or the treatment of runoff for nonpoint source water pollutants to qualify for an impervious surface area bonus. c. Provide evidence that cross easements have been recorded for the cross flow of traffic between proposed Lots One, Two and Three and Gulden's Roadhouse. d. Submit revised landscaping and screening plans for approval by the community design review board that include the following items: (1) Shows screening on the west side of the parking lots and the Beam Avenue driveway that meets the code requirements for a visual screen that is at least six-feet-fall and 80% opaque upon installation. (2) Lists all proposed plant materials and their sizes. (3) Shows all trees that would be removed and preserved - specifically showing what is proposed for the evergreen trees on the site and on the highway right-of-way. (4) Shows what areas will be sodded or seeded. e. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads on all landscaped areas. (code requirement) f. Submit a revised site plan for staff approval showing the following: (1) Deletion of the triangular-shaped island at the proposed Highway 61 driveway. (2) Connecting the north/south drive along the highway frontage with the Gulden's Roadhouse parking lot. This connection shall be made whether Lot Three is developed or not. (3) A 15-foot setback for all parking lots and driveways from the highway right- of-way. (4) Handicap parking spaces and ramps in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. (5) Parking space dimensions that comply with city code. (6) Removal of the curb projections in front of the body shop building by the Highway 61 access driveway. (7) Straightening the north/south driveway by the highway. (8) Addressing the body shop door that is shown opening onto a grass area. (9) Deleting the landscaped island between the buildings on Lots One and Two. This driveway should then be narrowed to 24 feet. (10) Relocating the driveway from Beam Avenue to the east side of the site. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Seeding of the Highway 61 boulevard is allowed if required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. c. Complete all landscaping and screening. d. Install a right-turn lane on Highway 61, subject to the approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. e. Install reflectorized stop signs at both exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and addresses on the buildings. f. Paint all rooftop mechanical to match the uppermost part of the buildings. Painting is required in lieu of visual screens around the rooftop equipment. g. Construct trash dumpster enclosures for any outside trash or old-parts storage. The design and placement of trash enclosures shall be subject to staff approval. h. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. i. Construction of the north/south driveway along the west side of the highway with the Gulden's Roadhouse parking lot. j. All parking lots and driveways shall have six-inch-tall concrete curb and gutter. 4. This approval does not include any part of Lot Three. The development of Lot Three is subject to the full submittal requirements and review process at the time a specific development is proposed. 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. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 6. The body shop must meet all Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 10 CITIZENS' COMMENTS We surveyed owners of the 50 properties within 350 feet of these two sites (some neighbors also extended the distribution beyond the 350-foot mailing radius). Of the 42 replies, four were in favor, 31 objected, seven did not specify "for or against" but had miscellaneous comments. In Favor 1. I am in favor because I dislike the unloading of cars on Beam Avenue. Development is good for Highway 61. (Doherty, 3057 Walter Street) 2. I think it fits the area well. (Frattalone, 3066 Spruce Street, Little Canada) o I am in favor, but I require provisions make to lower the impact of the site on the residential neighborhood. Require an adequate fence and evergreen/shrub hedge on the west side of the lot and make sure the amount of lighting blends in, i.e. does not dominate the current level. I don't want this to look like another one of the strip auto dealerships further north. If this cannot be accomplished, I am stronc~lv against the proposal. (Huntley, 3020 Edward Street) Opposed 1. The reasons for objection to this proposal were repeated by many of the neighbors. I have summarized them as follows: The traffic is already too heavy on the local streets because of Maplewood Toyota - They test drive cars in the neighborhood and unload cars on Beam Avenue. bo Maplewood Toyota already used the property at 1241 Beam Avenue for parking cars. This lot should be kept residential. All of this proposed land should be developed residentially or dedicated to Maplewood for parks or open space. d. This development will damage property values. e. Keep activity off of Beam Avenue. Do not allow the driveway onto Beam. More auto-related business are not needed. There already are too many of such businesses along Beam Avenue. Provide substantial screening to block the view of commercial development and light glare from site lights. ho These businesses would cause too much disruption and too many nuisances such as: noise, light-glare, odors from solvent emissions and excessive traffic. 2. We also received eigl~t letters of objection. Refer to pages 24-31. Miscellaneous Comments 1, 2. I have no comment, but am not thrilled-but we don't have to look at it. I am OK if the following changes are made: a. bo (anonymous) Line up the proposed driveway that would connect with Beam Avenue with the Maplewood Toyota driveway. Also keep this driveway on the east side of the lot away from the lots to the west. Direct the site lights away from the homes. Install a six- to eight-foot-tall chain link fence or permanent well-maintained wood fence along the west lot line. Also install earth berms and pine trees along this west line. Kessler, 2882 Duluth Street) I neither object or am for this proposal. Rather I suggest that all test drives and mechanics are directed to Highway 61. Also with this bringing more traffic on Beam Avenue, a right- turn-lane should be installed from Beam to go south on 61. (Sheldon, 2976 Walter Street) I would like to see as many of the trees saved as possible, especially in the 1241 zone area. I would also like to see a couple rows of pine trees along the property line to block the view. (Lamb, 2906 Duluth Street) 5. Refer to the three letters on pages 32-34. 3.2 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 11.23 acres Existing land uses: single dwellings, garages and out buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gulden's Roadhouse South: A single dwelling, Beam Avenue and Maplewood Toyota West: Single dwellings East: Highway 61 and Country View Golf Course PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: Auto Center Site- M-1 Maplewood Toyota Driveway Site - R-1 (proposed M-1 ) Zoning: Auto Center Site- M-1 Maplewood Toyota Driveway Site - R-1 (proposed M-l) Ordinance requirements: Sections 36-187(a)(1) and 36-151 (b)(9) require a CUP for car washes and automobile maintenance garages in an M-1 district. Section 36-437(4) requires a CUP for an off-street parking lot as a principal use in a commercial or industrial zoning district. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board (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 is 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. 3.3 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. CUP - Findings for Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 40--41. Land Use Plan- Considerations There are no specific findings for approval of a land use plan map change. The following, however, are the city's commercial and industrial development policies from the land use plan that the planning commission and council should consider: · 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. Rezoning - Findings for Approval Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 3.4 The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Easement Vacation - Finding for Approval Chapter 412.851 of Minnesota State law states that No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so. p:sec4~autocent.er Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Existing Land Use Plan Map 3. Proposed Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Site Plan 6. Lot Division Plan 7. Letter from Rick LaMettry dated November 7, 1996 8. Letter from Steve McDaniels dated November 19, 1996 9. Letters of Objection from Eight Neighbors (eight pages) 10. Letters with Miscellaneous Comment from Three Neighbors (three pages) 11. Letter from MnDOT dated January 13, 1997 12. Land Use Plan Resolution 13. Rezoning Resolution 14. CUP Resolution- McDaniels Property (Lot One) 15. CUP Resolution- LaMettry Property (Lot Two) 16. Ponding Easement Vacation Resolution 17. Plans date-stamped December 13, 1996 15 PALM CT. BEAM AVE. VADNAIS HEIGHTS COUNTY RD. D SUMMIT CT. COUNTRYV1EW CIR. DULUTH CT. LYDIA ST. BEAM Kohlman COUN3~ AVE.. CT. ~A~NT AVE. ROAD ~ C GERVNS Att~ch~ent 1 GERVAIS VIKING Z North G Pork DEMONT BROOKS AVE. Z Z LEI. AND SHERREN AVE. AVE. ;ad Lake AVE. LOCATION 16 MAP ! Attachment 2 County Rd. D Vadnais Heights 694 principal arterial I - Et R-1 M-1 interchange minor collector Little Canada Kohlmoe ector 'Beam Ave. ty Rd. C -- R-3(M)': LAND USE MAP PROPOSED LA.D USE C.^.GE (EXISTING) ~i!!i!!!!i!!!!iii!!'. P.OPOSED AUTO SE.WC~ C£.TE. S~TE ~7 OS = OPEN SPACE R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS M-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING County Rd. D Little Canada Vadnai$ 694 Heights prir cipal Attachment 3 arterial R-1 M-1 interchange minor collector Beam Ave. ! Kohlmon LOke OS ty Rd. C R-3(M)~ LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) 18 OS = OPEN SPACE ! R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS I ~ ' --I M-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING Attachment 4 (27) CT. L - mo~.') · · · · lB MINING AREA · · · GULDENS ,.. 2~.5_ 4B b o u fi"-- 4~'~ AUTO SERVI:E SITE 2938: I 1'74 .20 ..... / /,' ~ 2990 ,,~ /~',,, A ,," 2980 /.' 'is-r~- "g~ '~g-/'~-~ - '/ · .. ,I fl . 2911 t-' GOLF COURSE PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE (R-1 TO M-l) · 19 Attachment 5 ! / I Ill -T FuTuRE AUTO USE~ ' ' ~ ' PROPOSED AUTO BODY SHOP / )POSED CAR WASH REPAIR SHOP I .......... · E,, .,Z_~_~ ..- - ' PROPOSED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN 20 ~ Attachment 6 · ~ r ....... 3 "] ii ,, I i ~ . ~ ~:~ /I I~ / , ~__ ~ ~ ~ ,/! i i I ......... %~4 1 ~ i~ /I / /~ I ~ I · I ;I 1 " /4 J / // = / ~"~'"{~ .... j i / I '~ ' ' ~'~/ ~ iii ~!i i iii LOT DIVSION PLAN ,,: '~ ,,,~ ""~'"~ .... IF"" ~ ......... ''-" 21 Ble#lrd A. laMettrv Attachment 7 9490 Foxford Road Chanhassen, Minnesota, 55317 Phone 612-445-4352 November 7, 1996 City of Maplewcod 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN. 55109 RE: Intended use of property N.W. of Hwy. 61 and Beam Avenue To whom it my concern: My proposed intent for the above property is to develop three sites for automotive related services. All dF criteria as designated by the City of Maplewood shall be met. It is my intent/on to enhance and conform with all neighboring properties as not to create any adverse effects or any unsitely nuisances. This is my fourth development and I have successfully f~lfilled my comimcnt to each of the cities and communities involved. In all cases our businesses have enhanced the communities we have built in. References: City of Richfield- 861-9760 City of Eden Prairie- Chris Enger- 949-8485 City of Bumsville- Jerry Rasmussen- 8954441 22 Attachment 8 1996 Statement for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application This property needs to be considered as part of the total parcel which Rick Lamettry is proposing development. This will enable the entire parcel to have automotive type businesses by complying'with the 350 foot set back requirement. Maplewood Toyota would use this smaller parcel to provide private access to our proposed service and car wash facility. In addition, we would like to provide for some employee parking to the extent possible on the east side of the parcel to reduce congestion. This project will allow us to provide a higher level of service to our customers by providing car wash facilities and it will enable us to recondition our own used vehicles. We are currently not able to provide these services as a result of our facility constraints. We would also be able to completely eliminate vehicle deliveries off Beam Ave. by having the trucks deliver the vehicles to the new facility. We are not proposing any new structures to the property at this time. We would be removing the existing house and garage. Thank you for your consideration. Steve McDaniels ' 11/19/96 23 Attachment 9-a, It was always my understanding that this area was planned for business-commercial development similar to the small business strips along 35E, operating 5 days a week with moderate to low traffic, unobtrusive lighting and little noise. We have a high quality residential area along and North of Beam Ave. which would be adversely impacted by this proposal. I am vehemently opposed to the rezoning of 1241 Beam which would allow further encroachment on the existing residents. One Beam homeowner has already chosen to sell. his home because of the glaring lights and constant noise from the TOyota dealer- ship. This plan would inflict the same hardships on additional property owners near or abutting the proposed development. Parking lot run-off and other contaminants from the operation would flow untreated into Kohlman Lake. Mr. McDaniels knew the constraints of his present location when he built the dealership over the objections of the city and residents. He has already disrupted the quiet totally residential street where we chose to live in 1971. Do not allow further degradation of our beautiful neighborhood and Kohlman Lake with this ill-conceived and incompatible land use. Marilyn Vars 1140 Beam Ave. 24 DEC. 6.1-c~D:-* 2:F_:1PI1 " I'10.?lPD P.3 9-b Don Cl~stianson 1111 East Co. Rd. C Maplewood, MN. 55109 12-4-96 Toyota Addition I see no problem with Maplewood Toyota expanding into new ventures. However this development seems too intense for this neighborhood. If tM, development is approved, feel that the £ollowh~g th/rigs must be considered in order not to cause unbearable hying conditio~ in near by homes: LIGHT POLLUTION Insist ',hat all lighting be 'Tull-cut off'lights" that are recessed so the lighI shines downward instead of outward. In granting this request from Toyota I think you should require that Toyota's current lighting comply with the original requirements thai, as I recall, requires tha light be "one candle power one foot from property line." SOUND POLLUTION Require that no outside speakers be allowed. If paging is required use currently av~able paging equipment. Auto repair must be done with shop doors closed and only gAM- sPM,. M-F. WATER POLLUTION Please allow no outside washing of cars. Require all inside washing water to go into sanitary sewer. Require that both holding ponds - new one and present location be h~spected yearly by City Eng. for compliance and to make sure skimming feature (presern location ) is in place and finctioning properly. SM'~.I.L POLLUTION Insist that state of the an filters be in place to eliminate palm smells and toxic fumes from inundating ae neighborhood and possibly harming children. O.S.H.A. requires the employees to wear breathing equipment. W'fll thc neighbors be issued masks? VISUAL POLLUTION Please require all repairable autos to be out of sight fi'om residential area, and no overnight storage of used tires. TRAFFIC How can. you des/in rigs comer without including the comer lot? h must be included in the ove~alI plan. Why not have a frontage road from Beam Ave. only? h seems dangerous to have any. access offofHwy. 61 unless it is to be used to generate new business for the body shop- then it's perfect. 25 9--C TO From Date Subject : Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 : Bradley C. Benson 2898 Duluth St. Maplewood, MN 55109 : December 04, 1996 : Neighborhood Survey Dear Mr. Roberts, I object strongly to this proposal because of the possible future parking lot and drive on lot 1241. If this lot is converted into a parking lot and driveway at some point in the future, my quality of life would be negatively impacted as would be the value of my and my neighbors' property. The use of this area for the unloading of vehicles also concerns me, as that operation tends to be somewhat noisy. Although we have been woken up several times late at night as well as early in the morning, the noise level is usually tolerable since the unloadihg is done next to the Toyota dealership on Beam Ave., which is some distance from our house. As it is now, they frequently park new vehicles in the yard, in front of the house - creating an eyesore. If vehicles were unloaded directly behind our house, it would be much louder. I have no objection to the remainder of the proposal, so long as lot 1241 remains a residential lot to act as a "buffer" between property on the east side of Duluth St. and any automotive-related properties located along highway 81. Best Regards, Bradley C. Benson 26 27 9-e TRISTANI ILLUSTRATION & DESIGN 28 December ~, 1996 I am opposed to the proposed chan~es to the lot at 1241 Beam Avenue as they currently exist primarily due to problems I forsee with increased traffic in the neighborhood. First, traffic crossing Beam Avenue 'between the proposed buildings and the current Toyota dealership would be a potential problem. Cars being shuffled between the properties on either side of Beam Avenue would cause a potential conflict with vehicles using Beam Avenue as a through street. Second, I am amazed by the amount of traffic in our area, especially on Waiter Street, caused by the location of the Toyota dealership. It is not unusual, especially on Saturdays, to see a seemingly endless sZream of new and used vehicles from the dealership being test driven in our small residential neighborhood. If a building exists to recondition used vehicles, then it would stand to reason that this traffic would also increase. Third, much of the vehicle traffic in our area during the week-day is generated by the location o~' the dealership. I sm referring to such things as delivery trucks accessing the dealership by using Walter Street instead of Highway 61. I am also amazed by how much traffic is generated by service personnel test driving vehicles on our residential streets. The number of service personnel and the number of vehicles tested would, logically, increase with the addition of a building to recondition vehicles. About the only good that I could see would be to get their truck delivery transports off of Beam Avenue. They often cause a con~.ested condition near the busy intersection of Beam and Highway 61. My opposition would decrease considerably if conditions were imposed on the developers to encourage them to have all of their vehicles enter and leave the area on Highway 61, a major arterial, instead of on Waiter and Beam, two residential streets. Respectfully submit e~, J/John Manthey ~0~2 Walter Street Maplewood, MN 55109 48~,-~4o December 6, 1996 1996 Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts: Subject: Neighborhood Survey - Maplewood Toyota Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development by Maplewood Toyota. I'm assuming that the notice we received wasn't an official document, as it wasn't transmitted through the U.S. Mail. I received a soggy, snow covered packet stuffed in with the neighborhood newspaper. This notification was not in the best interests of anyone, and certainly not the way to insure that residents are informed. First let me say that I am not against new development. I've worked for the City of Saint Paul's Department of Planning and Economic Development for over 15 years and have worked directly on many developments which have benefitted both business and residential concerns. Without continuing development, I would not have been able to purchase a new home on Countryview Circle. Part of my job, as is yours, is to make recommendations which balance the needs of all. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Before any development occurs, I and my family would like to see the following items addressed: What effect will the construction and close proximity of a car dealership have on the values of the approximately 40 highly taxed new homes? What will the benefit to the City of Maplewood and its residents be by the approval of this development? In terms of new taxes, neighborhood betterment, residents' quality of life, residential property values What effect will the potential increase in motorized traffic ( business, repairs, idling, etc.) have on the air quality, noise pollution, sight pollution have on the neighborhood? How would that effect, if any, be mitigated How would the development help to insure that when residents go out at night they can see the sky and stars, and not security lights? 3O Kenneth Roberts Cit3' of Maplewood 1830 E. Counvi Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 29 November 1996 Dear Mr. Roberts: We have carefully considered the proposal 'for automotive relatecl services submitted by Richard LaMem~ and Steve McDaniels. Your recommendation to the p]nnning commission and city council should be a complete rejection of the submitted proposal. The reasons for rejection of the three requests are as follows: Change in Land Use and Zoning Designations for the Lot at 1241 Beam Avenue This lot is adjacent to four residential lots. As such, the proposed parking lot and feeder drive would affect the currently occupied residential lots negatively. No amount of landscaping or fencing could remove the objectionable and negative effects of the parking lot and accompanying traffic. Despite what the developcr claims, we do not believe he nor anyone else could remove the objectionable nature a parking lot would have on the back3,ards of the four residential lots. These faufilies would certainly lose whatever privacy they now have to the constant movement of traffic into and out of this parking lot. Furthermore, given this lot is zoned R=I, the Toyota dealership violates the present zoning regulations by frequently parking numerous new automobiles (10-15) on this lot as part of their business across the street. This parking runs counter to the residential zoning and shows their lack of credibility as all consider their development proposal. Easement Vacation of the Existing Ponding Area This 11 acres:.including the ponding area, provides filtering of ruaoff from the land and High~ay 61 into the wetlands area adjacent to Kohlmnn lake. Maplewood Toyota has already demonstrated their arrogance by building into the wetland and it appears they would like to repeat this. Removal of the pond would further exacerbate the inadequate holding of water runoff in heavy storms. These wetlands are home to deer, Cswmdiun geese, ducks, frogs, toads, and even an ow1. These wetlands should be protected as much as possible. Conditional use Permit for Auto Repair Businesses Similar to thc lot rczoning, the proposed business would have extremely negative consequences for the 14 adjacent residential lots. The ino'eased Uaffic, hghts, solvent emissions, noise, and nearly 200 parking spaces ail contribute to the unsightly nuisance. Approval of this proposal would result in extreme hardship on the residents whose home face these businesses. The approximate 200 feet between the homes and the auto bnsines~s would be insufficient to ameliorate the nuisance. Their ~ "enhg. ncement" feature of a few trees proposed in their landscape plan only demonstrates their utter lack of consideration for the families already living in the nearby homes. For these reasons, we believe the proposal from the developer and auto dealer should be r~jected. As to the question of changes, no automobile related business should occupy this property given the negative impact it will have on neighboring properties. The owner of this property would better serve the Maplewood community by selling the land to the City of lvlaplewood. The city could then contribute this land to the open you in advance for ~t-ing our input to this pmpo~! land use. Sincerely, ldfrey Id. FIo _r~'~k & Yen Tong-Florczak 31 Wayne S. Petersen 2889 Duluth Street Maplewood, MN 55109 November 29, 1996 Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East Co. Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Attachment 10-a Dear Mr. Roberts: I received the packet on the proposed automotive development for the corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. While I do not particularly object to the proposal, I question the need for another automotive center on Highway 61. There seem to be a significant number of these facilities already. Of course, market forces will put someone out of business if there is not a customer base to support them, but then the structure and infrastructure will be installed and must be paid for. If there are studies showing this to be a viable enterprise that will, perhaps, keep my property taxes from rising, then I support it. If not, I do not think it is a wise idea. Sincerely, Wayne S. Petersen 32 12-6-96 Mr. Kenneth Roberts. City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 lO-b Dear Mr. Roberts: We are writing in response to your neighborhood survey regarding the proposed Auto Service Center planned for the property on Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. We have some concerns regarding several issues. The biggest concern is the lack of comprehensive plan that would include the 2889 property. We would also like the plan to show traffic flow patterns for this area as well as the proposed M-1 area north of Guldens. If Toyota dealership doesn't get their proposed driveway we can foresee them using Beam avenue to County Road D to Highway 61 as a way to get to the Auto Service Center, thus increasing traffic in a residential area with many small children. The other concern we have is the elimination of the ponding area. The proposed layout with the exception of the elimination pond and the potential traffic problems seems ok. As to future developments of this area we would also like to see a gas station/convience store be proposed. We would also like to be kept informed as to any public meetings that may be held in regarding the development of this area. Our address is 2927 Walter St., Maplewood MN. 55109. Sincerely ~, . ~Cra~~i Brannon 33 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 January 13, 1997 Attachment ll-a Ken Roberts. Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ken Roberts: SUBJECT: Hwy. 61 Auto Service Center SitePlan Review S96-096 West Side of TH 61, North of Beam Avenue Maplewood, Ramsey County CS 6222 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Hwy. 61 Auto Service Center site plan. We apologize for the delay in responding to this submittal. We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. If the property is to be platted, the plat document is required to be submitted to us for review. The plat should include land tie information and clearly identify the edge of Mn/DOT fight of way. Please send two copies of the plat document to our Local Government Liaison Supervisor, Sherry Narusiewicz, at the above address. A permit is required for access to Trunk Highway (TH) 61. One access to TH 61 will be allowed at the proposed location. The access entrance will be 32 feet wide to accommodate turning movements of trucks. Construction of a fight turn lane on southbound TH 61 will be required for permit approval. The turn lane is necessitated by this development proposal and is the responsibility of the project proposer, the city or both. Enclosed is a diagram showing design specification for fight turn lanes. The permit applicant must submit plan and cross-sectional drawings of the proposed access, showing the required turn lane configurations. For further information and the appropriate forms, please contact Lars Impola of our Permits Section at 582-1447 or the above address. An equal opportunity employer 35 11-b Ken Roberts January 13, 1997 page two We highly encourage additional site access with Beam Avenue as proposed. More than one access to TH 61 will not be allowed because it would increase the points of potential vehicle conflict on this arterial. Arterials such as TH 61 were constructed to serve regional mobility needs rather than to provide property access. When access points increase along a highway, the highway's capacity and safety are degraded. Thus, the site should be designed to take advantage of future access with Beam Avenue. A Mn/DOT stormwater drainage permit is required for the proposed development. Hydraulic computations and drainage area maps, showing before and after conditions and addressing 100-year storms, must be submitted with the permit application. Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff affecting Mn/DOT right of way should be perpetuated. The rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase. Any questions regarding Mn/DOT drainage concerns may be directed to Gene Bovy of our Water Resources Section at 779-5053. As noted above, Lars Impola of our Permits Section may be contacted at 582-1447 for the appropriate forms. Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. As noted above, Lars Impola of our Permits Section may be contacted at 582-1447 for further information regarding the permit process. Please contact me at 582-1654 if you have any questions regarding this review in general. Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison enclosure C~ David Claypool, Ramsey County Surveyor Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer 36 1 1-C LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Steve McDaniels applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to M-1 (light manufacturing). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 1241 Beam Avenue. The legal description is: West 115 feet of East 723 4/10 feet of South 350 feet of NE 1/4 (subject to road) in Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On February 3, 1997, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the land use plan change. 2. On ,1997, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. With proper screening, it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. 2. With the proposed driveway, this site would serve as a transitional use between the abutting single dwellings to the west and the light manufacturing property to the east. 3. The M-1 classification would be compatible with the commercial development to the south and east. 4. The applicant does not propose to construct a building on this lot. 5. Building construction on this lot cannot take place without the city council granting a conditional use permit because of the proximity to residential property. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1997. 38 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Steve McDaniels applied for a change in the zoning map from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to M-1 (light manufacturing). WHEREAS, this change is for the property at 1241 Beam Avenue. The legal description is: West 115 feet of East 723 4/10 feet of South 350 feet of NE 1/4 (subject to road) in Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On February 3, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council the change. 2. On ,1997, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. This site would serve as a transitional use between the abutting single dwellings to the west and the light manufacturing property to the east. 6. The M-1 classification would be compatible with the commercial development to the south and east. 7. The applicant does not propose to construct a building on this lot. 81 Building construction on this lot cannot take place without the city council granting a conditional use permit because of the proximity to residential property. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1997. 39 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rick LaMettry applied for a conditional use permit to construct a automobile repair facility and car wash for Maplewood Toyota. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property to be legally described as: That part of the East 723.4 feet of the North 220 feet of the South 473 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29 N, Range 22 W, of the 4th PM lying westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No 61; Except the West 115 feet of the South 350 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 3, 1997 the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on ,1997. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the sUrrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 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. 40 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall record cross easements before obtaining a building permit. These cross easements shall be between the owners of Lot Two, Lot Three and Gulden's Roadhouse. There shall be no refuse or vehicle parts of any kind (new or old) stored outside unless in a screening enclosure. Plans for screening enclosures shall be submitted to staff for approval of placement and design. 6. There shall not be any outside storage allowed of any new materials without city council approval, except the parking of new vehicles. 7. The deed must be recorded creating this lot before the conditional use permit resolution can be recorded and considered valid. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1997. 43. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rick LaMettry applied for a conditional use permit to construct an automobile repair facility on property zoned M-1 (light manufacturing). WHEREAS, this permit applies to property to be legally described as: That part of the East 723.4 feet of the North 225 feet of the South 698 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29 N, Range 22 W of the 4th PM lying westerly of the westerly right-of-way of State Highway No. 61. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 3, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on ,1997. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law..' The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 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 proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The property owner shall record cross easements before obtaining a building permit. These cross easements shall be between the owners of Lot Two, Lot Three and Gulden's Roadhouse. 5. There shall be no refuse or vehicle parts of any kind (new or old) stored outside unless in a screening enclosure. Plans for screening enclosures shall be submitted to staff for approval of placement and design. 6. There shall not be any outside storage allowed of any new materials without city council approval. 7. The deed must be recorded creating this lot before the conditional use permit resolution can be recorded and considered valid. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 997. VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rick LaMettry applied for the vacation of the ponding easement lying west of Highway 61 and north of Beam Avenue, identified with the Document Number 2324227. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. A majority of the property owners abutting this ponding easement signed a petition for this vacation; 2. On February 3, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council this vacation. 3. On ,1997, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices 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 this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 4-29-22-14-0011 owned by: Richard D. SIomkowski 1075 Pierce Butler Route St. Paul, MN 55104-1524 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant proposes to rededicate the holding pond in a more suitable configuration to fit into his proposed development. This vacation is subject to the applicant: 1. Submitting a drainage plan that includes the following items: a. Runoff calculations to ensure that the proposed pond provides the required holding capacity of 8.67 acre feet with a 48 CFS (cubic feet per second) outflow. b. Connection of the site drainage to the existing 44-inch outlet pipe at Beam Avenue. c. Preventing any drainage from going onto the Highway 61 right-of-way, unless allowed by a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. d. Compliance with all city drainage requirements, subject to the city engineer's approval. 2. Dedicating a new ponding easement before the city issues a building permit for this property and before the city files the vacation of the old easement for recording. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1997.